Sign In

MonkeyLizard10

User Group
Members
Join date
16-Sep-2019
Last activity
17-Oct-2019
Posts
57

Post History

Post
#1297764
Topic
The Little Mermaid (1989) - 35 mm (fully funded)
Time

RU.08 said:

MonkeyLizard10 said:

In 1997 Disney scanned in the original 1989 final production negative used as the basis to print the theatrical release from and then touched it all up in computers and then put it back to film. So I’m not sure we can really take a 1998 print as giving us the true original 1989 look

Where did you get that information? Also are you sure that the film-out negative was used for foreign prints and not just domestic?

I have U.S. info, but it would seem very odd for Disney to produce prints from a totally different source for the foreign releases (even more if they only did that for certain reels and not others).

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48772787937_48dacc6e2e_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48772249018_95c5c7d057_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48772788557_d5c4694456_o.jpg

assuming you can trust that, it would seem that one can’t necessarily rely on any 1997/1998 prints to get the 1989 original release (maybe they were super careful and managed to change zero colors and only did a few tiny bits of re-paint, in which case it would more or less work, but there is no way to be sure that colors/density/saturation etc. didn’t get shifted around or more)

I think we forget that film could provide pretty rich colors, even in 1989. We are just so used to how faded out old prints become over time (other than for a few ones printed out on certain long lasting stock, which most were not).

Yes film has more density than is possible with 8-bit Rec 709. The scan done was a “single flash” SDR (standard dynamic range) scan so doesn’t provide all density that’s in the film.

Well REC709 is not any particular bit level, it’s just a black point, white point and color primaries. You can view it on an 8 bit, 10bit, 12 bit monitor, whatever. And even SDR/HDR is different than the bit depth since you can easily find 10bit and 12 bit SDR monitors as well as 8 bit ones. HDR usually does use more than 8bits though otherwise you get banded issues, but it could use less.

And SDR and HDR are separate things from color gamut. sRGB/REC709 has more muted primaries and can’t show intense saturation of that larger gamuts can and saturation allowed for very bright, closer to white stuff is lower too.

I was referring more to color gamut than dynamic range, some of the reds and turquoise and such I see in my 35mm bits I have a feeling would clip past REC709 primaries.

Anyway, what I have, has absolutely BRILLIANT colors and eye popping saturation.

Again you need to see it projected - but sure it wouldn’t surprise me if the colour is beyond Rec709.

FWIW if we can get our hands on an English print we can arrange to scan it in HDR. 😉 There’ll be a substantial cost involved of course, but the film is definitely worthy of it.

finding a 1989 original print would be cool (so long as not faded out, filthy beyond repair)

Post
#1297758
Topic
The Little Mermaid (1989) - 35 mm (fully funded)
Time

Dr. Cooper said:

Long story short: It’s hard to compare trailers to how the actual film looks. I’ve seen trailers of “The Little Mermaid” projected and they looked totally different to the actual film. The 1990-trailer looked very greyish and the 1998-trailer also had a low saturation, so Ariel’s hair looked even pink in some parts. But both look nothing like full prints from either release.

hmm my stuff with the 1990 film manufacture date doesn’t look grayish to me at all, look very neutral and brilliant

I also have some bits from 1997/1998 (either full release or trailer, probably trailer, but no idea really, all I know is it has digital audio formats on it so it has to be something to do with the 1997/1998 releases) and the few bits I have of this look dingier, often less saturated than my 1990 dated film stock bits. Looks getting a touch closer to your project based off the German 1998 release, although still more saturation overall (if not universally). In the frames I have from 1997/1998 her hair never looks pink although in some cases it starts looking maybe a bit redder and less red/brown than the 1990, although in others it still looks pretty brownred. Doesn’t seem as pleasing as my 1990 bits.

The problem that came with this 1998-print was that reels 1 and 5 seem to be made from a new master, because credits had to be changed while they just used the 1990-negatives for reels 2-4. Those look less detailed and also less saturated compared to the fist and last reel.

I could swear the press kit for the 1997 re-release implied that they digitized every single frame and then fed out things from computer after processing to produce the re-release. Let me check.

More saturation definitely wouldn’t have done any favor to the scan. I admit it has some weaknesses when it comes to red-tones (especially Ariel’s hair), but boosting the saturation wouldn’t have helped here. More saturation would’ve made the skin-tones look like sunburned. Hopefully that problem will be gone in future scans like “The Lion King” due to the scanner’s new light-source.

what sort of light-source did the TLM scanner use? did they send and already calibrated file back matched to scanner’s properties and film stock? some raw file in some wide gamut? a processed file in sRGB?

Here are screenshots of the scenes that I photographed for the first post and how they look on the release-version:

thanks

i still can’t help but feel they look a bit like old film/film displayed 1000000x times/film duped a few times/etc. and not nearly as rich as 35mm film can look when new, fresh, not shown much, processed to get the full richness film is capable of; i’ve certainly seen 35mm projected (other titles) looking vastly more brilliant and richer than that

maybe it’s not representative, but my 1990 stuff just looks way more brilliant (and yet without her skin going sunburned or anything else weird, some stuff like her shells and her dad’s skin sometimes comes out less dark and saturated than say the 2019 home release and yet other stuff even more brilliant) and to me it has a pretty realistic look to what good film looks like and it looks like it should be a believable look for the original film and seems not as grayed or dingy as they 1997/1998 film bits, not that I have enough of the latter yet to be totally sure, but the latter does seem to be potentially a bit dingier and more subdued looking, not as fresh.

I’ll dig out my Nikon 2000 and try to scan a few frames of these. Hopefully I won’t run into calibration issues or can find a way to adjust it reasonably close to what it looks like and post. May take a few weeks.

Post
#1297748
Topic
Star Wars Prequels 35mm 4K Filmized Editions by Emanswfan
Time

ChainsawAsh said:

MonkeyLizard10 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Well, the AOTC Blu-ray colors are all fucked up and there’s a ton of DNR and other processing done to it. That’s why 95% of all fan edits and other fan projects for AOTC are done using the high-bitrate HDTV caps, which have the right color and, even after some processing to reduce compression artifacts, more detail than the Blu-ray.

I’d be more surprised if your scans resembled the Blu-ray at all.

interesting and kind of ridiculous as no way HDTV should be able to beat blu

so does the HDTV stuff look like my scans in terms of color and luminance curve?

Yep, absolutely.

It’s funny, being a member of this forum so long I kind of take it for granted that people are aware of how God awful the BD of AOTC is and how much better the HDTV broadcast was. Schorman made excellent preservations of all the pre-BD HDTV broadcasts for the first 6 films, and he’s coming out with updated versions of these releases very soon. I’d urge you to check out his work.

The BD of TPM is similarly God awful (DNR’d to hell and iffy colors), but the HDTV for TPM isn’t as clearly superior since it’s plagued by pretty rough sharpening/edge enhancement from a subpar 35mm scan and different color issues than the BD. Also burned-in generic-looking subtitles instead of the theatrical subtitles the AOTC HDTV had.

Thankfully, other than some a couple very minor alterations, ROTS’s Blu-Ray is pretty excellent, with accurate colors and no DNR, so unless you really want to restore the pre-BD Wookiee hut rooftops on Kashyyyk, the HDTV of that one is kind of redundant.

now that I think about it I have vague memories, I think, of thinking things looking sort of washed out when blu-rays came out for AOTC and parts of TPM (and rather smooth for TPM), compared to what I had recalled at the theaters. I know there is one scene in TPM with Amidala in Palp’s office, which had storng contrast and cool colors in some release and then looked very muted in other releases. Can’t recall at this point which releases I was referring to. Maybe theatrical vs. all home or maybe it was even say 35mm theatrical vs all others or digital theatrical vs all others.

It’s pretty bizarre how often studios muddle home releases. I mean, what, they sent some poor versions to theaters that needed to be fixed up later? That makes no sense. So if the ultimate theatrical presentation doesn’t need lots of DNR and so on, why on Earth do home releases suddenly ‘need’ DNR, new colors and other crap?

Ironically, I sometimes find bargain basement titles, so long as not too, too low ont he pecking order, end up with the best home releases, just big enough to get top quality scans, but not big enough titles that the studios bother spending money ‘fixing’ them and paying for photoshop monkeys to fiddle with things.

Post
#1297650
Topic
Star Wars Prequels 35mm 4K Filmized Editions by Emanswfan
Time

when the supposed Disney Insider supposedly working on a new 4k Star Wars UHD said that they were redoing some CGI to 4k for AOTC/ROTS but that the 2k shooting meant the live action could not be made to look any better than on the current blu… that would seem to be false, even just from my scans I can see that all of AOTC could have been done better on the blu even with CGI as is

Post
#1297649
Topic
Star Wars Prequels 35mm 4K Filmized Editions by Emanswfan
Time

ChainsawAsh said:

Well, the AOTC Blu-ray colors are all fucked up and there’s a ton of DNR and other processing done to it. That’s why 95% of all fan edits and other fan projects for AOTC are done using the high-bitrate HDTV caps, which have the right color and, even after some processing to reduce compression artifacts, more detail than the Blu-ray.

I’d be more surprised if your scans resembled the Blu-ray at all.

interesting and kind of ridiculous as no way HDTV should be able to beat blu

so does the HDTV stuff look like my scans in terms of color and luminance curve?

the more I compare to my scans the more I can see they did various bits of DNR and digital noise smoothing and even hidden sharpening and so on with the filtering hitting areas of low contrast more

Post
#1297646
Topic
The Phantom Menace - Theatrical version scanned in 4K
Time

Slavicuss said:

MonkeyLizard10 said:

cool project

I saw this in 35mm as well as on two different digital projectors back in '99, including what might have been the first commercial digital projection of any film in the world.

Contrary to all the net rage, theaters were packed and people generally seemed pretty happy and were NOT all laughing, raging, etc. decent bit of clapping at the end at many showings.

And for AOTC, people were racing out of the earlier showings, smiling, giving thumbs up to people still on line, saying it was awesome, audiences erupted into cheers at the end. Again, contrary to all the hate you hear coming form the net crowd.

Probably still high from the movie they just saw. After a few days of reflection (and repeat viewings) the cracks start to appear, not long after, they’re ripping the film’s a new a-hole (deservedly so).

nah, more just like the sort of sneering hipster crowd took over forums and spread hate and then it became cool to hate everything

crowds were still boisterous and cheering weeks into the release

hate for ATOC didn’t happen big time for some years and all the net rage

when they came out ROTS got uber love, AOTC tons, TPM pretty decent love (but many did have quibbles with some of the baby talk given to some characters and some of the fart joke stuff and jar-jar reaction was mixed, some loved, some hated, some middle of the road; and there was the odd hater you’d meet in real life, especially among the age who had high school in the mid to late 90s and were all into being grungy/gangster rap bad ass posing and wanted Matrix, older and younger seemed to have less of the ones who hated it at the start)

after the internet distortion raging forum stuff happened now people say AOTC was always the least liked and TPM was far more liked (not remotely true) and that even ROTS was never all that well liked (note remotely true)

Post
#1297643
Topic
Recommended Editions of Disney Animated (and Partially Animated) Features
Time

I have some bits of 35mm from The Little Mermaid with film code dated 1990. So maybe a trailer (or also bits of actual release as well?) from the UK? Anyway, it should be before the scanned and loaded it into computers to fix up for the 1997 re-release (unless they really used almost decade old film stock, which seems not too likely, unless they did that for trailers at times).

The colors seem pretty intense! The print also gets pretty dark for dark regions.
I have no xenon bulb now so all I could do was try to view with a daylight incandescent bulb (maybe around 6000k?) on a slide sorter tray, not sure that gives a perfect impression, but whatever for now, based on that:

colors don’t match anything on:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/0eb1209t913t4mx/The_Little_Mermaid.htm/file
or
http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/walt-disney-characters/forum/post/228686/title/walt-disney-comparisons-little-mermaid-walt-disney-classics-vhs-vs-laserdisc-vs-limited-issue-dvd-vs-platinum-edition-dvd-vs-diamond-edition-blu-ray-vs-signature-collection-blu-ray

however, they actually seem closer overall to the last three (2006 DVD, 2013 blu, 2019 blu) on the fanpop site above than to the first three (VHS, 1990 laser, 1999 limited DVD)

they like sort of like a mix of various bits of 2006 DVD, 2013 blu, 2019 blu and stuff simply not seen on anything on the sites above

Granted, it’s hard to yet really compare, since it’s hard to stare at calibrated HDTV and lit film at the same time (and it may not really have been lit quit the right way either), but for what I could do with that for now, my feeling is that:

NONE of the home versions look accurate to the 1989/1990 look (or to what I hope truly is the 1989/1990 look) theatrical release!

Granted, I don’t know how those VHS and laserdisc frames were captured, the capture process itself could potentially distort things itself, but as shown there, neither than VHS NOR Laserdisc look to have particularly accurate look compared to the actual film itself. And there is perhaps a reason NTSC was called Never The Same Color Twice (then again, I think that said those were from a Danish release, which probably means PAL, but whatever the colors still seem nothing like the film at all).

It’s also tricky since the colors do change from scene to scene as they lit it differently and I don’t necessarily have the scenes to match the ones on the websites above, but I do have a couple that are the same and a few close.

Anyway, the bottom frames, the newest blu-ray 2019, actually do seem in some ways actually maybe heading towards the most accurate overall, but not entirely. Sort of like some mix of the bottom three frames (2006 Platinum DVD, 2013 Diamond blu-ray , 2019 Signature blu-ray) plus that stuff that simply looks like none of them would be most accurate.

That 2013 release actually seems to more often get her sea shells closer to the correct color I think, the 2019 often makes them a bit too dark and a bit too saturated, although in a few scenes, the 2019 is more accurate. Sometimes the 2019 maybe makes her skin a touch too saturated and a trace heading towards a wrong shade. OTOH, the 2019 generally seems to make her tail more vibrant and rich than most of the other versions, which is more accurate, if sometimes STILL not intense and vibrant enough (these 35mm bits REALLY pop with the color saturation)! The 2013 sometimes makes her tail not vibrant enough or certain greenish elements a trace too blue perhaps. The 2006 makes her tail vibrant too fairly often, but sometimes, maybe fairly often, gets maybe a bit too greenish.

None of them seem to get Flounder as deeply saturated as he seems to be in the film at times and many skew too pure yellowish (too much towards a lighter, bluer yellow).

In some scenes, Sebastian’s red is absolutely glowing in the film, none of the home release clips shown on that website come close to matching the brilliance and saturation of his red in some of the scenes as seen on film.

It may well be that some of the colors in this film are also simply beyond not just NTSC/PAL colors but beyond sRGB/REC709 color gamut. I’ll have to compare to the wide gamut UHD and see if that brings some of them to the film’s intensity.

In the jellyfish scene shown on the website (http://images6.fanpop.com/image/forum/228000/228686_1567725027549_full.png), none of them make that scene look correct.
The 2013 blu-ray has the background above her head too blue-skewed and her tail is not nearly vibrant enough and a touch too blue-skewed. Only the 2019 blu even begins to get her tail vibrant enough, but still falls short of the film. None of them come even wildly close to how popping beyond popping intense red Sebastian is in the film there. On the film the jellyfish looks vaguely like the top half of the 1999 DVD combined with the bottom half of the it on the 2019 blu, sort of.

Regarding where she pops up to meet the Albatross and is with Flounder, I don’t quite have it to where he holds the fork/dinglehopper [EDIT: do have that but not compared yet], but near that it seems like (assuming the rendering of the way they colored the scene didn’t change more than I think between the part I have and what is shown on the website):
VHS and Laserdisc have very poor colors compared to the real film all around.

Only the 2006 DVD and 2019 blu make her tail remotely intense enough, but I think the 2006 DVD probably make her tail likely a bit too green-skewed.

None make flounder quite the right shade, none saturated enough.

None quite seem to have the shade or saturation of her shells quite a match.

None seem to quite have the color of the sky right, maybe the bottom two are getting closer although only the 2006 has some of the extra subtle alternate shades apparent in the film, not that it gets the blue part right.

The VHS, Laserdisc, 1999 DVD all seem to get the sky rather wrong.

But take this with a grain of salt (other than for sure the colors can be really intensely saturated! I think some of those saying the digital home media releases hyped up the colors and the film was much duller are totally wrong). It also seems very likely the 2019 does make her shells often too saturated and dark.

The 2006 likely often goes too green to some degree or another and the 2013 likely a bit too blue, although this stuff is a little more dicey without a proper xenon projection.

On a side note, the original 35mm theatrical presentation may not have accurately matched the original cells. Film does do certain odd things color-wise at times. So as to what version is closest to the original cells, who knows (but it could hardly be the VHS or Laserdisc). Then again, who ever saw the movie as the original cells? So not sure that should really be the goal.

Post
#1297632
Topic
The Little Mermaid (1989) - 35 mm (fully funded)
Time

Interestingly I managed to find the date code on my film bits and the date code says 1990!

So it would seem likely now that my TLM 35mm bits are probably from a something or other 1990 release (since, AFAIK, it only had releases for trailers or full movie in 1989/1990 and 1997/1998 and 1997 would seem sort of a long time for them to have left film stock sitting around, although maybe for trailers they would use really old stock??? seems not so likely though).

It would also seem that it is probably more likely a trailer than the actual film due to the overlayed mention of having won two academy awards, unless it’s a mix of trailer and actual release print.

Since it got a late 1990 theatrical release and it has some overlayed text about having won two academy awards and the text is in English and I got these from someone in Europe and the film it was printed on was manufactured in 1990 and it has only analog stereo soundtrack of black ink not cyan ink type I’m thinking maybe this is from either entirely a trailer or a mix of trailer and release print from 1990 UK theatrical trailer(/release print???) although perhaps it could be some late US trailer that they re-did after it won awards and decided to show again before other movies as part of some post Oscars re-release or pehaps still continuing release from the Nov 1989 initial release.

Post
#1297623
Topic
Attack of the Clones 35mm found on eBay
Time

more from the blu-ray screencaps site that are similar to my frames for you to comapre with (more and more it looks like either these caps were taken from a computer that either didn’t do max decoding or had jpgs too compressed or that Lucasfilm actually did some filtering and various jiggering around with the image):

https://i1.wp.com/caps.pictures/200/2-starwars2/full/starwars2-movie-screencaps.com-352.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/caps.pictures/200/2-starwars2/full/starwars2-movie-screencaps.com-592.jpg

i guess my scans just have tons more contrast and a different luminance curve
now I’d need to go see what the 35mm frames look like, did my scanning do it properly or get the wrong curve

it will be interesting to see what this project turns out like, hopefully they have a scanner and everything with perfect calibration to the film type, interesting to see how it turns out if so and what it looks more like, the blu or my scans here

Post
#1297617
Topic
Star Wars Prequels 35mm 4K Filmized Editions by Emanswfan
Time

more from the blu-ray screencaps site that are similar to my frames for you to comapre with (more and more it looks like either these caps were taken from a computer that either didn’t do max decoding or had jpgs too compressed or that Lucasfilm actually did some filtering and various jiggering around with the image):

https://i1.wp.com/caps.pictures/200/2-starwars2/full/starwars2-movie-screencaps.com-352.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/caps.pictures/200/2-starwars2/full/starwars2-movie-screencaps.com-592.jpg

something about these screencaps feels odd, like dingy, let me look at my bluray before I post more comparisons to caps from that website

Post
#1297612
Topic
Star Wars Prequels 35mm 4K Filmized Editions by Emanswfan
Time

well these two are pretty close:
first cap from blu-ray from the site in the other:
https://i0.wp.com/caps.pictures/200/2-starwars2/full/starwars2-movie-screencaps.com-306.jpg
then my scan:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48767259407_eec471a1c2_o.jpg

actually they look quite different and compared to those screencaps, at least, mine actually does sorta show some hints of more detail (surprising since direct digital out should retain more detail for sure), certainly more microcontrast, if maybe at times a hint less detail in other cases and you can clearly see the grain in mine now, download both and then flip back and forth in a pic viewer and the grain and other differences are quite noticeable

color and luminance ramping are different too, now that maybe could be they didn’t time the trailers as carefully? maybe I didn’t have a LUT for the scanner to exactly match the film stock? the blu-ray was colored differently? just natural alteration of printing to film unless you perfectly pre-adjust it and the 35mm release was always different (and less accurate to original intent)?

Post
#1297611
Topic
Star Wars Prequels 35mm 4K Filmized Editions by Emanswfan
Time

found four more, forget whether any of these came from flat or scope or a mix, I think scope, not sure anymore, vaguely seem to recall stretching some things out, think they were scanned at something like maybe 4k-5k or something and then downscaled to 1920x across

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48767259407_eec471a1c2_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48766723163_d1966dc35f_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48767059411_69da6cfe8d_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48767059581_de00b56c05_o.jpg

Post
#1297608
Topic
Attack of the Clones 35mm found on eBay
Time

well these two are pretty close:
first cap from blu-ray from the site above:
https://i0.wp.com/caps.pictures/200/2-starwars2/full/starwars2-movie-screencaps.com-306.jpg
then my scan:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48767259407_eec471a1c2_o.jpg

actually they look quite different and compared to those screencaps, at least, mine actually does sorta show some hints of more detail (surprising since direct digital out should retain more detail for sure), certainly more microcontrast, if maybe at times a hint less detail in other cases and you can clearly see the grain in mine now, download both and then flip back and forth in a pic viewer and the grain and other differences are quite noticeable

color and luminance ramping are different too, now that maybe could be they didn’t time the trailers as carefully? maybe I didn’t have a LUT for the scanner to exactly match the film stock? the blu-ray was colored differently?

Post
#1297605
Topic
Attack of the Clones 35mm found on eBay
Time

found four more, forget whether any of these came from flat or scope or a mix, I think scope, not sure anymore, vaguely seem to recall stretching some things out, think they were scanned at something like maybe 4k-5k or something and then downscaled to 1920x across

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48767259407_eec471a1c2_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48766723163_d1966dc35f_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48767059411_69da6cfe8d_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48767059581_de00b56c05_o.jpg

Post
#1297577
Topic
Attack of the Clones 35mm found on eBay
Time

Here are a few frames I scanned in with a Nikon 2000 some years ago from bits of a film trailer, if anyone following this thread watns a look at perhaps vaguely what the full project here might look like (I haven’t ever scanned anything from the full final 35mm theatrical release reel for AOTC, with the different wedding scene, only these few scenes, scanning with a stills scanner is a slow process, from a scope trailer I got. These are the downscaled to 1920 across ones. Have the full size somewhere on my HD.):
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48763497967_7a2ba39aaf_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48763497907_c73275101c_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48763497782_d07b2b81b9_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48763308406_bdce45a5f3_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48762987598_2f256a9b62_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48763308841_be3d382db4_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48763308901_efdf48385c_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/1894/43971204464_43505b9757_c.jpg

in many ways the digital noise seems more apparent than the film grain, which isn’t quite as strong as maybe some might have thought (one nice thing about Nikon 2000 is that it uses diffuse lighting so it doesn’t overemphasize grain to an unnatural degree to the extent that a non-diffuse lit still scanner would, like when I first did stuff with my older lower model Nikon it made grain galore and the scans showed way more grain than was apparent during actual projection since the harsh light bounced off the grain at bad angles, wet drum scanners should likely also treat grain more naturally as well, but those make my Nikon 2000 look cheap); the resolution is not great, blu-rays are better, but they go all digital, this trailer probably had an added film stage or two and perhaps they also rush out trailers with less care

Post
#1297573
Topic
Attack of the Clones 35mm found on eBay
Time

"I got over the damn prequel poisoning, "

whoa, is this stuff all some inside joke or actually for real?
just asking since I have a reel of AOTC (with the changed wedding scene, although it seems like you all know have the complete set and have it all covered) and some other stuff
haven’t heard before about prints being potentially toxic like that (so long as you don’t eat them)
although developer agents and stuff could be, but those don’t have much to do with prints

Post
#1297571
Topic
Star Wars Prequels 35mm 4K Filmized Editions by Emanswfan
Time

here are the rest:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48763497907_c73275101c_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48763497782_d07b2b81b9_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48763308406_bdce45a5f3_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48762987598_2f256a9b62_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48763308841_be3d382db4_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48763308901_efdf48385c_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/1894/43971204464_43505b9757_c.jpg

Post
#1297491
Topic
Star Wars Prequels 35mm 4K Filmized Editions by Emanswfan
Time

Here are a few frames I scanned in with a Nikon 2000 some years ago from bits of a film trailer, if you want a look (I also have the full final 35mm theatrical release reel for AOTC, with the different wedding scene. But none of that is scanned.):

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48763497967_7a2ba39aaf_o.jpg

actually it’s late, sorry to be a tease hah, put up the rest tomorrow

Post
#1297489
Topic
The Phantom Menace - Theatrical version scanned in 4K
Time

cool project

I saw this in 35mm as well as on two different digital projectors back in '99, including what might have been the first commercial digital projection of any film in the world.

Contrary to all the net rage, theaters were packed and people generally seemed pretty happy and were NOT all laughing, raging, etc. decent bit of clapping at the end at many showings.

And for AOTC, people were racing out of the earlier showings, smiling, giving thumbs up to people still on line, saying it was awesome, audiences erupted into cheers at the end. Again, contrary to all the hate you hear coming form the net crowd.