The Mask (1994) - 4K Open Matte 35mm Scan - 2024 Edition [WIP]

2024-07-18 UPDATE
Hey all! We have a sneak peak at the scan! See post: https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/The-Mask-1994-4K-Open-Matte-35mm-Scan-2024-Edition-WIP/id/119406/page/2#1599618

2024-07-04 UPDATE
Hey all, Happy Independence Day! Good news, the print is in good condition and I am confirming the scan! I added photos of the print in the original message. I’ll start to take donations, please send me a private message if you are interested. Cheers!

Hi all!

I am preparing a new 4K scan of the classic movie The Mask from a 35mm print in open matte. This is Jim Carrey’s second big movie and Cameron Diaz’s first appearance in Hollywood!

This year is The Mask’s 30th anniversary and there is still no sign on any official 4K UHD home release. So I think this scan could give us something better than the current Blu-ray version.

The print has been purchased and it will be shipped to our scanner soon. This print is different from the one used for the 2020’s project. I will take donations once I get confirmation that the print is in good condition to get scanned.

PM me if you’re interested in donating!

I’ll be posting updates at the top if you want to keep up with the progress of this project. Feel free to PM me with any questions, concerns or suggestions you have.

Cheers,
Blakninja

Information about the print

The print comes from the US and has English audio (optical and DTS). The print is open matte with SFX scenes hard matted to 1.85:1.

The below preview images are photos of the print using a cell phone.

Funding

I will front the cost but will need help to fund this project. Here’s the cost breakdown.

$520 (PRINT + SHIPPING TO AND BACK)
$505 (SCAN + HARD DRIVE)

Total cost: $1025
Total donation amount: $382.16 (37% funded).

Once donations reach $1025, money would be put towards my next project.

With a minimum contribution of US$10, you will receive a 4K scan of the print. Current audio options: Optical audio, Cinema DTS, Laserdisc Dolby 5.1, Laserdisc DTS and audio commentaries.

PM me if you’re interested in donating!

Donors

From OT

• giddygoat
• Greifff
• BoingoBanshee
• merwan
• rwzmjl
• rickstaman05
• and people outside of OT

Post format credit to cjmp and TristandShout64

Would be definitely interested in this project. Waiting for pictures from the print.

Definetly interested too, i’ll wait for some preview pictures too but i’d love seeing this movie in 4K. Thank you in advance 😃

this sounds awesome, totally interested.

I will ABSOLUTELY donate.

Also, for more audio options, perhaps the two audio commentaries from the DVD/Blu-ray?

Yes, we could add the two audio commentaries from the DVD/Bluray. I would assume the track from the Bluray is higher quality.

blakninja said:

Yes, we could add the two audio commentaries from the DVD/Bluray. I would assume the track from the Bluray is higher quality.

The director’s commentary with Chuck Russell was recorded for the laserdisc in 1996. The second commentary is an assortment of producers, VFX artists, and Russell recorded for the 10th Anniversary DVD in 2004. Both of them are carried over to the blu-ray, so you could rip them from that.

definitely down to donate

I’ll donate (as I try to do for all open matte scans) if/when you start taking donations!

I’m in let me know when donations open up.

Down to donate!

I’m in!

Hey guys! The print is in good condition and the project is confirmed, we are moving forward with the scan! PM me if you want to donate. Cheers!

Donated 😃

Awesome opportunity.

MrQuiche said:

Definetly interested too, i’ll wait for some preview pictures too but i’d love seeing this movie in 4K. Thank you in advance 😃

No intention of spoiling this great project, but you won’t see it “in 4K” with this either, as the film print will be far from that resolution level. It’s already questionable whether 2K/HD will be reached, as it’s usually a copy of a copy of a copy (which reminds me of “Fight Club,” which could also benefit from a long-overdue UHD release, but I’m drifting …).

little-endian said:

MrQuiche said:

Definetly interested too, i’ll wait for some preview pictures too but i’d love seeing this movie in 4K. Thank you in advance 😃

No intention of spoiling this great project, but you won’t see it “in 4K” with this either, as the film print will be far from that resolution level. It’s already questionable whether 2K/HD will be reached, as it’s usually a copy of a copy of a copy (which reminds me of “Fight Club,” which could also benefit from a long-overdue UHD release, but I’m drifting …).

This won’t be a real 4K as we are not scanning from the original camera negatives. But we are scanning the 35mm print at the highest possible quality to ensure that we are capturing all of the details available on the film. Scanning at 2K would be borderline and we might miss some details, and scanning 8K would be overkill and we just get a bigger image with not necessarily more details.

It will definitely have more resolution (details) than HD (1080p), at least for the non SFX scenes.

On top of this, the grading should be closer to what you’d see in theatres (not that the Blu-ray grading was too much messed with) and we get to see it in open matte.

blakninja said:

This won’t be a real 4K as we are not scanning from the original camera negatives.

Yep, and even then, it isn’t guaranteed that what has been originally shot back in the days reaches the spatial resolution equivalent.

Scanning at 2K would be borderline and we might miss some details[…]

Most probably exceeding the official Blu-ray release though which certainly doesn’t reach decent HD level (which is the whole point of the project besides the open matte aspect so to say of course). Guess they took some mediocre HD master which was good for the DVD release and reused that. However, at least they refrained from ruining it with orange & teal color grading, heavy DNR and other sins.

[…] and scanning 8K would be overkill and we just get a bigger image with not necessarily more details.

Definitely. 96kHz/24Bit vinyl rips are greeting as analogy.

It will definitely have more resolution (details) than HD (1080p), at least for the non SFX scenes.

If so, even better and more exciting.

On top of this, the grading should be closer to what you’d see in theatres (not that the Blu-ray grading was too much messed with) and we get to see it in open matte.

Great indeed. And I guess you intend to also refrain from any filtering, DNR, sharpening or other fuss, right?

blakninja said:

little-endian said:

MrQuiche said:

Definetly interested too, i’ll wait for some preview pictures too but i’d love seeing this movie in 4K. Thank you in advance 😃

No intention of spoiling this great project, but you won’t see it “in 4K” with this either, as the film print will be far from that resolution level. It’s already questionable whether 2K/HD will be reached, as it’s usually a copy of a copy of a copy (which reminds me of “Fight Club,” which could also benefit from a long-overdue UHD release, but I’m drifting …).

This won’t be a real 4K as we are not scanning from the original camera negatives. But we are scanning the 35mm print at the highest possible quality to ensure that we are capturing all of the details available on the film. Scanning at 2K would be borderline and we might miss some details, and scanning 8K would be overkill and we just get a bigger image with not necessarily more details.

It will definitely have more resolution (details) than HD (1080p), at least for the non SFX scenes.

On top of this, the grading should be closer to what you’d see in theatres (not that the Blu-ray grading was too much messed with) and we get to see it in open matte.

Actually this IS real 4K. 4K isn’t strictly “the camera negative”, you can do 4K scans for any film element. Boutique labels have done 4K scans of interpositives and best surviving elements (Vinegar Syndrome’s UHD of The Beastmaster comes to mind) and I wouldn’t say they are not worthy of being “4K”. With Warner Bros’ iffy track record towards their 4K restorations, I predict this scan/encode will exceed the eventual official UHD because major studios always screw with the picture.

BoingoBanshee said: Actually, this IS real 4K. 4K isn’t strictly “the camera negative”; you can do 4K scans for any film element.

Well, the same way one can record any audio material at any given sample rate of choice, but that doesn’t mean the original carries that resolution in the first place.

For example, I’m well aware of those “Fake 4K or not” websites where, in the case of, let’s say, a 2K digital intermediate, they rightly criticize that no “Real 4K” performance may be achieved and thus the 4K (actually “UHD”) release is “fake.” However, that view is also a bit misleading and incomplete, as the assumption that film material automatically delivers 4K or whatever resolution just because it was scanned as such technically isn’t correct either.

In practice, some 2K-only productions (at least in parts, such as “Collateral”) may be categorized as “Fake 4K,” whereas some fuzzy “as good as it gets” film source, scanned in 4K, is called “Real 4K,” despite the fact that it may never reach that resolution either and never has. Many may be above 2K level, no question, just to make a point here.

One would actually have to measure the real spatial resolution of such sources (in MHz), and then one could derive the required or equivalent resolution in “pixels” (which theoretically is twice the analog bandwidth according to Nyquist/Shannon) to preserve the original without quality loss.

Back to “The Mask” - I admittedly have no idea what spatial resolution your exemplar comes with, and a 4K/UHD (and maybe even HDR) scan certainly won’t harm. So excitement is justified as the official BD release definitely is mediocre at best by today’s standards.

little-endian said:

BoingoBanshee said: Actually, this IS real 4K. 4K isn’t strictly “the camera negative”; you can do 4K scans for any film element.

Well, the same way one can record any audio material at any given sample rate of choice, but that doesn’t mean the original carries that resolution in the first place.

For example, I’m well aware of those “Fake 4K or not” websites where, in the case of, let’s say, a 2K digital intermediate, they rightly criticize that no “Real 4K” performance may be achieved and thus the 4K (actually “UHD”) release is “fake.” However, that view is also a bit misleading and incomplete, as the assumption that film material automatically delivers 4K or whatever resolution just because it was scanned as such technically isn’t correct either.

In practice, some 2K-only productions (at least in parts, such as “Collateral”) may be categorized as “Fake 4K,” whereas some fuzzy “as good as it gets” film source, scanned in 4K, is called “Real 4K,” despite the fact that it may never reach that resolution either and never has. Many may be above 2K level, no question, just to make a point here.

One would actually have to measure the real spatial resolution of such sources (in MHz), and then one could derive the required or equivalent resolution in “pixels” (which theoretically is twice the analog bandwidth according to Nyquist/Shannon) to preserve the original without quality loss.

Back to “The Mask” - I admittedly have no idea what spatial resolution your exemplar comes with, and a 4K/UHD (and maybe even HDR) scan certainly won’t harm. So excitement is justified as the official BD release definitely is mediocre at best by today’s standards.

No denying a film print is nothing compared to a negative. However, if it’s a 4K scan of a film print or an interpositive, then it’s 4K. Saying otherwise kicks sand in the faces of labels like Vinegar Syndrome and Second Sight who have done 4K scans of films like The Beastmaster where their negatives are lost and had to work with best surviving elements and those releases are gorgeous. Doing a 4K scan of a film print outside the studio system is something I would not look down upon or say “eh, it’s not the negative though is it?”. With Warner’s track record of their 4K scans where they actually have access to the negatives, they still end up screwing it up such as the Burton Batman films. So I’m very excited someone is scanning a print of The Mask…in 4K.

BoingoBanshee said:
No denying a film print is nothing compared to a negative. However, if it’s a 4K scan of a film print or an interpositive, then it’s 4K. Saying otherwise kicks sand in the faces of labels like Vinegar Syndrome and Second Sight who have done 4K scans of films like The Beastmaster where their negatives are lost and had to work with best surviving elements and those releases are gorgeous. Doing a 4K scan of a film print outside the studio system is something I would not look down upon or say “eh, it’s not the negative though is it?”. With Warner’s track record of their 4K scans where they actually have access to the negatives, they still end up screwing it up such as the Burton Batman films. So I’m very excited someone is scanning a print of The Mask…in 4K.

You have a good point about Vinegar Syndrome using prints as source for some of their 4K releases. I do believe a 35mm print contains enough details to be worth capturing at 4K. And I totally agree with you that a 4K scan of a 35mm print is technically a “real 4K” scan 😃

The goal of this project is to preserve in the highest possible quality (that is affordable) what we fans have access to, in this case, a 35mm print.

little-endian said:

Great indeed. And I guess you intend to also refrain from any filtering, DNR, sharpening or other fuss, right?

Yes, that’s the idea. I will not apply any filtering, DNR, sharpening etc. If the colors and contrast look good, I might not even do color adjustments. The goal is to have the end result look as close as possible to this specific print. Every print is different and I don’t know how the movie “should” look or how it is intended by the director, so I will keep it simple and have the end result as representative of this specific print as possible.

The only thing I might touch up are obvious and distracting dirts or scratches. But even then I would do it carefully and will avoid adding details where it did not exist before.

Hi everyone,

I just want to say a big thank you to everyone who have donated in the past week. We have accumulated $382.16 to date. Just so you have an idea, the whole project cost an estimated $1025.

We should have an update on the progress of the scan in the next few weeks. Stay tuned. Cheers!