Please don’t confuse Trist. ScanStations have two ways to transfer audio, the hissy hardware reader or software extraction that works better than AEO Light.
I never meant to cause any confusion. Until now, I had no idea about ScanStation’s software extraction option. Good to know.
“You missed! How could you miss-- he was THREE FEET in front of you!”
– Mushu
The print on the eBay listing does seem to have a Dolby Digital track in between the sprocket holes. But I agree that it would easier to use the laserdisc audio.
We don’t know if it will run or not yet though. It could quite literally be worn out now, Toy Story was a big hit and each print will have had hundreds of shows. If it still works you can record it off a projector.
Did projectors have toslink/spdif out back in the day to allow for this?
You have no idea how excited I am to see this happen! I can’t wait to see Toy Story in the way it was originally presented in theaters!
It’ll be as close as we can get anyway. the print still has ~28 years of fading and aging on it but from what we’ve seen it should still be kick ass.
Eh, I’m sure with a little recoloring after its scanned, it’ll be good.
im 100% sure it will too. just gotta find someone who can do a CC 😉
im 100% sure it will too. just gotta find someone who can do a CC 😉
He mentioned that the thing has a pinkish tint to it, I’m sure there’s probably some way to fix that using Adobe Premiere or something possibly, but I don’t use Premiere so I’m not entirely sure.
Yeah, it’s quite the hot topic in audio engineering circles. In this context, having as many audio options as possible is always best when all is said and done. It’s less convenient to get the Dolby 5.1 on the print preserved, but a lot easier to get the analog stereo track digitized using AEO Light— especially if the raw scan resolution is well past 2K. That would only be necessary if the scanner couldn’t (or simply didn’t) capture the analog audio along with the image scan or the sound on the capture was too hissy; unfortunately, LaserGraphics ScanStation units are kind of notorious for that. But all things in due time; I’m sure TristAndShout64 will cross that bridge when he gets to it.
Please don’t confuse Trist. ScanStations have two ways to transfer audio, the hissy hardware reader or software extraction that works better than AEO Light. But if you want the best optical audio transfer I can also get that at an additional expense. There’s no guarantee the SRD will play - it might, but it might not.
No worries, no real confusion on my part. I like seeing people discuss this stuff! Either way I look forward to seeing if we can scan the SRD and hear what it sounds like.
I never meant to cause any confusion. Until now, I had no idea about ScanStation’s software extraction option. Good to know.
The software audio extraction is pretty good, and better than AEO Light. But not all ScanStations have it, it was initially developed for the ScanStation Personal I think, for full ScanStations I think you just have to get support to enable it if they set it up for hardware-only optical audio (which requires the support contract to be paid and up-to-date). The professionals usually set up something dedicated to optical audio though.
zerocool said:
Did projectors have toslink/spdif out back in the day to allow for this?
I’m not a projectionist.
[ Scanning stuff since 2015 ]
im 100% sure it will too. just gotta find someone who can do a CC 😉
He mentioned that the thing has a pinkish tint to it, I’m sure there’s probably some way to fix that using Adobe Premiere or something possibly, but I don’t use Premiere so I’m not entirely sure.
Yeah, it’s noticeable but pretty slight and I imagine we can color correct it if we have to. That’s assuming it really is pink, one person who DM’ed me suggested it might just be the person’s camera lighting, though I’m not too sure how likely that is.
Anyways, here are the pics from the eBay listing where you can see what I’m talking about (you can also see these in the link I included in the FAQ). Make of them what you will!
im 100% sure it will too. just gotta find someone who can do a CC 😉
He mentioned that the thing has a pinkish tint to it, I’m sure there’s probably some way to fix that using Adobe Premiere or something possibly, but I don’t use Premiere so I’m not entirely sure.
Yeah, it’s noticeable but pretty slight and I imagine we can color correct it if we have to. That’s assuming it really is pink, one person who DM’ed me suggested it might just be the person’s camera lighting, though I’m not too sure how likely that is.
Anyways, here are the pics from the eBay listing where you can see what I’m talking about (you can also see these in the link I included in the FAQ). Make of them what you will!
Oof, I can definitely tell there’s a pink tint, though it doesn’t seem that aggressive.
im 100% sure it will too. just gotta find someone who can do a CC 😉
He mentioned that the thing has a pinkish tint to it, I’m sure there’s probably some way to fix that using Adobe Premiere or something possibly, but I don’t use Premiere so I’m not entirely sure.
Yeah, it’s noticeable but pretty slight and I imagine we can color correct it if we have to. That’s assuming it really is pink, one person who DM’ed me suggested it might just be the person’s camera lighting, though I’m not too sure how likely that is.
Anyways, here are the pics from the eBay listing where you can see what I’m talking about (you can also see these in the link I included in the FAQ). Make of them what you will!
Oof, I can definitely tell there’s a pink tint, though it doesn’t seem that aggressive.
Its quite apparent in the Disney logo, which is supposed to be more turquoise-ish (I’m colorblind), but the tint makes it look pinkish.
I have some screencaps of a laserdisc copy that I color corrected a while back, so I don’t know if this is 100% accurate to the original theatrical presentation but I hope these help when the thing is finally scanned:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-vVn7LJKyVUNcUQwD3Rs_xX_SL50E9qe/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/18vgpDcsCXpKLm-SBnvZ-Lkkl-2yFRTBi/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AO_XqhqgDYSFGhjoWyD3UUo46Bcr9zag/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MvYEdq2Tuoso79_P1QBBzfWb2u2xNlFw/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P7esWdSjB5n-4Oi8B-B0H1ldplcKSBq5/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tjm67v9pbxh_AOhMonXD4hKWzzo6i0WD/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TrJfQhEG0mrKo0STOazehp56v6ewu5Hb/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VwZUK97I7bpr-tZRDzV6uGtmgzDVoT45/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XCPgJO30Jld8C_VbjZrV8ootFr4eE0dd/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_oBNsQEyHkKumnm7QK8iWURKJVrg5k0n/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aZhtKIPL8N8nhxQF9JElegH0Ta2d2k_O/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_yAxR-gu0YpHGPB-ATIQ55PwP6FXN8t/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kyE8qWd3wMr7MvpZT18T12jZ11IeZV5P/view?usp=sharing
I have some screencaps of a laserdisc copy that I color corrected a while back, so I don’t know if this is 100% accurate to the original theatrical presentation but I hope these help when the thing is finally scanned:
Laserdiscs are colorcorrected for the living room by the telecine operator, aka the colorist, like this:
So basically it has its own colortiming. The telecine prints are more expensive to make than projection prints, although they’re usually 16mm not 35mm, and they’re printed low-contrast so that they can be transferred for broadcast and/or home video (you can also transfer off the interpos or a dupe negative as those are also low-contrast film that will transfer acceptably on a telecine). For a bright film like Toy Story it may not look too different, but for films with many dark/night scenes those in particular will look nothing like how they look theatrically. Beauty and the Beast for example is really ruined by the home video colortiming. BATB is an example of a film that probably shouldn’t have been released to home video, but we are where we are and today everything now goes to home video eventually. Certain decisions are even made for both home video and broadcast at the time of filming, for example in Hollywood they shoot alternate scenes for broadcast where they know that something will have to be censored for US domestic TV.
For the theatrical prints the way it works is that the interpositive is colortimed and then when theatrical prints are struck the printer is fully calibrated for the film and the print is struck reel-by-reel. So for example if you’re printing 200 prints you print 200x reel 1 and then 200x reel 2 and so-on. Some prints will be intentionally printed 2 stops brighter and those are Drive-In prints (prints for outdoor projection). The interpos is struck off the original negative or off a dupe negative, in this case the original negative would have been a digital film-out (there may be more than one “original negative” if they made more than one film-out). Now the resolution Toy Story was outputted to wasn’t 2048x1556 so I don’t know if they upscaled it for the printer, or window-boxed it and then did an optical enlargement off the o-neg - either is possible and we should see if there was any attempt at “filmizing” it when it’s scanned.
[ Scanning stuff since 2015 ]
I have some screencaps of a laserdisc copy that I color corrected a while back, so I don’t know if this is 100% accurate to the original theatrical presentation but I hope these help when the thing is finally scanned:
Laserdiscs are colorcorrected for the living room by the telecine operator, aka the colorist, like this:
So basically it has its own colortiming. The telecine prints are more expensive to make than projection prints, although they’re usually 16mm not 35mm, and they’re printed low-contrast so that they can be transferred for broadcast and/or home video (you can also transfer off the interpos or a dupe negative as those are also low-contrast film that will transfer acceptably on a telecine). For a bright film like Toy Story it may not look too different, but for films with many dark/night scenes those in particular will look nothing like how they look theatrically. Beauty and the Beast for example is really ruined by the home video colortiming. BATB is an example of a film that probably shouldn’t have been released to home video, but we are where we are and today everything now goes to home video eventually. Certain decisions are even made for both home video and broadcast at the time of filming, for example in Hollywood they shoot alternate scenes for broadcast where they know that something will have to be censored for US domestic TV.
For the theatrical prints the way it works is that the interpositive is colortimed and then when theatrical prints are struck the printer is fully calibrated for the film and the print is struck reel-by-reel. So for example if you’re printing 200 prints you print 200x reel 1 and then 200x reel 2 and so-on. Some prints will be intentionally printed 2 stops brighter and those are Drive-In prints (prints for outdoor projection). The interpos is struck off the original negative or off a dupe negative, in this case the original negative would have been a digital film-out (there may be more than one “original negative” if they made more than one film-out). Now the resolution Toy Story was outputted to wasn’t 2048x1556 so I don’t know if they upscaled it for the printer, or window-boxed it and then did an optical enlargement off the o-neg - either is possible and we should see if there was any attempt at “filmizing” it when it’s scanned.
I know this is off topic from Toy Story, but Beauty and the Beast was ruined on the home release? What was the difference of the colortiming of the original theatrical presentation and the home release?
I have some screencaps of a laserdisc copy that I color corrected a while back, so I don’t know if this is 100% accurate to the original theatrical presentation but I hope these help when the thing is finally scanned:
Laserdiscs are colorcorrected for the living room by the telecine operator, aka the colorist, like this:
So basically it has its own colortiming. The telecine prints are more expensive to make than projection prints, although they’re usually 16mm not 35mm, and they’re printed low-contrast so that they can be transferred for broadcast and/or home video (you can also transfer off the interpos or a dupe negative as those are also low-contrast film that will transfer acceptably on a telecine). For a bright film like Toy Story it may not look too different, but for films with many dark/night scenes those in particular will look nothing like how they look theatrically. Beauty and the Beast for example is really ruined by the home video colortiming. BATB is an example of a film that probably shouldn’t have been released to home video, but we are where we are and today everything now goes to home video eventually. Certain decisions are even made for both home video and broadcast at the time of filming, for example in Hollywood they shoot alternate scenes for broadcast where they know that something will have to be censored for US domestic TV.
For the theatrical prints the way it works is that the interpositive is colortimed and then when theatrical prints are struck the printer is fully calibrated for the film and the print is struck reel-by-reel. So for example if you’re printing 200 prints you print 200x reel 1 and then 200x reel 2 and so-on. Some prints will be intentionally printed 2 stops brighter and those are Drive-In prints (prints for outdoor projection). The interpos is struck off the original negative or off a dupe negative, in this case the original negative would have been a digital film-out (there may be more than one “original negative” if they made more than one film-out). Now the resolution Toy Story was outputted to wasn’t 2048x1556 so I don’t know if they upscaled it for the printer, or window-boxed it and then did an optical enlargement off the o-neg - either is possible and we should see if there was any attempt at “filmizing” it when it’s scanned.
I know this is off topic from Toy Story, but Beauty and the Beast was ruined on the home release? What was the difference of the colortiming of the original theatrical presentation and the home release?
Just donated! Can’t wait to see this. This movie just feels right in 35mm
Sent a few bucks along! Happy to contribute.
Just donated! Can’t wait to see this. This movie just feels right in 35mm
Sent a few bucks along! Happy to contribute.
Nice, got both of your donations. Thanks a bunch!
Just donated! Can’t wait to see this. This movie just feels right in 35mm
Sent a few bucks along! Happy to contribute.
Nice, got both of your donations. Thanks a bunch!
np I’ll definitely donate more when I can
K, I’ve donated a few dollars of my own to bring the total to $320. I’ve also added the total donation amount for each donor and updated the FAQ with some extra information.
To everyone donating, please use Link 1 if you can. The donation fee for Link 2 isn’t huge, but it’ll add up over time, whereas if you do a direct payment under Friends and Family there is no fee. Not a big deal either way though, I’ll continue rounding out the total with my own donations.
By the way, I have some fun plans for this coming summer so stay tuned! 😉
Hey, I was just wondering, is this scanned at 23.976 fps or 24 fps?
Hey, I was just wondering, is this scanned at 23.976 fps or 24 fps?
Considering the movie was rendered out at 23.97 fps (my source is Craig Good, who was the Supervising Layout artist for the film), the scanned film is most likely going to be the former frame rate.
“You Have Saved Our Film! We Are Eternally Grateful!”
“You Have Saved Our Film! We Are Eternally Grateful!”
Hah, how did I not think of that one?
Also, thanks for the donation! That brings us to $470. I’ll try to kick in some more money of my own when I’m able to.
Considering the movie was rendered out at 23.97 fps (my source is Craig Good, who was the Supervising Layout artist for the film), the scanned film is most likely going to be the former frame rate.
I don’t know what you mean by that? Toy Story is 24fps it doesn’t matter how it was rendered in the computer before film-out. An example might be if you run a camera at 120fps for slow-motion footage, it was captured at 120fps but the film is 24fps.
[ Scanning stuff since 2015 ]
For film-out, they would most likely have sped up the footage slightly to fit within the 24fps rate of 35mm film.