Sign In

Ghostbusters 35mm

Author
Time

Why is this needed? Is there something wrong with the recent 4K masters?

Author
Time

It seems it is wanted, not needed. A good number of us love having these prints archived properly and having them available to watch in a digital format.

There is no need to donate if one is not interested.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

There is nothing wrong with the 4K scan per say but we don’t know if it is anymore accurate to a 35mm print then the older Blu-ray or DVD(s). The thing is most Blu-rays are mastered from the Negatives or Inter Positives which rarely ever have the same (correct) color timing as a release print. You have to get a hold of a release print to actually see what it should look like which is what Doombot is trying to accomplish. We just don’t know if the 4K in anyway captures the correct look and history has shown us that often Blu-rays don’t look like theatrical prints.

Think about the questions we have asked about Ghostbusters in the past. What is the correct contrast of the sky? Should you be able to see the librarian ghosts eyes and what color are they? With this scan we can answer that.

And even if the Blu-ray was color accurate to a theatrical print, there is still a great aesthetic difference in watching a 35mm theatrical print scan. The grain and contrast create a totally different experience. Remember the way the movie was meant to be seen is on a theatrical print so the special effects and mattes that look bad on the Negative scan blend in beautifully in a release print. Spooky sections might look better with the increased contrast.

Author
Time

Thank you PDB, well said. With most BD releases you just won’t get that true theatrical look. The more prints we get the more we know what they actually looked like when shown. They’re pretty much Time capsules

Author
Time

PDB said:

There is nothing wrong with the 4K scan per say but we don’t know if it is anymore accurate to a 35mm print then the older Blu-ray or DVD(s). The thing is most Blu-rays are mastered from the Negatives or Inter Positives which rarely ever have the same (correct) color timing as a release print. You have to get a hold of a release print to actually see what it should look like which is what Doombot is trying to accomplish. We just don’t know if the 4K in anyway captures the correct look and history has shown us that often Blu-rays don’t look like theatrical prints.

Think about the questions we have asked about Ghostbusters in the past. What is the correct contrast of the sky? Should you be able to see the librarian ghosts eyes and what color are they? With this scan we can answer that.

And even if the Blu-ray was color accurate to a theatrical print, there is still a great aesthetic difference in watching a 35mm theatrical print scan. The grain and contrast create a totally different experience. Remember the way the movie was meant to be seen is on a theatrical print so the special effects and mattes that look bad on the Negative scan blend in beautifully in a release print. Spooky sections might look better with the increased contrast.

Although I agree that preserving 35 mm prints is very much worthwhile, and I believe home video releases should preferably have a color grading that echoes the theatrical experience, I do not completely agree with your last point. A print scan on a small screen does not reflect what is seen on the big screen. The color depth of a home release is much less, so things that in the darkness that can be easily seen in a theatre would disappear into blackness on a small screen. This is why home video color grading does have it’s purpose. So, although it is fun to watch a print scan on the small screen, I would not consider it the ultimate home movie experience.

You ask the question, what’s the correct contrast for the sky in Ghostbusters? I would say until our small screens are able to reflect the color depth of the big screen it is a matter of debate.

Author
Time

DrDre said:

Although I agree that preserving 35 mm prints is very much worthwhile, and I believe home video releases should preferably have a color grading that echoes the theatrical experience, I do not completely agree with your last point. A print scan on a small screen does not reflect what is seen on the big screen. The color depth of a home release is much less, so things that in the darkness that can be easily seen in a theatre would disappear into blackness on a small screen. This is why home video color grading does have it’s purpose. So, although it is fun to watch a print scan on the small screen, I would not consider it the ultimate home movie experience.

You ask the question, what’s the correct contrast for the sky in Ghostbusters? I would say until our small screens are able to reflect the color depth of the big screen it is a matter of debate.

This just depends on how the preserver does the mapping when reducing the color space, contrast and black levels from the scan to the final format (a rendering intent of sorts). Personally I would trust the people here to do a better (read more accurate to the original theatrical version or whatever version happens to be the target) job than the makers of the home video releases. They are typically balanced toward the speed and profit side of the scale these days it seems.

Not that the job isn’t adequate in most cases, but when you really want to watch a special version of a film on a calibrated display in a light controlled room, this is a good place to visit to get that history and nostalgia.

Author
Time

I agree, I could see this quickly becoming a “slippery slope” situation where movies with perfectly acceptable BluRays are being captured “because we can”.

But I can’t say I didn’t enjoy the heck out of seeing that Jurassic Park print.

This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DrDre said:

PDB said:

There is nothing wrong with the 4K scan per say but we don’t know if it is anymore accurate to a 35mm print then the older Blu-ray or DVD(s). The thing is most Blu-rays are mastered from the Negatives or Inter Positives which rarely ever have the same (correct) color timing as a release print. You have to get a hold of a release print to actually see what it should look like which is what Doombot is trying to accomplish. We just don’t know if the 4K in anyway captures the correct look and history has shown us that often Blu-rays don’t look like theatrical prints.

Think about the questions we have asked about Ghostbusters in the past. What is the correct contrast of the sky? Should you be able to see the librarian ghosts eyes and what color are they? With this scan we can answer that.

And even if the Blu-ray was color accurate to a theatrical print, there is still a great aesthetic difference in watching a 35mm theatrical print scan. The grain and contrast create a totally different experience. Remember the way the movie was meant to be seen is on a theatrical print so the special effects and mattes that look bad on the Negative scan blend in beautifully in a release print. Spooky sections might look better with the increased contrast.

Although I agree that preserving 35 mm prints is very much worthwhile, and I believe home video releases should preferably have a color grading that echoes the theatrical experience, I do not completely agree with your last point. A print scan on a small screen does not reflect what is seen on the big screen. The color depth of a home release is much less, so things that in the darkness that can be easily seen in a theatre would disappear into blackness on a small screen. This is why home video color grading does have it’s purpose. So, although it is fun to watch a print scan on the small screen, I would not consider it the ultimate home movie experience.

You ask the question, what’s the correct contrast for the sky in Ghostbusters? I would say until our small screens are able to reflect the color depth of the big screen it is a matter of debate.

I’ve read your threads and I know you are clearly a smart man with a wide range of knowledge and I would be reluctant to run counter-point but I think you are expecting something out of a 35mm theatrical print then its going to deliver.

In fact you and I agree on most points. I agree with you that current home video standards do not have enough bit depth to capture the color range of a print. Nor does the UHDTV standard, although by increasing the bit depth it gets closer. And neither does the DCP standard, in fact, capture the full color range of film.

But I think you missed my point and are expecting things out of these prints that they are not going to deliverer at any bit depth. For things appearing on screen that would disappear on your small screen, that is true but only up to a point. Theatrical prints are a few generations removed from the OCN or IP and as you probably know, printing down through the generations affects the contrast faster then say the highlights. Its a Xerox of a Xerox. The more generations the higher the contrast (sometimes an aesthetic choice) and usually the more detail lost in the shadows. There is less detail in the shadows and higher contrast for a theatrical print then the OCN/IP from where it came from and where most Blu-rays are derived.

I try to emphasize this because people come to expect a certain look, the look of an OCN scan and that is simply not what a theatrical print is. That’s why they go back to the OCN, for more detail and less contrast but the OCN does not, usually, have the right colors or the right grain. And have no doubt, the right colors are from a color timed theatrical print. And yes that grain and contrast were factored in to cover up special effects or to hide objects, etc. Makeup took that in account, production did with sets also. That’s why DPs for big production often went through many camera tests.

But I’m happy to say these are already know factors and the prints are being scanned at a higher bit depth and resolution then the current HDTV spec for future proofing. The people behind these prints are well aware of the limitations of current video tech AND the limitations of theatrical prints. My point is you and I agree about current 1080p 8-bit being not enough to cover the wider color range of a theatrical print. That’s a limitation not only for this project but also any commercially available Blu-ray/DVD.

But there is not a lot hiding in the shadow with a theatrical print. There is some more detail at a higher bit depth but not even remotely close to the OCN or even an IP. I’ve compared a 1080p 8-bit with a 4K/2160p 10-bit and there is not a lot more there. Its the just nature of the print. I just don’t want people thinking this is an OCN scan. They are two different creatures.

Asaki said:

I agree, I could see this quickly becoming a “slippery slope” situation where movies with perfectly acceptable BluRays are being captured “because we can”.

But I can’t say I didn’t enjoy the heck out of seeing that Jurassic Park print.

I keep expecting that to be true but have yet to see a print that matched its BD counterpart perfectly. Just because a BD looks good doesn’t mean its right. And even if it did match the colors there are other aesthetics to a print beside the colors. Trust me when I say this is NOT a “because we can” operation. Many prints had to be let go because there simply wasn’t enough money.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

PDB said:

DrDre said:

PDB said:

There is nothing wrong with the 4K scan per say but we don’t know if it is anymore accurate to a 35mm print then the older Blu-ray or DVD(s). The thing is most Blu-rays are mastered from the Negatives or Inter Positives which rarely ever have the same (correct) color timing as a release print. You have to get a hold of a release print to actually see what it should look like which is what Doombot is trying to accomplish. We just don’t know if the 4K in anyway captures the correct look and history has shown us that often Blu-rays don’t look like theatrical prints.

Think about the questions we have asked about Ghostbusters in the past. What is the correct contrast of the sky? Should you be able to see the librarian ghosts eyes and what color are they? With this scan we can answer that.

And even if the Blu-ray was color accurate to a theatrical print, there is still a great aesthetic difference in watching a 35mm theatrical print scan. The grain and contrast create a totally different experience. Remember the way the movie was meant to be seen is on a theatrical print so the special effects and mattes that look bad on the Negative scan blend in beautifully in a release print. Spooky sections might look better with the increased contrast.

Although I agree that preserving 35 mm prints is very much worthwhile, and I believe home video releases should preferably have a color grading that echoes the theatrical experience, I do not completely agree with your last point. A print scan on a small screen does not reflect what is seen on the big screen. The color depth of a home release is much less, so things that in the darkness that can be easily seen in a theatre would disappear into blackness on a small screen. This is why home video color grading does have it’s purpose. So, although it is fun to watch a print scan on the small screen, I would not consider it the ultimate home movie experience.

You ask the question, what’s the correct contrast for the sky in Ghostbusters? I would say until our small screens are able to reflect the color depth of the big screen it is a matter of debate.

I’ve read your threads and I know you are clearly a smart man with a wide range of knowledge and I would be reluctant to run counter-point but I think you are expecting something out of a 35mm theatrical print then its going to deliver.

In fact you and I agree on most points. I agree with you that current home video standards do not have enough bit depth to capture the color range of a print. Nor does the UHDTV standard, although by increasing the bit depth it gets closer. And neither does the DCP standard, in fact, capture the full color range of film.

But I think you missed my point and are expecting things out of these prints that they are not going to deliverer at any bit depth. For things appearing on screen that would disappear on your small screen, that is true but only up to a point. Theatrical prints are a few generations removed from the OCN or IP and as you probably know, printing down through the generations affects the contrast faster then say the highlights. Its a Xerox of a Xerox. The more generations the higher the contrast (sometimes an aesthetic choice) and usually the more detail lost in the shadows. There is less detail in the shadows and higher contrast for a theatrical print then the OCN/IP from where it came from and where most Blu-rays are derived.

I try to emphasize this because people come to expect a certain look, the look of an OCN scan and that is simply not what a theatrical print is. That’s why they go back to the OCN, for more detail and less contrast but the OCN does not, usually, have the right colors or the right grain. And have no doubt, the right colors are from a color timed theatrical print. And yes that grain and contrast were factored in to cover up special effects or to hide objects, etc. Makeup took that in account, production did with sets also. That’s why DPs for big production often went through many camera tests.

But I’m happy to say these are already know factors and the prints are being scanned at a higher bit depth and resolution then the current HDTV spec for future proofing. The people behind these prints are well aware of the limitations of current video tech AND the limitations of theatrical prints. My point is you and I agree about current 1080p 8-bit being not enough to cover the wider color range of a theatrical print. That’s a limitation not only for this project but also any commercially available Blu-ray/DVD.

But there is not a lot hiding in the shadow with a theatrical print. There is some more detail at a higher bit depth but not even remotely close to the OCN or even an IP. I’ve compared a 1080p 8-bit with a 4K/2160p 10-bit and there is not a lot more there. Its the just nature of the print. I just don’t want people thinking this is an OCN scan. They are two different creatures.

Asaki said:

I agree, I could see this quickly becoming a “slippery slope” situation where movies with perfectly acceptable BluRays are being captured “because we can”.

But I can’t say I didn’t enjoy the heck out of seeing that Jurassic Park print.

I keep expecting that to be true but have yet to see a print that matched its BD counterpart perfectly. Just because a BD looks good doesn’t mean its right. And even if it did match the colors there are other aesthetics to a print beside the colors. Trust me when I say this is NOT a “because we can” operation. Many prints had to be let go because there simply wasn’t enough money.

Very interesting indeed! I never fully realized before getting interested in the whole color timing debate, that home video releases almost never look like their theatrical counterparts. Of course most of the time the differences are not as noticeable as for the Star Wars SE, but still many directors view a new home video release as an opportunity to try and improve on the original product. Usually these changes are relatively small, such that only a select few notice the differences. However, in some cases people like George Lucas, Peter Jackson, etc go overboard and try to force a contemporary look on a classic film. This is where a desire to improve the original turns into fullfledged revisionism, which in my view is the same as spray painting over the Mona Lisa.

Author
Time

All I can say as a supporter of archiving film is that this is a great opportunity to capture yet another piece of fine celluloid history that can be watched by many like me as it was seen by us when it was released originally. I fully support this effort and others like it for this reason.

Keeping the past alive helps us understand our future better.

😃

Author
Time

Can anyone supply a link to obtain this please?

Happy to contribute wherever whoever.