Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal — Page 41

1990osu said:

Let's see what 1970s George Lucas has to say about grain....

 

Lucas in American Cinematographer, October 1971:

"I was well aware that there would be those in the audience who would be shocked by the graininess at first, but I was sure that after the first minute or two they would get used to the grain and simply accept it as part of the stylistic concept, the documentary approach."

That really don't apply to Star Wars though, as Star Wars is a Panavision film and THX 1138 is a Techniscope film. It's a big difference in grain structure between the formats. But that doesn't mean Star Wars looked like the blu-ray, far from it.

msycamore said:

1990osu said:

Let's see what 1970s George Lucas has to say about grain....

 

Lucas in American Cinematographer, October 1971:

"I was well aware that there would be those in the audience who would be shocked by the graininess at first, but I was sure that after the first minute or two they would get used to the grain and simply accept it as part of the stylistic concept, the documentary approach."

That really don't apply to Star Wars though, as Star Wars is a Panavision film and THX 1138 is a Techniscope film. It's a big difference in grain structure between the formats. But that doesn't mean Star Wars looked like the blu-ray, far from it.

That's true, but the quote just shows that he is not uncomfortable with grain because people "would get used to" it.

Here's another old GL quote I just found (about SW):

"I'm trying to make a film that looks very real, with a nitty-gritty feel, which is hard to do in a film that is essentially a fantasy."

1990osu said:

Let's see what 1970s George Lucas has to say about grain....

 

Lucas in American Cinematographer, October 1971:

"I was well aware that there would be those in the audience who would be shocked by the graininess at first, but I was sure that after the first minute or two they would get used to the grain and simply accept it as part of the stylistic concept, the documentary approach."

very interesting quote!

and a very good post for hitting the 1000th post!

thanks for all the comments and discussion going on.

later

-1

we have a mix of files.. some RAW, some not. we won't know until

the end when we decide what to do with them, and organize them.

as far as the sound. yes,  it is captured separately.

and it would be very hard to synchronize anyways,

due to frame accuracy needed to combine them.

ultimately, you have to process the frames first,

convert to video, then do color corrections on scenes etc.

or do it to individual frames -> combine to scenes,

then assemble the video track, and synch to the audio.

we're not going to release the premiere, avid, or other

workfiles though. (you would have to have the exact same setup,

and pro software anyways, so that would be difficult).

also those are the property of the restorers, and we are

documenting the changes made, the fixes, and what processes

we used, so there will be some transparency on the final

product. and you won't have to guess what is being altered.

there's a lot of subtle digital manipulation going on,

stabilization, warping fixed, and many other impercetible

fixes that you will never even notice. but it's good to know

what they are. i don't think we're going to document all

the dust,dirt and scratches though. unless they are major

ones. of course the ones that are in the source film will

remain there.

later

-1

Laserschwert said:

I guess with all the audio projects going on here, it's not really that problematic to NOT have sound coming with the files.

To be honest, I think the restored mono track from these reels is one of the more exciting aspects of the project, and I'd hate to not hear it!

Laserschwert said:

I guess with all the audio projects going on here, it's not really that problematic to NOT have sound coming with the files.

you have to be careful,

even trying to synch it with the GOUT audio

will not work correctly. it's close at times,

but it's not exact.

you will have to stretch, trim, or alter either

the frames or the actual audio to match up

with it....

our reference audio will be the 35mm

theatrical stereo, and a mono reconstruction,

along with the original spanish 35mm audio,

and probably a 70mm recreation too.

those will all be synched correctly and then

can be ripped or manipulated afterwards.

later

-1

Brooks said:

Laserschwert said:

Of course storing them as RAWs is a waste of space, as there are enough file formats with lossless compression out there, like PNG or TIF, that also support more than 8bit color per channel.

RAW files allow for much more adjustment than other formats (at least they do with my personal photos in photoshop's raw editor) because they're the files without any interpretations  of levels or exposure, iso etc put on them by the camera.  Can the point and shoot you guys are using shoot in RAW  I'm just curious, it's not really necessary, you guys are getting great results as is.

I've never captured a motion picture of course but as for the workflow I'd imagine that you'd get better looking results batch editing in photoshop (you could create an action with all the adjustments for each scene).  It might just be because I have more experience with photoshop that I think that though.

I'm sorry I keep pestering you guys with all these questions, I just think the process is so interesting!  :)

yes, it can do RAW files,

but as mentioned, when you use compression,

and we have to scale the images, the difference is negligible.

there's really no use in messing with too many

programs, when this one can import the images

and do the fixes there.. this along with avid, and

premiere is pretty much all that is needed.

later

-1

jero32 said:

Man I'm getting excited reading about all these technical things. Any chance we could get some more preview shots? (moving ones)
Or do we have to be more patient :)?

we posted a lot of test footage,

and previews on the blog.. so i won't be

reposting those..

i have some test footage that we're not using,

but to give you an idea of the issues with it.

i'll see what i can do.

no point in posting scenes at this point, because

it needs to be viewed in the complete context (ie. when

it's done) to be effective. and we don't need bits and

pieces leaking out... makings of, and trailers are fine.

but no finished footage.

later

-1

To everyone making suggestions for color sources and etc.: you missed out on the blog, this project is in good hands. I'm no expert, but I think it's safe to say that they know what they're doing.

djchaseb said:

I won't buy a movie if it has excessive DVNR and edge enhancement. The star wars blu rays aren't guilty of this...

 You mean except for The Phantom Menace ;)

jero32 said:

What George Lucas is doing however, is more comparable to John Lennon deciding Yoko Ono was also part of the band, and permanently mixing her voice into the song.

Or, to replace your analogy with an actual historical event, it's like when the first two Ozzy Osbourne albums were rereleased with modern rerecorded bass and drum tracks, and the original albums (plus The Ultimate Sin and the song Shot in the Dark) were withdrawn from the market.

I think I read that they fiddled with Bark at the Moon, too, but I rarely listen to that album, so I wouldn't have noticed.

...or maybe it's not like that, since at least most copies of the SEs let you know that they're not the originals before you open them (thus voiding your chances of getting a refund)...

TK-949 said:

negative1 said:

Laserschwert said:

I guess with all the audio projects going on here, it's not really that problematic to NOT have sound coming with the files.

you have to be careful,

even trying to synch it with the GOUT audio

will not work correctly. it's close at times,

but it's not exact.

 

you will have to stretch, trim, or alter either

the frames or the actual audio to match up

with it....

Why? I mean, are there frames missing? Because if not, the sound of the GOUT would fit, wouldn't it?