logo Sign In

Karyudo

User Group
Members
Join date
23-Oct-2004
Last activity
12-Jan-2025
Posts
805

Post History

Post
#226336
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/226336/action/topic#226336
Time
Originally posted by: zombie84
[M]ost still prefer 16mm over HD--the resolution is almost the same (16mm actually has a bit more)


Hope boris doesn't see this! You might have to try to convince him that no, DVD isn't better than 16 mm film...

I appreciate your arguments and your expertise. Like someone said about two pages back, this has been one of the more fun and interesting threads around here in a while!

I guess we're already seeing a move to higher-resolution cameras and workflows -- 'Superman Returns' used a camera with a 12.4 megapixel, native 16:9 sensor that's the same width as 35 mm film. It hasn't been that many years since George used Cinealtas at just 1920 x 1080, so things are already improving.

In fact, I suspect your estimate on timing is probably slow. I can imagine (although I'm not exactly in a position to predict) that once a few more pictures are done on HD and the idea of HD sort of reaches its "tipping point" (thanks, Malcolm Gladwell), then motion pictures will go the way still cameras have gone in recent years. Could anyone have predicted in 1996 that just 10 years later, digital would be king in the consumer camera market? I bought my first digital camera in 1997, and my friends and family thought digital photography was certainly intriguing, but not ever going to be worth their own hard-earned cash...

Post
#226308
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/226308/action/topic#226308
Time
Originally posted by: zombie84
HD is currently recorded onto tape. In the case of Star Wars II and III it was shot on HDCAM tape, so after the tape is done it duplicated and then the original is put into an HDCAM deck and captured to the computer. Then after the edit is done, it is printed back onto film, an IP which the release prints are then duplicated from. And this is starting from 1K resolution. So there is your generational loss.


Where? I see camera to digital tape (no loss); digital tape to computer (no loss); computer editing (no loss); digital projection. That's how I saw Ep II, for example. The only generational losses you have indicated are film based. Without introducing crappy old film back into the equation (like Lucas wants to avoid, for example), it's lossless until it's projected.
Post
#226253
Topic
ORIGINAL STAR WARS TRILOGY OUT 09/2006 BY LUCASFILM
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/226253/action/topic#226253
Time
Yes... but that doesn't preclude there being separate master tapes in NTSC and PAL. The side break issue is obvious -- even different PAL LDs from the same master have different side breaks. But different framing in the middle of sides? Different film flaws? Different video flaws? Different frame counts at reel changes? That does not sound consistent with starting from the same master to me.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think you can know to the degree you assume. My empirical evidence suggests PAL and NTSC LDs do not come from the same masters.
Post
#226243
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/226243/action/topic#226243
Time
Originally posted by: zombie84
Presumably, one of the reasons Lucas shot digital was to reduce the generational losses inherent in working with film. If you're comparing fine-grain camera negative, I agree that there's no scientific basis for arguing against the fact that film has more resolution than HD. (HD at 1080p, anyway). But by the time the results are up on the screen? Well, then, I think it's far less of a slam dunk for good ol' film.


Of course there is generational loss--there is generational loss in HD as well. But because film starts off with such a high-resolution that even by the time it gets down to the release print it still holds a tremendous amount of detail, many times more than HD, which also gets degraded as its put into a computer and printed back out to film.


I think that's crap. I think there are two points there that you're pulling out of your ass, and that you have not proven:

1. "There is generational loss in HD" -- I'd like to see proof (or at least a rationale) for this. HD is digital, and the workflow is typically of significant precision that I don't see how there's a generational loss anywhere.

2. "[A release print] still holds a tremendous amount of detail, many times more than HD" -- I would allow that a release print might have "somewhat" more detail than HD, but "many times more"? I think that's your fanciful imagination. Release print stock might have the capacity for holding much better resolution, but by the time the processed image is on there? I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that so much more detail from the camera neg has ended up on a film release print than if you'd gone HD.
Post
#226167
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/226167/action/topic#226167
Time
Originally posted by: vbangle
But as to what beats what in resolution, there is zero argument.


I don't agree (predictably). There is, for example, a big difference in pciture resolution between camera negative and release print. Presumably, one of the reasons Lucas shot digital was to reduce the generational losses inherent in working with film. If you're comparing fine-grain camera negative, I agree that there's no scientific basis for arguing against the fact that film has more resolution than HD. (HD at 1080p, anyway). But by the time the results are up on the screen? Well, then, I think it's far less of a slam dunk for good ol' film.

From what I've read, the difference between even a director's workprint and a regular, garden variety release print is already quite noticeable; how much more difference, then, between camera neg and release print?

If you consider the total workflow (which is a required part of filmmaking, unless you're going to project camera negative or positive), and how much room there is in the process for degrading the image quality, I think it's far less clear cut that film has more resolution than HD. Which might go at least part of the way to explaining why Cameron would equate HD results with those from 65 mm. In order to get the same results on screen, maybe he's figuring he'd have to start with 65 mm to compensate for all the lossy (analogue) processing needed with film?

Post
#225993
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225993/action/topic#225993
Time
Originally posted by: RIJIR
I shot some Super 8 film a few years ago in this very old cemetary. It has a look to it that digital will never give you.


You agreed that your own statement is false when you agreed with zombie84, who wrote that it might be "20-30 years" before digital matches film.

If you had said, "It has a look that digital doesn't yet give you," I'd agree with you. But you didn't. You said "never." Well, my friend, "never" is a very long time.

You may think I'm a pedantic asshole, and you're right: I am. But I'm not an incorrect pedantic asshole. This pedantic asshole dislikes statements that include words like "never," when describing the unknowable (in this case, you, as a Super8 filmmaker, are really in no position to be able to say whether digital will ever match Super8 -- especially when people more in the know than you are indicate it already has).

Statements like yours belong to the "film is great" camp, just like I said.

Don't get me wrong: I read American Cinematographer and Cinefex. I like the art and science of filmmaking (even though I don't do it myself). I understand more than your average bear about dynamic range and resolution, etc., with respect to film and video. I don't disagree that film has a lot going for it, and that people who figure who HD is already perfect for replacing film completely are nuts. But I also think lunatics like Spielberg who say they will never use HD are being very short-sighted.


Post
#225917
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225917/action/topic#225917
Time
That is the sort of sentiment from the "film is great" folks that is just as offensive as the "HD is better than film" line from the "HD rulez" people.

Truth is, it is almost certainly possible to replicate the look of your Super8 with digital video of some sort. Maybe not straight outta the camera, but with post-processing it's not such a big trick to match the look and feel of film -- especially Super8. Just add in a bunch of grain, lots of dust, and the occasional hair, and you've pretty much got it!

Thinking of either film or HD as "the best" and the other not worth bothering with is sort of like arguing whether a convertible or a pickup is a better vehicle: it really depends on what you're wanting to do with it.
Post
#225401
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225401/action/topic#225401
Time
Actually, I think boris is right. Resolution is not the end-all and be-all of a good transfer. Unless you start with a good print and use good equipment and take some particular care in the post-processing, it is entirely possible to have a wonderful, glorious, 1080p capture of crap.

I have seen raw 2k captures of contemporary 35mm first-generation film that look pretty lame. Anyone who thinks it's as easy as finding film, sticking it in the scanner, pressing a button and hey, presto! you've got yourself a masterpiece, is sadly, hopelessly, irretrievably naive.

That said, I think good results could be had, with enough time and effort. And a little luck.
Post
#225281
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225281/action/topic#225281
Time
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Karyudo
I've been at least as guilty as boris on derailing this thread, for which I apologize. The discussion did start from discussing the legality of scanning film, though. It wasn't really a deliberate non sequitur; it just ended up in a place that wasn't exactly on-topic.
Yeah I'm sorry too - but before they blame me again - always remember it takes two to make an argument, not one.


I'm not even sure there was an argument going on -- was there? I'd say it was a discussion. Of things that started out as relevant, and which slowly veered a bit off-topic. No big deal. Happens all the time. That's what the Internet's for, innit?
Post
#225071
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225071/action/topic#225071
Time
Originally posted by: boris


We live in a capitalistic world Karyudo


That's good to hear! So there will no longer be any artificially-created monopolies legislated into existence? Now anybody can take a commercial product, make it better, and sell it? That's "market forces;" that's capitalism.

Copyright is a wholly artificial construct that actually works against free-market capitalism -- originally for the common good. It originally struck a fair deal for content producers: they would get a limited, legislated monopoly period in which to make their money, in exchange for releasing their work publically and letting it enter the public domain at some point. Whereupon it could be "ripped, mixed, and burned" into whatever the next round of content producers felt like using it for, regardless of how the original creator felt.

Now, huge, multi-billion-dollar corporations use copyright to quash any and all innovation by anyone other than people they deign to "approve".

And that is bullsh!t.

You can see just how ludicrous it is to let original creators control works indefinitely and arbitrarily (like Lucas controls Star Wars) if you consider the other big branch of intellectual property: patents. How insane would it be if designers and engineers had to bend to the whims of the inventor of something like the laser? Someone proposes using a laser to play optical discs, but the inventor of the laser says no, so that's it. Or, the CD player's invented, sold for a few years, and then the laser inventor declares that he's decided that nobody can use his invention anymore, so all CD players are now illegal. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

If Star Wars were covered by a patent, it would have run out by about 1994, entered the public domain, and George Lucas would have had to either come up with newer, better ways of marketing the same exact copies of Star Wars that everyone else could produce (possibly for cheaper), or he'd have had to go back to the drawing board and make up something newly-patentable that people wanted.
Post
#224936
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224936/action/topic#224936
Time
Originally posted by: boris
They don't OWN the movie - they own a copy for private use only.

Of course they just own a copy. And that copy can be shown publically, if one obtains the proper license.

And what if someone doesn't want their movie shown on TV? Then that's their right to do so.

We're not talking about TV broadcast; we're talking about public performance. There are clearinghouses for obtaining public performance licenses (at least in Canada there are), and I'm not sure they can discriminate as to what commercially-available titles you can and cannot show publicly once you hold a license. Which is exactly how it should be.




Post
#224935
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224935/action/topic#224935
Time
Originally posted by: boris
[DMCA-style copyright legislation] is not anti-consumer, it protects the copyright holder.


When the copyright legislation allows consumers to make personal backups as part of fair use / fair dealing, and DRM/DMCA prevents the consumer from making that backup, then that is anti-consumer.

backing up DVD's certainly isn't [legal in Canada] - unless you have intangible legal proof?


I do have "intangible legal proof": Bill C-60, which was first read in Parliament in June, 2005, but has not yet been passed, contains language that might make it illegal to circumvent DRM. Ergo, it is not currently illegal to do so.

Post
#224859
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224859/action/topic#224859
Time
Originally posted by: boris
In Canada? I know that "backing up" a commercial DVD is illegal in Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, here, and just about anywhere that respects copyright - I really don't think backing up film would be legal either.

Canada does not have DMCA-style copyright legislation (as it shouldn't), so I don't think you can automatically lump Canada in with those other anti-consumer copyright regimes. I have never read that making a backup of a DVD you own is illegal in Canada. I'm quite sure, in fact, that the 'fair dealing provision' still allows it.

Also I agree with Lucasfilm's right to decline to allow anyone to show Star Wars publicly - I don't agree with the reasons - however it's illegal to show it publicly without their permission, so they can say no if they like. And that makes sense.


I disagree. For music, there is no way an artist can say, "I recorded that song in 1977, and released a new live version in 1997, so you may not ever play the 1977 version again." I'm quite sure there is statutory licensing that prevents that sort of nonsense. A similar thing happens (at least in Canada) for showing films in public: you get a license from a clearinghouse to be able to show x number of films over the duration of a year, and then you can show your own copy or rent a copy from the clearinghouse of the film you want to show.

'Star Wars' is not the frickin' Mona Lisa; there isn't just one copy, owned by Lucas, sitting in a vault someplace. It is a commercial work, from which George Lucas has made more money than God. I would agree that he has the exclusive right (under the monopoly that is copyright) to never sell copies of the 1977 film anymore, but I don't believe copyright alone should be enough to prevent public exhibition of something you own, as long as all the statutory licensing fees are paid.
Post
#224564
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224564/action/topic#224564
Time
Originally posted by: zombie84
Owning a 35mm print is legal.
I suspect it might be about as legal to own a copy of Star Wars on 35mm film as it is to own a copy of the timecoded workprint of RotS (as most of us probably do).

Scanning a private print is legal.
You scanning your own private print might be legal (might not be, too), but getting anyone else to scan it for you is definitely not.

Just as owning a laserdisk is legal and digitizing a laserdisk is legal. There is nothing at all unique about this situation at all other than it is on a different format. VHS, laserdisk, DVD...35mm film.


Not true. VHS, laserdisc, DVD -- all made available for sale to the public. 35mm film -- never available for sale.

I agree that if you happened to have a legal print of some film and wanted to scan it yourself, I'm pretty sure most copyright regimes would allow you to do so under fair use/fair dealing provisions. However, I'm not at all convinced the same holds true for copyrighted material you've... obtained... and want to have someone else scan for you.
Post
#224500
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224500/action/topic#224500
Time
Originally posted by: zombie84
They certainly would. If you own a 35mm print of Star Wars it is well within your right to scan it digitally, just as it is to digitally capture a Laserdisk.


You've got to quote something, so that we know who you mean by "they," and what they "certainly would" do. Because if you are talking about places with a film scanner scanning your 35mm print, then no, they certainly will not.

If you owned a 35mm print of Star Wars, it's not at all clear you'd have the right to scan it digitally -- it's not even clear you really have the right to own a 35mm print of Star Wars.

Now, if you were to buy your own digital telecine, I guess you could pretty much do whatever you like. If you could find the half mil required to buy one, and knew enough about how to use it to get good results, then I could find you some film.

I'll continue to check out all film scanning threads as they're started, but I haven't seen much of anything novel or feasible in any of the many posted here so far.


Post
#224289
Topic
Help Wanted: Star Wars films with audio description. Can anyone help out??
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224289/action/topic#224289
Time
Originally posted by: mallanikkelsen
I would not be able to do this my self, as I'd not know how to synch it to the video correctly.


This sounds like a bit of understatement... I think there are an awful lot of people here who wouldn't know how to do this.

If or when the descriptive audio is captured, the video should be captured at the same time. It's much easier to sort out where the audio should go when there's video to work from.

I'm sorta interested to hear this track myself, so I do hope the audio is captured and added to some project. Good luck!

Post
#223996
Topic
.: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/223996/action/topic#223996
Time
Originally posted by: Gorram
As for lining up your own code with the X0 code, it just means you insert the right amount of frames at the start of your own project doesn't it?


Pretty much. But be careful: PAL versions are missing frames at most film reel changes (where you see those yellowy glue-like lines in the DC and Faces) and there is potential for frame losses at LD side changes.

I anticipate having to do quite a number of spot checks throughout the film to make sure everything lines up -- even if by some fluke I check the beginning and end and they match. It's always possible to be out in the middle, and have self-cancelling errors (too many frames on one part; too few on the next) make the overall count the same.

Post
#223994
Topic
.: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/223994/action/topic#223994
Time
I work in both PAL and NTSC. When I use PAL, I use AssumeFPS(24) in AviSynth. When I use NTSC, I IVTC, then use AssumeFPS(24). Now all of my (picture) sources line up!

You can do the same thing with X0 footage: AssumeFPS(23.976) or AssumeFPS(25) will make it line up with your existing IVTC'ed NTSC source, or your PAL source.

The point (for me, anyway) is to get all the frames labelled with a unique, 24 fps timecode number. Once that's the same as the X0 Project, then laying in new audio at either 23.976 or 25 fps shouldn't be tough.