Sign In

Lord of the Rings 35mm Scan (FOTR/ROTK released)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

FOTR and ROTK are available (read the thread to find out how to download, do not pm me). You should already own a copy of these films on official home media.

TTT TBD.

Author
Time

This is amazing! I’ll donate when I get some more funds!

Author
Time

Would we be able to see some example frames? Interested in the condition.

Author
Time

FOTR, ROTK released (pm)

No date for TTT

Author
Time

If only the extended cuts film prints were out there. 😦

Author
Time

Fullmetaled said:

If only the extended cuts film prints were out there. 😦

I’m tempted to try and edit together an extended using these 35mm scans as the core. A friend has a really great program that processes natural looking film grain onto digital sources. Might try a test and see how well I can match it up. If I can find the time!

Author
Time

felpotomous said:

Fullmetaled said:

If only the extended cuts film prints were out there. 😦

I’m tempted to try and edit together an extended using these 35mm scans as the core. A friend has a really great program that processes natural looking film grain onto digital sources. Might try a test and see how well I can match it up. If I can find the time!

Is it possible for you to do it in 4k with hdr or Dolby vision?

Author
Time

Fullmetaled said:

felpotomous said:

Fullmetaled said:

If only the extended cuts film prints were out there. 😦

I’m tempted to try and edit together an extended using these 35mm scans as the core. A friend has a really great program that processes natural looking film grain onto digital sources. Might try a test and see how well I can match it up. If I can find the time!

Is it possible for you to do it in 4k with hdr or Dolby vision?

If I’m able to do it it would just be in 1080.

Author
Time

Fullmetaled said:

felpotomous said:

Fullmetaled said:

If only the extended cuts film prints were out there. 😦

I’m tempted to try and edit together an extended using these 35mm scans as the core. A friend has a really great program that processes natural looking film grain onto digital sources. Might try a test and see how well I can match it up. If I can find the time!

Is it possible for you to do it in 4k with hdr or Dolby vision?

No such thing as Lotr in 4k, it was finished at 1080p.

Author
Time

I’m not a fan of these films but I’ll clear up a couple of things:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn21u6j6Ywc

It’s shot on 35mm, so it’s absolutely 4K+ if you’re scanning the oneg. 2K film-out is 2048x1556 and that was the standard since Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park. Before that I believe all CGI had not been attempted to be printed full-frame, that is to say that Abyss and anything older had CGI printed that was then optically matted into the negative.

The first film from the video above does not have a DI, that means it’s photochemical and therefore yes it’s higher than 1080p. The final release prints are probably in the range of 1.5-2K and remember that 2K means 2048x1556 NOT consumer 2K at 1920x1080/2048x1152. The second and third film had DIs, that means 2048x1556. It doesn’t matter what resolution the CGI was rendered in - the CGI can be rendered at 1.5K, 1080p, 720p, whatever. The CGI is simply being added to the 35mm background which would have been scanned at 2K (2048x1556) and the DI will be 2K. Some further information is here:

https://thedigitalbits.com/item/lord-of-the-rings-trilogy-2020-4k-uhd

The Fellowship of the Ring was shot photochemically on 35mm film in Super 35 format using a variety of Arriflex, Arricam, Mitchell, and Moviecam cameras with Zeiss Ultra Prime and Angenieux Optimo lenses. Only about 70% of the film was finished as a Digital Intermediate at the time, as the process was then new and still evolving (the other 30% was finished traditionally on film). For this new Ultra HD remaster, Park Road Post (a New Zealand post facility owned by WingNut Films) went back and scanned the original camera negative in 4K, then scanned the VFX film-out elements (for VFX shots that were finished on film) in 4K, and upsampled the VFX shots that were finished digitally (in 2K resolution) to create a brand new 4K Digital Intermediate at the proper 2.39:1 aspect ratio.

That’s describing the type of CGI in Abyss and older films: VFX that is rendered and then optically matted into the film. Also it doesn’t matter how much was DI and how much wasn’t, the VFX doesn’t set the resolution the background frame does.

The resolution of the final prints will vary. Terminator 2 projected off an original 35mm which I have seen on a huge 70ft+ screen (I’d have to do some digging to find the exact size, but it’s at the size where the difference between 35mm and 70mm is very obvious even with the sharpest of 35mm) and it is clearly 1.5K or lower true resolution perhaps as low as 1K. Most 70mm makes 4K look like low resolution. So as with anything with prints, it’s a matter of YMMMV depending on where it was printed, whether the cinema had a large screen and demanded they print it to a higher standard than a multiplex cinema which was the standard at the time (and sadly still is). So for example it’s possible to print your standard quality for multiplexes and then do some at show-print quality for the Theatres that still had large screens.

[ Valeyard Film Archives | VFA Discord Server - for film enthusiasts, open to the public | SubscribeStar | Scanning stuff since 2015 ]

Author
Time

RU.08 said:

I’m not a fan of these films but I’ll clear up a couple of things:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn21u6j6Ywc

It’s shot on 35mm, so it’s absolutely 4K+ if you’re scanning the oneg. 2K film-out is 2048x1556 and that was the standard since Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park. Before that I believe all CGI had not been attempted to be printed full-frame, that is to say that Abyss and anything older had CGI printed that was then optically matted into the negative.

The first film from the video above does not have a DI, that means it’s photochemical and therefore yes it’s higher than 1080p. The final release prints are probably in the range of 1.5-2K and remember that 2K means 2048x1556 NOT consumer 2K at 1920x1080/2048x1152. The second and third film had DIs, that means 2048x1556. It doesn’t matter what resolution the CGI was rendered in - the CGI can be rendered at 1.5K, 1080p, 720p, whatever. The CGI is simply being added to the 35mm background which would have been scanned at 2K (2048x1556) and the DI will be 2K. Some further information is here:

https://thedigitalbits.com/item/lord-of-the-rings-trilogy-2020-4k-uhd

The Fellowship of the Ring was shot photochemically on 35mm film in Super 35 format using a variety of Arriflex, Arricam, Mitchell, and Moviecam cameras with Zeiss Ultra Prime and Angenieux Optimo lenses. Only about 70% of the film was finished as a Digital Intermediate at the time, as the process was then new and still evolving (the other 30% was finished traditionally on film). For this new Ultra HD remaster, Park Road Post (a New Zealand post facility owned by WingNut Films) went back and scanned the original camera negative in 4K, then scanned the VFX film-out elements (for VFX shots that were finished on film) in 4K, and upsampled the VFX shots that were finished digitally (in 2K resolution) to create a brand new 4K Digital Intermediate at the proper 2.39:1 aspect ratio.

That’s describing the type of CGI in Abyss and older films: VFX that is rendered and then optically matted into the film. Also it doesn’t matter how much was DI and how much wasn’t, the VFX doesn’t set the resolution the background frame does.

The resolution of the final prints will vary. Terminator 2 projected off an original 35mm which I have seen on a huge 70ft+ screen (I’d have to do some digging to find the exact size, but it’s at the size where the difference between 35mm and 70mm is very obvious even with the sharpest of 35mm) and it is clearly 1.5K or lower true resolution perhaps as low as 1K. Most 70mm makes 4K look like low resolution. So as with anything with prints, it’s a matter of YMMMV depending on where it was printed, whether the cinema had a large screen and demanded they print it to a higher standard than a multiplex cinema which was the standard at the time (and sadly still is). So for example it’s possible to print your standard quality for multiplexes and then do some at show-print quality for the Theatres that still had large screens.

Re: your last point I remember seeing Jurassic Park at an IMAX back in the 90s and it looked terrible because they were taking a regular print that was definitely not meant to be blown up that big and doing so.

Author
Time

felpotomous said:

Fullmetaled said:

felpotomous said:

Fullmetaled said:

If only the extended cuts film prints were out there. 😦

I’m tempted to try and edit together an extended using these 35mm scans as the core. A friend has a really great program that processes natural looking film grain onto digital sources. Might try a test and see how well I can match it up. If I can find the time!

Is it possible for you to do it in 4k with hdr or Dolby vision?

If I’m able to do it it would just be in 1080.

Oh that’s disappointing I was hoping you or someone would give us uhd transfers we should have gotten from the director. 😦

Author
Time

Wow! I am so surprised how sharp the image is, really cool to see the original colour timing. If you still want donations, I’d like to help 😃

Author
Time

thanks for the offer but i have decided it is easier not to take donations

Author
Time

felpotomous said:

Re: your last point I remember seeing Jurassic Park at an IMAX back in the 90s and it looked terrible because they were taking a regular print that was definitely not meant to be blown up that big and doing so.

That shouldn’t happen during the original run, sounds like they somehow ended up with a multiplex print.

Problem has always been the cost-cutting bean counting tight-ass distributors. If they can save a buck surrendering QC on multiplex theatrical prints they do. The optical enlargement uses Japanese made printing nikkors optics (look them up, and how much they cost - used let alone how much they were brand new back in the 70’s), so you can absolutely go to 65mm/70mm or as is the case with Terminator II Super35 to Scope while the film stays razor-sharp, it’s just a matter of how the final prints are made and the budget. The HQ 35mm ones are called show prints and are designed for special shows or theatres with very large screens.

You’re absolutely right though about the large screens. An average print can look better in a smaller auditorium, but it the places that don’t do any masking will ruin the experience with window-boxing or letter-boxing on the screen and sadly most multiplexes are like that now. They must not understand how it ruins the experience!

[ Valeyard Film Archives | VFA Discord Server - for film enthusiasts, open to the public | SubscribeStar | Scanning stuff since 2015 ]

Author
Time

RU.08 said:

felpotomous said:

Re: your last point I remember seeing Jurassic Park at an IMAX back in the 90s and it looked terrible because they were taking a regular print that was definitely not meant to be blown up that big and doing so.

That shouldn’t happen during the original run, sounds like they somehow ended up with a multiplex print.

Problem has always been the cost-cutting bean counting tight-ass distributors. If they can save a buck surrendering QC on multiplex theatrical prints they do. The optical enlargement uses Japanese made printing nikkors optics (look them up, and how much they cost - used let alone how much they were brand new back in the 70’s), so you can absolutely go to 65mm/70mm or as is the case with Terminator II Super35 to Scope while the film stays razor-sharp, it’s just a matter of how the final prints are made and the budget. The HQ 35mm ones are called show prints and are designed for special shows or theatres with very large screens.

You’re absolutely right though about the large screens. An average print can look better in a smaller auditorium, but it the places that don’t do any masking will ruin the experience with window-boxing or letter-boxing on the screen and sadly most multiplexes are like that now. They must not understand how it ruins the experience!

This particular IMAX literally just stretched a standard theatrical print to fit the screen. So the aspect ratio was ruined and everything. It was terrible haha. Remember this is back when the only material that was available native to IMAX was nature documentaries essentially.

Author
Time

So I think I’ll be able to stitch in the extended bits well enough but coloring the extended footage to match the 35mm is beyond my skillset. Gave it a try but can’t get it to match. If anyone wants to try and collab let me know!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

With the blessing of @elendil42, you can also pm me for links.

Have FOTR & ROTK 1080p/2160p. Also have FOTR BluRay ISO.
TTT 1080p “preview” also available.

Author
Time

SnooPac said:

With the blessing of @elendil42, you can also pm me for links.

Have FOTR & ROTK 1080p/2160p. Also have FOTR BluRay ISO.
TTT 1080p preview hopefully coming soon.

SnooPac, why is the FOTR BluRay ISO you sent me copy-protected? It is impossible to play it.

Even if I remove the AACS protection with DVDFab I can’t play the disc properly either. As a sample, this shot from the movie where Elrond appears:

This way you can see the whole movie