I stay away from the OT for a weekend and there is so much ground to cover...
Nien Nunb said:
I really like these, especially the last one at the bottom. This looks exactly like the timing on the 80's VHS I have, which is most likely from the same transfer as the LD you are using. The VHS has those reel change markers too. That last shot at the bottom though is one of the things I've always noticed that looked radically different in any other transfer I've seen other than the VHS.
It almost looks like a VHS transfer sometimes. The LD has the Embassy logo at the beginning so its probably the exact same master as your VHS. That tape is the way I remember watching Blade Runner with its golden/yellow tones. Much like the VHS there are reel change markers all over the place, so it is definitely from a release print.
Spaced Ranger said:
@ PDB
Would you post some matching Laserdisc shots (BTW, which LD release is it) used to guide your regrade?
Also, what is your procedure for color adjustments?
The LD was a rip from the spleen. Given the information and pic associated with the listing it is most likely this:
http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/28188/13805/Blade-Runner-(1982)
Here are a few from the LD. I did this quickly so they are not the same frames.
The one thing I'm not wild about is the LD has a purple-ish cast sometimes at the end of the film (see the window pic). I'm using davinnci resolve lite and timing by sight. Those pics on the first page are done in 10 mins so they are not complete by any stretch.
This also brings up the internal debate that I have been running into a lot lately. The question of accuracy (ie coloring every frame to the same frame on the LD) versus consistency (coloring the scenes so all the shots match within the scene but still looking like the LD). I have been a big fan of accuracy up until now but now I'm leaning towards consistency lately.
dvdmike said:
The is no such thing as a 70mm print, it was a blow up and they all come with their own issues
Of Blade Runner there were only blow ups, no 70mm prints.
Sorry, dvdmike. No disrespect but I have to agree with Jonno, I don't understand what you are saying. A blowup is usually defined as printing up to a higher gauge of film (the opposite of a reduction). If you shot on 16mm a blowup is onto 35mm. If your film is 35mm, like Blade Runner, a blowup is onto 70mm. When people used the term blowup it was usually in reference to special engagement 70mm showings. And Blade Runner had a few 70mm prints:
http://in70mm.com/news/2010/blade_runner/index.htm
So there were more then 11 prints in the US and a couple in England. Notice the site says, " Interestingly, in the book Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner, the producer of the film incorrectly recalls that no 70mm prints circulated."
dvdmike said:
The workprint would be a better source then the LD for colour surely
I wouldn't use the workprint. First of all why bother, if you have the set you have the workprint's coloring. If I colored to the workprint it would be redundant. Also like Jonno said, its not the proper color timing. Its just a raw print of the work done up until that point and would in no way reflect the final color timing. And the workprint is a 70mm print also done from a raw cut. They preserved that on the BD set since the aspect ratio is 2:20 to 1 instead of anamorphic 35mm's 2.35/2.39/2.40.
captainsolo said:
Regrading will be tough due to researching transfers etc.
From what I've pieced together:
All the Embassy/Pre-Criterion copies on VHS, LD etc. use that same transfer of the early LD. The Criterion uses a similar looking 2.35 print. All of these are very colorful but full of a contrasty look and to be honest it doesn't seem quite accurate to the film's composition. Plus they are very soft, and the Criterion noticeably so. They seem video-ish.
The Director's Cut was of course based off of the 70mm blowup of the Workprint that surfaced in 1990/1991 (supposedly due to Steve Hoffman and other unearthing it in some vaults) at the NuArt and other places AND the 1982 US theatrical release. Because it was a rush job and Scott not being available to supervise...I think it is actually a very good reference to how the film was shot and processed.
The 1997 DVD is terrible and has color that is not accurate-the full CAV LD actually bests it in terms of image and sound. All it requires for completion is the reintegration of the International cut snippets.
I have the DVD and BD sets and have never been fully pleased with the way the archival versions look. They seem a bit dead looking. Has anyone compared them to the limited 2006 DVD reissue of the DC? Or is it thye same?
The Final Cut looked far better in 35mm. The colors seemed more subjective and far less jumping out.
I think the best balance is somewhere between the deep saturation of the 80's era transfers (from release prints) and the colder look of the DC on Laserdisc/archival version DVD/BD.
God, WB really needs to redo these masters. BADLY!
Hey captainsolo, the fact that those copies look very contrasty actually makes me happy as release prints are always have more contrast/dark/ murky because of generation copying and the colors pushed more to compensate. I'm on the hunt for the Criterion because at the time, Criterion mastered all their LDs from release prints. Of some the Criterion LDs I have: King Kong, North By Northwest and Lawrence of Arabia (not sure about ceot3k) all have reel change markers. Since the 83 LD is from a release print, I can compare it to the Criterion and try to get closer to the truth of what BR looked like in 82. Sure they could change the look of video masters back then but its in no way similar to today's color timing. They could do saturation, brightness, tint, sharpness, etc. Basically, all the things you could do on an old CRT. But I doubt Embassy spent anything changing the master of a failed movie and Criterion back then was pretty dedicated to getting as close to release versions as possible. it could on the other hand look nothing like a release print, no one her including me knows.
Its important to note that that kind of color timing, golden/yellow, was very popular in the early 80s. Look at the debates we have had about Raiders and Road Warrior here in this forum. So Blade Runner having that sort of tint is not totally random. Honestly I don't think any of the BDs in the Blade Runner set are true to a '82 print. Certainly not the workprint, DC or FC (the last two I saw in theaters). I hate the coloring on the FC but that Scott's baby so he can do with it what he wants.
Synnöve said:
Y'all need to keep in mind that none of the transfers are really representative of a release print or negative simply due to the drastically different color spaces consumer video and film use, and the evolving methods of mapping film colors to consumer video color spaces. These sorts of factors will drastically effect the look of the resultant transfer.
That's all true, Synnove. You are 100% correct and we can get into a long discussion about how crappy analog composite video is and how even today's video standards don't match 35mm film completely. And colorspaces, bit depth, yada, yada. But sadly by those standards no project here bears any merit. The Thing, Conan, etc were timed from laserdisc and DVDs, formats with inferior colorspaces. I don't mind those color technical issues With those releases. I just sit back and enjoy the films.
All of this is, kind of misses the point or maybe the spirit of the thing. The goal is the detail of the BD with the color of something close to a release print. I have tried to be clear in this and the Alien thread that these are not the be all and say all for these films. While I believed these laserdiscs are closer to their respective release prints, given the evidence at hand, I still think they are far from perfect. I want to get as close as I can to a release print, not the negative, not Ridley Scott's re-timed versions. I want 80s era Blade Runner. I don't have an original 35mm print so these LDs of release print are as close as I can get. I have always said that people need to treat these projects as alternative versions to the transfers at hand. If you don't think they represent a 35mm release print, treat them as the laserdisc version. I post pics so that no one is surprised what this will look like and if you don't like the look of this project, don't download it. It may not be for you. That's not meant to be mean, just the facts.