I rewatched the first 30 min or so of the stream.
I understand the concept of stacking multiple prints to ‘fill in the blanks’ of the generation loss from the negative.
However, wouldn’t stacking prints also lead to increase in grain? Obviously his samples were sharp, but I’m wondering what additional steps he took.
Strictly theoretically, averaging multiple prints would get you less grain. Similar to the temporal averaging used by some DNR processes, except with less of a risk of producing frozen grain. But Mike’s secret sauce is his secret sauce. The videos may not describe it fully or even entirely accurately.
Nilbog said:
However, wouldn’t stacking prints also lead to increase in grain? Obviously his samples were sharp, but I’m wondering what additional steps he took.
Stacking the prints would do that. But where grain is concerned, If I understand correctly, the software does more of a subtractive process: it compares each frame from, say, 5 sources and determines which elements are common to all, and which are unique to each. Any grain or dirt that appears in only 1 source is then rejected/eliminated, leaving only the stuff that is common with the rest of the sources as stuff to “keep.” With enough sources, this would theoretically leave only the image and grain from the original source (in this case, the negative) intact.
About that o-negative (camera) that was resurrected for 1997.
Was it OPTICALLY duped then, as a negative, onto more durable filmstock than the fragile ‘77 stock …if so, was it AFTER all that weird color grading, and de-noising? And/or was it duped to digital…and at what rez?
Who is the “Dave Fine” audio guy MV referred to?
Any updates on this project?
This project has gone silent, and there’s little expectation that this will change in the future.