Citizen Kane’s 4K restoration didn’t use the negatives (since they don’t exist), so I think this is a non-issue. Always scan at 4K; there’s zero reason not to these days unless you’re on a very tight budget. You want the extra resolution to fully resolve the grain anyway (believe it or not, that’s an intended part of the image!). I even opt for 4K scans of super-8 for this reason.
rwzmjl said: […]believe it or not, that’s an intended part of the image![…]
I read that argument often lately, but the word “intended” is a crucial premise here as in many cases, it isn’t really but rather a side-effect of technical limitations (which includes our visual system introducing retinal noise as well). Same goes for the stone age low rate of 24 fps only, causing tremendous amounts of temporal aliasing and making a subjectively stutter-free reconstruction difficult.
So while I can understand the sentiment for artistic reasons and preservation, technically, noise isn’t part of the original image which one tried to capture. Noise also limits — or rather defines — measurements such as the SNR.
I’m also entirely up to “preserve” it in terms of not filtering it out, as not only it isn’t possible to do so without losing information from the actual image anyway, but also because it may fit a certain desired look. However, so do noise and crackles on vinyl records which may be preferred emotionally, but shouldn’t be rationally.
One technical advantage of noise in the source shall not go unmentioned though: (self)dithering, enabling a theoretically smooth reconstruction of an unlimited number of shades (and not just 50 of grey) without ugly banding. However, dithering can be artificially added later during the A/D conversion as well in an mathematically optimised way even so even that is a rather far fetched argument.
rwzmjl said: […]believe it or not, that’s an intended part of the image![…]
I read that argument often lately, but the word “intended” is a crucial premise here as in many cases, it isn’t really but rather a side-effect of technical limitations (which includes our visual system introducing retinal noise as well). Same goes for the stone age low rate of 24 fps only, causing tremendous amounts of temporal aliasing and making a subjectively stutter-free reconstruction difficult.
So while I can understand the sentiment for artistic reasons and preservation, technically, noise isn’t part of the original image which one tried to capture. Noise also limits — or rather defines — measurements such as the SNR.
I’m also entirely up to “preserve” it in terms of not filtering it out, as not only it isn’t possible to do so without losing information from the actual image anyway, but also because it may fit a certain desired look. However, so do noise and crackles on vinyl records which may be preferred emotionally, but shouldn’t be rationally.
One technical advantage of noise in the source shall not go unmentioned though: (self)dithering, enabling a theoretically smooth reconstruction of an unlimited number of shades (and not just 50 of grey) without ugly banding. However, dithering can be artificially added later during the A/D conversion as well in an mathematically optimised way even so even that is a rather far fetched argument.
Some directors have intentionally increased the effect of the film grain during scanning. Stanley Kubrick famously did this with Eyes Wide Shut. And if it’s part of the technology, it’s intended. No one forces you to make a movie to express your artistic feelings. There’s lots of other ways you can do that. And nowadays, you have to intentionally choose to use film. If you’ve seen MaXXXine recently, you’ll notice it has a thick layer of grain. As for 24fps, pretty much every person who’s not Peter Jackson, Ang Lee and James Cameron knows why making every single movie ever into a higher frame rate movie isn’t going to work. At least for a very long time. If you told every visual effects and animation studio that every movie going forward would be 48fps(and therefore double the size of everything), they would probably laugh at you. Either the amount of movies released is going to have to be cut drastically(studios would not be able to do this), or the quality is going to have to drop significantly. And the latter would defeat the purpose of doing a higher frame rate.
How about this humidity?
Some directors have intentionally increased the effect of the film grain during scanning. Stanley Kubrick famously did this with Eyes Wide Shut.
If so, then entirely legit and shall be preserved, bar none.
And if it’s part of the technology, it’s intended.
Not necessarily when considering the entire history and not just today. Sure, if done so today, it most likely is an artistic choice. But back in the days, many flaws were accepted because it simply wasn’t possible in a better way.
And nowadays, you have to intentionally choose to use film.
I see that you’re arguing from today’s point of view. Just to halfway stay on topic, that is already questionable in the case of “The Mask” as video cameras were still quite flawed at that time compared to film cameras. So one may raise the question how much here was really an intentional choice or simply dictated by circumstances.
As for 24fps, pretty much every person who’s not Peter Jackson, Ang Lee and James Cameron knows why making every single movie ever into a higher frame rate movie isn’t going to work.
Which can only be a subjective reaction as technically, taken details such as the different limit for exposure times out of the equation, the higher the frame rate, the better the result will be in the sense of higher time resolution (higher nyquist frequency before aliasing occurs). Even for the subjective part, one shall differentiate between the unchangeable preference of people, which also is entirely legit, and the simple lack of being used to it (which I conjecture, is by far the main reason). With film, people simply expect a stuttery reconstruction although higher frame or field rates aren’t anything new if one considers PAL/NTSC standards since decades.
Either the amount of movies released is going to have to be cut drastically(studios would not be able to do this), or the quality is going to have to drop significantly. And the latter would defeat the purpose of doing a higher frame rate.
Well, that is something concerning company politics, willingness for change, budgets, etc.
My approach here was purely from a technical / information theoretical viewpoint. Hence we certainly can agree on that The Mask shall be decently scanned with, please, as little “adjustments” as possible and definitely no stupid grain filtering.
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!
That’s amazing news!
rwzmjl said: […]believe it or not, that’s an intended part of the image![…]
I read that argument often lately, but the word “intended” is a crucial premise here as in many cases, it isn’t really but rather a side-effect of technical limitations (which includes our visual system introducing retinal noise as well). Same goes for the stone age low rate of 24 fps only, causing tremendous amounts of temporal aliasing and making a subjectively stutter-free reconstruction difficult.
So while I can understand the sentiment for artistic reasons and preservation, technically, noise isn’t part of the original image which one tried to capture. Noise also limits — or rather defines — measurements such as the SNR.
I’m also entirely up to “preserve” it in terms of not filtering it out, as not only it isn’t possible to do so without losing information from the actual image anyway, but also because it may fit a certain desired look. However, so do noise and crackles on vinyl records which may be preferred emotionally, but shouldn’t be rationally.
One technical advantage of noise in the source shall not go unmentioned though: (self)dithering, enabling a theoretically smooth reconstruction of an unlimited number of shades (and not just 50 of grey) without ugly banding. However, dithering can be artificially added later during the A/D conversion as well in an mathematically optimised way even so even that is a rather far fetched argument.
Very much disagree with this sentiment, as a DP myself who shoots film (s16 for the most part). And it’s not noise (which is a digital artifact); it’s grain.
You are also forgetting that filmmakers had plenty of low grain options available to them if they wanted it, pre-digital-revolution. Especially in 1994. 50D of course, but even more so, the option of shooting Vista Vision or 65mm. In the case of the filmmakers desiring a grainless image but they couldn’t achieve it, that is because of budget limitations (either from the stock they could afford or the amount of light they needed). And is it the right philosophy when it comes to preservation to scrub supposed artifacts that stem from limitations of the production? That would mean redoing vfx, painting out wires, rerecording ADR, etc. No person seriously in favor of film preservation (i.e. not Lucas or Cameron) would opt for that.
Obviously this has nothing to do with shooting a new production. Shoot noiseless footage with an Alexa LF at 60fps if you want; that is no issue (though you might nauseate some audience members).
rwzmjl said: […]believe it or not, that’s an intended part of the image![…]
I read that argument often lately, but the word “intended” is a crucial premise here as in many cases, it isn’t really but rather a side-effect of technical limitations (which includes our visual system introducing retinal noise as well). Same goes for the stone age low rate of 24 fps only, causing tremendous amounts of temporal aliasing and making a subjectively stutter-free reconstruction difficult.
So while I can understand the sentiment for artistic reasons and preservation, technically, noise isn’t part of the original image which one tried to capture. Noise also limits — or rather defines — measurements such as the SNR.
I’m also entirely up to “preserve” it in terms of not filtering it out, as not only it isn’t possible to do so without losing information from the actual image anyway, but also because it may fit a certain desired look. However, so do noise and crackles on vinyl records which may be preferred emotionally, but shouldn’t be rationally.
One technical advantage of noise in the source shall not go unmentioned though: (self)dithering, enabling a theoretically smooth reconstruction of an unlimited number of shades (and not just 50 of grey) without ugly banding. However, dithering can be artificially added later during the A/D conversion as well in an mathematically optimised way even so even that is a rather far fetched argument.
Very much disagree with this sentiment, as a DP myself who shoots film (s16 for the most part). And it’s not noise (which is a digital artifact); it’s grain.
You are also forgetting that filmmakers had plenty of low grain options available to them if they wanted it, pre-digital-revolution. Especially in 1994. 50D of course, but even more so, the option of shooting Vista Vision or 65mm. In the case of the filmmakers desiring a grainless image but they couldn’t achieve it, that is because of budget limitations (either from the stock they could afford or the amount of light they needed). And is it the right philosophy when it comes to preservation to scrub supposed artifacts that stem from limitations of the production? That would mean redoing vfx, painting out wires, rerecording ADR, etc. No person seriously in favor of film preservation (i.e. not Lucas or Cameron) would opt for that.
Obviously this has nothing to do with shooting a new production. Shoot noiseless footage with an Alexa LF at 60fps if you want; that is no issue (though you might nauseate some audience members).
This.
Interested in donating for this.
Hi everyone!
Just sharing with you guys a very early sneak peak of the scan! It’s still very raw not much color fixing yet and not full resolution.
Cheers.
Hi everyone!
Just sharing with you guys a very early sneak peak of the scan! It’s still very raw not much color fixing yet and not full resolution.
Cheers.
It already looks gorgeous raw. So excited to see this.
Hi everyone!
Just sharing with you guys a very early sneak peak of the scan! It’s still very raw not much color fixing yet and not full resolution.
Cheers.
Way more vibrant! Looking good.
Here’s a preview in motion 😃
Here’s a preview in motion 😃
This looks excellent. Absolutely worthy of the 30th anniversary. Will you be doing some colour correction, and offering a alternate matted encode (ala Dave’s Re-Animator scan)?
I am not sure about color correction for the moment, this is pretty much untouched, people could do their own corrections if they desire. But it’s something I could consider in the longer run.
As for aspect ratio, yes I would do two versions, an open matte version and a 1.85:1 version.
I am not sure about color correction for the moment, this is pretty much untouched, people could do their own corrections if they desire. But it’s something I could consider in the longer run.
As for aspect ratio, yes I would do two versions, an open matte version and a 1.85:1 version.
That’s ideal to be honest. It looks lovely.
Yeah, I don’t think much color correction is needed here. Excellent print. Really looking forward to this.
Yeah, I don’t think much color correction is needed here. Excellent print. Really looking forward to this.
Yeah, agreed.
If only someone had access to a domesday duplicator and a NTSC VHS of the film, it’d be great to do a capture of the Space Ghost Coast To Coast Jim Carrey/Chuck Russell interviews from that tape which isn’t on any laserdisc/DVD/Blu release, as an extra. It’s such a funny segment.
Also a good master of Xscape’s Who’s That Man music video which isn’t on any release, and the official Youtube upload looks bad.
Just so everyone don’t get surprised, if you have not seen The Mask during its original run in 1994 and the Blu-ray is how you’ve always seen The Mask, you’ll notice that his face in the 35mm version is not the same green. That’s normal, because for the Blu-ray, I think they updated the mask colours to match the comic books more, but it’s not how it was original filmed.
Here’s a clip to see the difference:
Damn this looks amazing!
I would like to contribute
Ready for this one, sssssmokin!
I would love a copy!
Sent a bit more over. Looking good.
definetly interested! send you a DM right now!
TL;DR:
Should we preserve old movies as closely to their original presentation? YES, absolutely!
Should we continue to make movies the same way despite better techniques being available today? NO, if it’s only for the nostalgia and unwillingness to adjust for the technically better.
I think there is still quite some misunderstanding. Taking the risk to essentially repeat myself:
Very much disagree with this sentiment, as a DP myself who shoots film (s16 for the most part).
With what sentiment exactly?
And it’s not noise (which is a digital artifact); it’s grain.
Noise isn’t (only) a “digital” artifact per se as you can have that in the analog realm as well (actually only there, as quantisation noise from numbers manifests only there during the D/A stage), and in fact plenty of it. “Grain” is just a term used in conjunction with film - grain is a variant of noise.
You are also forgetting that filmmakers had plenty of low grain options available to them if they wanted it, pre-digital-revolution.
Throwing artistic decisions together with my purely technical (call it puristic) argument, is missing the point I was trying to make.
And is it the right philosophy when it comes to preservation to scrub supposed artifacts that stem from limitations of the production?
As I stated, it should be left as it is.
No person seriously in favor of film preservation (i.e. not Lucas or Cameron) would opt for that.
Exactly.
Obviously this has nothing to do with shooting a new production. Shoot noiseless footage with an Alexa LF at 60fps if you want; that is no issue (though you might nauseate some audience members).
That is finally halfway picking up the point I was trying to make. I probably would do that with as little grain/noise/whatever as possible as this is what techncially is preferable (and I tend to adjust the aesthetics to that, granted), but at the same time, I would archive everything else with as little post-processing as possible, shall it be as noisy as it wants to be.
In other, concrete words based on an example: the re-releases of Aliens, especially the UHD BD, suck and I way prefer the grainy, halfway unaltered old Blu-ray versions. However, is all that noise technically desirable? No, the same way the noise and crackles on a vinyl record aren’t. Even if one prefers the look or sound, it could artificially be added afterwards while having the advantage of still possessing an original with a higher SNR. Should grain be filtered which - for whatever reason - has already been part of the original recording? No, not at all, as history shows that it isn’t possible without sacrificing part of the original information (and change the artistic intend from that time if you want which I disapprove as well).
Hence in the case of “The Mask”: of course, no filtering please, “let it grain”.
@blakninja: I’m also looking forward a lot to see your release soon.