When/Why did you become an OT purist? — Page 8

You know, I understand and agree with the numbers that are continually posted, with a standard print starting at 2-4K and then degrading form there but truth be told I have never seen a home disc or digital print look better than 35mm no matter the condition. I've seen the poorly kept only surviving MGM copy of For a Few Dollars More and that is stupendously towering over the DVD/BD. Even all-digital productions printed back to film look better than their all-digital counterparts. Sure you may be able to remove almost every imperfection for a BD master but these eyes it is not the same.

I guess my overall case in point would be my preferred version of Psycho. I've watched the film on everything from VHS to film easily over 50 times throughout my life, sometimes going scene or shot by shot. And now with the fantastically detailed BD....I still prefer the open matte 16mm reduction. Wow, despite the wear and tear talk about razor sharp detail! And on that point, perhaps the sharpest film I've ever seen is Touch of Evil, and the restored cut in 35mm is something to behold.

But I admit to being a crazy celluloid nut.

And the digital TPM being better? IIRC they had some huge issues with getting the digital systems to work properly in 1999 and even then the resolution was quite inferior.

captainsolo said:

...truth be told I have never seen a home disc or digital print look better than 35mm no matter the condition.

I think I may be able to at least partially explain the divergence between the studies' numbers and peoples' experiences, but it may take someone with a photography background to flesh in the details and/or point to the studies I'll be referring to.  Numbers are not entirely pulled out of my ass, but they're from my memory which is about as bad, sorry.

Back when digital cameras (we're talking still images, now) started going mainstream, there was a lot of discussion about when they'd finally overtake 35mm quality-wise.  Someone finally did a study on the smallest resolvable detail on 35mm vs digital and determined that (IIRC) ~4 megapixels was equivalent to 35mm.  This result, of course, was laughed out of the room--because anyone could easily tell the difference between a 35mm still and a 4MP still, and the 4MP image looked like crap relatively speaking.

But it turned out that there was a meaningful difference between the two standards: "smallest resolvable detail" vs. "ability to tell the overall difference".  Because digital images have pixels aligned in a grid and analog images do not, it takes something on the order of 3x to 4x as many digital pixels to create an image that could not be distinguished from 35mm (the human eye can perceive aligned pixels and interprets them as lower quality than unaligned pixels at the same resolution).  Both camps still considered themselves correct because they technically answered their question accurately--but nobody sells 4 megapixel still cameras anymore.

Anyway, thought this or something like it could apply here.

BmB said:

'course this only applies to digicameras. Not sure how scanning is accomplished.

I'm sure there are some differences, but the principle of oversampling would apply in either case, I'd imagine.

danny_boy said:

The highest resolution that the assessors could still discern in the sharpest part of the screen(not neccassirily it's center) in the most performing movie theater was about 875 Lines/PH

 

I could see that, for the "most performing movie theater".  I'm not interested in the quality of the "most performing movie theater".  That's irrelevant for high quality film restoration.  A proper restoration would try to achieve the quality of the highest quality projection, such as in a high end 70mm theater with a brand new print.  Do your studies indicate the resolution of high quality 70mm projections of brand new prints?

captainsolo said:

You know, I understand and agree with the numbers that are continually posted, with a standard print starting at 2-4K and then degrading form there but truth be told I have never seen a home disc or digital print look better than 35mm no matter the condition. I've seen the poorly kept only surviving MGM copy of For a Few Dollars More and that is stupendously towering over the DVD/BD. Even all-digital productions printed back to film look better than their all-digital counterparts. Sure you may be able to remove almost every imperfection for a BD master but these eyes it is not the same.

I guess my overall case in point would be my preferred version of Psycho. I've watched the film on everything from VHS to film easily over 50 times throughout my life, sometimes going scene or shot by shot. And now with the fantastically detailed BD....I still prefer the open matte 16mm reduction. Wow, despite the wear and tear talk about razor sharp detail! And on that point, perhaps the sharpest film I've ever seen is Touch of Evil, and the restored cut in 35mm is something to behold.

But I admit to being a crazy celluloid nut.

And the digital TPM being better? IIRC they had some huge issues with getting the digital systems to work properly in 1999 and even then the resolution was quite inferior.

You have to make a distinction between sharpness and resolution.

Erich Heynacher(from Zeiss) concluded that humans attribute more value to the contour defining details that constitute an image as opposed to the finer details that make up this same image----in other words higher contrast in an image can compensate for lack of resolution----something Technicolour prints were famouse for(such as the Star Wars one shown in baltimore)

Regarding 16mm film:

According to ARRI(german fim camera manufacturer) a 16mm camera negative has the capacity to store 2048( a little higher than the 1920 of HDTV/Blu Ray) pixels in the horizontal direction.

But once that 16mm negative is subjected to an anlogue duplication process to produce the positive print(such as your version of PSYCHO) it will lose a lot of this resolution.

Again it may just be that your 16 mm print of Psycho has rich contrast----but the Blu Ray will definately have more resolution.

AS for the digital version of TPM being better than the 35mm print----here was the conclusion of those who saw a split screen comparison back in 1999:

So how is the quality of the digital image? During a press conference held on June 17 at the AMC Burbank 14 multiplex, a short clip was shown in a split screen: Half the image was from a new, high-quality film print, and the other half was from the digital "print." Once the two images were manually synchronized, the difference was remarkably clear: The digital image was much sharper, with much better color fidelity than the film print. For example, the Jedi council room has large windows through which the sky is visible. In the digital image, the sky and clouds were clearly delineated, but they were blurred into a bluish blob on the film side of the screen. Rick McCallum, one of the producers of The Phantom Menace and a press-conference panelist, said the digital version is a much more accurate representation of what they shot than the film version.

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/content/electronic-cinema-debuts-beautiful-downtown-burbank

zombie84 said:

I agree: Blu-ray is often better than 35mm prints. I went to a screening of the Evangelion remake in the best theater in Toronto and they were projecting a blu-ray, and it looked better than most animated films I've seen on film.

But that is much different than a study saying the typical/average range of a projection is 500-800 lines. Lucasfilm is just quoting that study.

The typical resolution of a modern print is about on par with a 720p HD video, something around 700-1000 lines of resolution. That is as much as twice the resolution as what that study is reporting, and their figures are an average figure, the implication being that there are prints far lower in resolution than that. What the hell were they looking at? Part of the reason they used Bollywood prints, I must assume, is because of legality and affordability: Hollywood doesn't sell it's own prints, or easily loan them, and they are always way, way more expensive than something from most overseas countries. There is no Bollywood market in North America, so prints might be cheap and available. That is my take, since it seems unusual for a western produced study to use so many examples from the east.

I can tell you from first hand experience as a working professional in the camera department, in the biggest and most widely recognized camera organization on the planet, who conducts these sorts of tests himself, that that study makes no sense. The fact that it is mainly Bollywood prints probably has a lot to do with it.

But if someone said that your typical print of a Hollywood movies is about 800 lines of resolution, I would believe that. Some are more, some are less, but that is a realistic figure, something believable at least.

HOWEVER....

and this is a big however...

One must also compare against the actual resolution of HD video. If I transfer and upscale my VHS to blu-ray, that VHS transfer is technically 1920x1080 lines of resolution. But it's really not. When we measure film resolution--because it's not digital, it has no fixed pixel dimensions--we measure the resolving power of the lens, in other words how many lines you can visibly discern. On the negative, this is 4 or 5 thousand lines of resolving power, to go by the commonly quoted figure (again: depends on the specific example). On the release print it tends to be between 700 and 1000, give or take. But the "resolution" of HD--1920x1080--is not the actual resolving power. It's a measurement of the image dimensions, in pixels. So, 1080p images don't always have 1920x1080 lines of horizontal and verticle resolution, that's just the size of the image. I think people forget that.

I think it very important to clarify that neither of the 2  studies I linked to  analized "Bollywood" prints---they used film stock provided by Kodak(5274) which has excellent exposure ranges aswell as fine grain coupled with good blacks.

In other words they used the best(or amongst the best) that film has to offer.

But their conclusion was resounding:

In the current environment, a 2K digital projector will exhibit higher resolution than is currently delivered on release prints to the theatre, and will exhibit substantial image sharpness and clarity due to the better system MTF that preserves higher contrast in the mid frequencies. The images produced should be more striking than the competing (release) film images. Scenes will still exist where the digital structure of the system will be apparent in the image, and a comparative film clip will be smoother

http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf

Roger Deakins(who shot Skyfall using ARRI digital cameras----but used film for decades) has said that he will never go back to film.

Wheras digital images may contain artefacts/aliasing---film contains swirling grain---so says Deakins himself:

when I go to the cinema and I see the grain i dont like it! I have seen some  some tests for the IMAX of SkyFall on film projection and even when the focus chart came up it was kinda moving with the grain ----I dont like it ---it is too much for me now"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBvA1ChExAI

I'm probably speaking only for myself when I say that I don't like movies to look too realistic.

I prefer the appearance of a pristine (I hate dirt and scratches) 16mm print. The hazy glow, the softness, and the grain structure all help to provide an aesthetic I find pleasing.

Puggo GRANDE is too dirty for me (sorry Puggo!) to enjoy, but this sample frame from it demonstrates how I'd prefer to watch most movies.

Note: This isn't AR-corrected. Also, I uploaded it to imageshack.us so as to not kill Puggo's bandwidth.

Also, do realize that this isn't because of nostalgia. I'm 25, so I definitely wasn't around during the heyday of 16mm.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

danny_boy said:

The highest resolution that the assessors could still discern in the sharpest part of the screen(not neccassirily it's center) in the most performing movie theater was about 875 Lines/PH

 

I could see that, for the "most performing movie theater".  I'm not interested in the quality of the "most performing movie theater".  That's irrelevant for high quality film restoration.  A proper restoration would try to achieve the quality of the highest quality projection, such as in a high end 70mm theater with a brand new print.  Do your studies indicate the resolution of high quality 70mm projections of brand new prints?

No those studies do not take into account 70mm projection.

But star wars was not a 70mm production---it was merely blown up to 70mm from it's 35mm source.

And 70mm contact printing will suffer the same degradation through an analogue duplication workflow as 35mm.

According to this member of the Film Tech forum 70mm blow ups from the 1980's are not as good as 35mm prints made within the last 10 years(even if these same 70mm blow ups were better than their 1980's 35mm equivalents)

Brad Miller(film projectionist)

Still though I have to point out that since most 70mm prints were actually blowups, and of those we're talking mostly 80s, that is the basis of my post. With that being said, lets take a blowup from the 80s. Comparing that to a 35mm print of the same title (from the same printing), the 70mm blows it away. Its not even funny how much better the 70mm is. (If Joe was comparing it, he would probably use an analogy of a high bitrate blu-ray vs. a 3 generation "EP" VHS dub.)

BUT...compare that 70mm print from the 80s against a general release print made at a Technicolor lab (not the crappy Deluxe high speed prints from Canada) over the last 10 years and suddenly the 70mm print isn't so special due to technology advances in printing and filmstocks. I've seen regular release prints over the last decade that are superior visually to the 70mm blowups from the 80s. I can make that statement fairly because I have the capability of side-by-side comparisons today, whereas most of the people on the internet do that comparison based from their memory 20+ years ago, which is not fair nor accurate at all.

We also have to consider what happens when we take an 80s 70mm print and compare it to a recent 35mm re-print of the same title. Its sad but true, the 35mm reprint made within the last several years HAS A SHARPER IMAGE than the 70mm original print! This is no joke. Welcome to reality.

http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f16/t000659.html

danny_boy said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

danny_boy said:

The highest resolution that the assessors could still discern in the sharpest part of the screen(not neccassirily it's center) in the most performing movie theater was about 875 Lines/PH

 

I could see that, for the "most performing movie theater".  I'm not interested in the quality of the "most performing movie theater".  That's irrelevant for high quality film restoration.  A proper restoration would try to achieve the quality of the highest quality projection, such as in a high end 70mm theater with a brand new print.  Do your studies indicate the resolution of high quality 70mm projections of brand new prints?

 

And 70mm contact printing will suffer the same degradation through an analogue duplication workflow as 35mm.

Point taken, although I still question the "most performing theater" source.  I saw SW in three theaters in 1977, with quality ranging from stunning to grungy.  And wouldn't I want to get a source from the "least performing" theater?  It would seem that a print from there would be less worn out.

AntcuFaalb said:

I'm probably speaking only for myself when I say that I don't like movies to look too realistic.

I prefer the appearance of a pristine (I hate dirt and scratches) 16mm print. The hazy glow, the softness, and the grain structure all help to provide an aesthetic I find pleasing.

Puggo GRANDE is too dirty for me (sorry Puggo!) to enjoy, but this sample frame from it demonstrates how I'd prefer to watch most movies.

Note: This isn't AR-corrected. Also, I uploaded it to imageshack.us so as to not kill Puggo's bandwidth.

Also, do realize that this isn't because of nostalgia. I'm 25, so I definitely wasn't around during the heyday of 16mm.

Interesting!

In 1999---as they were prepping the digital projection for the Phantom Menace---the technicians had to soften the image not only in order to make it more "film-like" but also  to make it easier for the audience to suspend their belief.

Here is the account of David Schnuell of THX(who was responsible for producing the 1993 Star Wars definitive collection Transfers to laserdisc)

Some years ago, Doug Trumbull decided not to shoot fiction in the very realistic-looking Showscan format. Does being in the room with the actor make it more believable, or does film grain and the 24-frame temporal sampling of film allow us to fill in the fine details in our mind? In other words, is it easier for us to believe what we see on the screen if we manufacture part of it in our minds?

http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/esearch/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000692250

During the 90s I got Star Wars Insider and read all kinds of SW books. For a high school art class I made a clay 2-D representation of Zorba the Hutt. I saw it as silly fun extensions of Star Wars, harmless fun apart from the films.

I wasn't crazy about the Special Editions but it was exciting they were in theaters and I thought most of the ESB changes were good and fun. I was excited for Episode 1 and took the day off from school with two classmates (my only absence of the year and we were all three scolded by our english teacher for it). I think that was the real trigger for me - Episode 1, not my english teacher. I lost my appetite quite a bit as the reality of what made up the new Star Wars sunk in. I wanted the old Star Wars back...

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

danny_boy said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

danny_boy said:

The highest resolution that the assessors could still discern in the sharpest part of the screen(not neccassirily it's center) in the most performing movie theater was about 875 Lines/PH

 

I could see that, for the "most performing movie theater".  I'm not interested in the quality of the "most performing movie theater".  That's irrelevant for high quality film restoration.  A proper restoration would try to achieve the quality of the highest quality projection, such as in a high end 70mm theater with a brand new print.  Do your studies indicate the resolution of high quality 70mm projections of brand new prints?

 

And 70mm contact printing will suffer the same degradation through an analogue duplication workflow as 35mm.

Point taken, although I still question the "most performing theater" source.  I saw SW in three theaters in 1977, with quality ranging from stunning to grungy.  And wouldn't I want to get a source from the "least performing" theater?  It would seem that a print from there would be less worn out.

I envy you for having been there at the beginning!

Were those all 35mm presentations that you saw ---or was the stunning one a 70mm projection?

I  first saw SW in 81'(back to back with ESB) and again in 83' (as part of a triple bill with ESB and ROTJ)---now I would be lying if I said I could remember what the quality of the picture was like on either occasion -----other than the image was  huge and spectacular!

Until we can get a roll out of an original 35mm,70mm and digital print---run them side by side and compare them all together---all we can do in the meantime is speculate.

danny_boy said:

I envy you for having been there at the beginning!

Were those all 35mm presentations that you saw ---or was the stunning one a 70mm projection?

In June I saw 35mm/mono three times in a relatively small theater in Utah.  My memory was the movie being fantastic and the image being marvelous.

In July I saw 70mm in a large theater in California.  My memory was that the image was better, but that could have been excitement, or just a better projector.

Late in the year I saw it again - I'm not sure the format, and I don't remember any particular thought of whether it was better or worse. I believe it was probably 35mm and stereo mix.

In 1985 I saw a marathon of all three films in a small late night theater.  The image quality was atrocious and I was sad to see the film(s) in such a damaged state.

I do have two memories that don't jive with historical record - like being quite certain that in Utah I saw the Biggs hangar scene all three times, and NOT seeing Vader survive and fly off.  Before everyone assumes I'm crazy, I would also like to point out that I also remembered "close the blast doors" despite wondering where it went in every subsequent viewing.  It wasn't until joining this group that I learned that my memory was actually correct in that case, despite the lack of any intervening confirmation.  Regarding the Biggs scene, upon seeing it in the SE, my mind was able to fill-in the removed chunk of dialog from memory.  And no, I didn't see it in the documentary because I only saw that for the first time very recently.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it!!! :)

I read both for the first time about 2 years ago.

I say we shouldn't be so quick to write off people who claim to have seen different versions of the movies.  Knowing now how much George Lucas tinkers with things even after the release (this happened with Episode 1 and 2, too- did you know there wound up being 3 different versions of Episode 1 before it ever even hit VHS?), I wouldn't be surprised if one version was playing in Utah, a different version was playing in Michigan, etc. etc. 

I have heard so many people come forward having seen the Biggs scene earlier in '77 that I think we ought to take a closer look at it.

Baronlando said:

Interesting, since the Biggs scene was put back in 97, the people from the 97 SE would be able to shed light, some of them must be on twitter (hey stranger things have happened, like hearing from Harry Shearer 30 years after the fact). The negative for that scene would have been in a completely different place if it had been in the movie and lifted out vs. if it had never been in at all. (On a small roll of its own with the trims in one place etc.  or still on the big rolls of unused raw negative). 

This is the first good idea in settling this debate that I've heard.

I also think I saw the missed grappling hook... but I have always been willing to accept that I am mistaken about that one.  My justification there, is that in every other movie where someone attempts to lasso something, they miss the first time.  So it makes sense that our minds could fill it in, and then remember it that way.

The brief shot of Vader's ship spinning and then flying away made me go "whoa" when I first saw it on the VHS.  Even after seeing SW three times in Utah, I assumed he had been killed.  It shocked me to later see him clearly survive.

Between Biggs, hook, and Vader, I believe if one of those three scenes is ever shown to have made it into a theater in 1977, to me it would be strong evidence of all three.  Until then, I have to agree that it is pretty hard to accept with nothing having materialized in all these years.

I'm pretty sure that Vader flying off at the end wasn't there when i first saw the film too. I can also remember that my Dad bought me a Darth Vadar Lives badge right after we saw it in Birmingham. I was surprised to see him flying off a week later when we went to see it at a different cinema. But that was the only difference (apart from the fact that the second showing was the mono mix so i noticed the extra/ different lines ). there wasn't the Biggs scene or the missing grappling hook. For the first showing i took my portable tape recorder and use to listen to the film every night so knew the film off by heart by the time i saw it the second time.

canofhumdingers said:

Is there actual footage of Luke missing the first time with the grappling hook? In one of the vintage docs or something? While I don't recall ever seeing it in the film itself, I could SWEAR I've seen a clip of him missing and gathering the cord back up to try again... And I mean an actual film clip, not just a picture or anything.

Perhaps you've seen Harmy's joking mockup.

Just remember, if you listen to the music, as Williams and the LSO recorded it, there's no room in the scene for a miss. That means, if such a moment was ever even filmed, it never made it to any cut that had music.