What did strike me was that the first few scenes were really green, yellow and orange. The colours were very deep and rich, the likes of which I don’t recall seeing since the 90’s.
I saw ‘Interstellar’ on 35mm. It was part of the 4th edition of ‘Reframing the Future of Film’ with Tacita Dean and Christopher Nolan, presented by Filmmaker and film preservationist Shivendra Singh Dungarpur.
The screening took place at a beautiful art-deco cinema in Mumbai called Liberty Cinema. The crowd was chanting “Nolan, Nolan” as a chorus. What did strike me was how incredibly humble and contained a person he is. Very reserved, regal and calm.
As for the projection itself, it was a beautiful looking print with gorgeous, richly saturated, warm colours. Textural details were delicious. The difference between the DCP/Blu-ray and the print was that the latter had a soft look, which was very soothing for the eyes. The details never took a hit and I noticed no intrusive black crush. The colours were very much closer to the images of the 70mm film cells that were posted on the first page of this thread.
The colours in the ice-planet scenes were slightly dull for my tastes, lacking in good contrast (the Blu-ray is even worse in these regards). It wasn’t at all grainy, neither did the print distractingly shake. But thankfully, it wasn’t stable as dead, like digital projection. The sound was out of this world powerful and I remembered that the sound during the 90’s 35mm screenings were also this loud and thumping, but never hurt the ears like digital sound does now in multiplexes. There’s a nice echo in analog sound, especially in older single-screen cinema halls, that creates a larger-than-life soundscape.
As for the cropping (and I took careful notice), the sides were quite tight, though never compromising the framing. The home videos are much wider in that regard. But I prefer the framing of the 35mm print as it was tight and focussed on the action without adding too many distracting elements at the edges. The vertical portion of the film frame was not masked however and we could often see the tail end of the previous film frame running through the projector. The cinema did not have projectors since 2014, so they can be forgiven for not getting all the necessary equipment.
But having seen 35mm film projection, I prefer it any day than over-hyped digital projection. Digital is pixelated and hurts my eyes while film soothed them. I never got any eye-fatigue watching this. Actually, I would say the 35mm projected image is close to the quality of the UHD blu-ray in terms of the details and the colour, than the Blu-ray. However, the home videos look a bit sharper but that’s a feature I don’t really need or even want.
Well unfortunately, Nolan can hold up as a prime example that the involvement of a director is no guarantor that a remaster turns out to be better:
With Memento, we yet again had a master with the contrast boosted (which seems to be a spreading decease these days just like the loudness war with audio) and lower resolution black and white scenes.
The 10th Anniversary Edition of ‘Memento’ looks fantastic! About on par with how a 35mm projected print looks like, with boosted contrast (acquired from the stages of printing - ON-IP-IN-Release print) The original Blu-ray looks horribly dull and flat. Movies projected on film do not look so dull and lifeless.
As for the Nolan films on UHD, all the IMAX scenes have been even more cropped than on the BD, on all four sides. Though the colour grading is now closer to the prints, there are many instances where there is too much artificial grain removal resulting in a smearing mess of images. The 2.39:1 framing is also slightly different now. I’d stick to the BDs for the 2.39:1 scenes and just use the UHD as a colour reference.
The IMAX shots of all the Nolan films on UHD have been zoomed-in and cropped out from all four sides.
Interstellar’s new 4K UHD Blu-ray has been zoomed-in and cropped on all four sides; much more than the IMAX shots in the Blu-ray.
Looks good; like 35mm photochemical timing. The colours pop better.
There is no project. The thread was theoretical.
I’d also request for the colours to be left on this just as the projected print shows. 35mm prints were more yellow and green than red. We saw this on the 35mm and 8mm examples of Terminator 2, as well as Jurassic Park.
Digital grading cannot successfully emulate the look of photochemical timing, which is why neither Jurassic Park 3D or Terminator 2 3D (I saw it twice theatrically) could emulate the photochemical colour dynamism. There was very little colour separation in both JP3D and T23D because of the limitation of digital colour space.
Because there is already so much good colour information and colour separation on this Titanic 35mm, it’s best to match it to projected colours (you’ll need to use the very same bulbs they used in the cinemas back then) and leave it at that. If there’s no way to accurately find out 1997 projection bulb colour temperature, then it’s best to leave the colours on the print alone. This is my suggestion anyway.
Also, @RU.08, I sent you a PM. Please check and let me know. Thanks.
To whom it may concern: the new version is out - Alien: Covenant IMAX [Fundamental Collection] - now all the IMAX/open matte shots are perfect, no more subtitles and/or logo remains, and eventual top/bottom “slices” differences in brightness and/or color, due to the use of two sources, are completely gone.
Solid effort! Now, I needs me buy myself a new HDD.
My reply was to Andrea, not anybody else. I made the mistake of not referring to him by name. But I didn’t deserve to be insulted by “Density.”
Is there any particular reason you’re being such an asshole? Or do you just not realize that some people have to work for a living? … My mistake, won’t make it again.
As for calling me an “A-hole,” please do not unnecessarily create conflict. Without seeking any clarification, you naturally assumed I was being sarcastic to you. Also, don’t drag my personal life, job, etc into this. Do you know whether I earn a living or not? Then why did you say “some people have to work for a living”?
Whatever your issues are, don’t bring them here. Here we don’t ask people about their professions or insult them without knowing anything. This is a place for sharing our love of cinema.
Please don’t make personal attacks against members!
That’s OK. Without your effort, none of us would have been able to see these amazing restorations that you do.
The 3D grade looked too yellow, while yours look too blue to me. On a sunny day, a sky does not cast such blue shades. You should also check the white balance. It should be slightly warm. Just a suggestion from a student of cinematography.
I doubt they’ll include the 1.43:1 shots in the 4K discs. In any case, your work is very much appreciated as I’ve said before. Looking forward to the common width 1.43:1 to 2.39:1 version someday. Good luck for your University days!
In my honest opinion, the blue tint looks unnatural. Something in-between the Blu-ray grading and your version might look better.
IMAX/OM shots look great. Looking forward to when you release this! It’ll of course be better if the blurring isn’t visible and everything looks more or less seamless. All the best!
How about not crapping in a thread? If you have access to a rare print and deep enough pockets, knock yourself out.
And some of us like a grindhouse look once in a while. Puggo’s 16mm transfers and The War Of The Stars fanedit are good examples.
Exactly. We like the film look. Nobody is stopping anyone from preserving a rare movie that has not seen the light of day on a home video format. That is actually a good thing to do and should be encouraged. But this is a thread for ‘The Mummy’ (1999), not for preserving rare films, which should be invariably too costly too acquire, unless someone is very rich.
@RayRogers should create such a thread of his own. Where’s the harm in that?
To each his own then. Let it rest at that.
@dvdmike, maybe. But there’s just something else, watching a film print. It’s like getting transported back in time. An experience, that you won’t get from watching clean digitised video.
Anyway, the print has been sold, so that’s that.
Source on that? It would be awesome.
and Video -
@RayRogers, there was no need to discourage someone who is investing their time and effort in doing something they love. Not everybody has the money to buy expensive 4K equipment or discs. Don’t mind but please try not to say “officially dead in the water” to someone else’s project, when he/she hasn’t even announced what they intend to do with it (cancel or continue). Kindly do consider.
This is about preserving the theatrical experience, which the Blu-ray and 4K UHD might not provide (the Blu-ray certainly doesn’t).
We need to see how the film looked on the original version (the prints). That my friend, is the original look of the picture. That is the purpose of this project anyway.
Now, if funding is available and the final bid isn’t too much, this might be grabbed.
Nothing is certain, for now.
Ok. But this needs more contributors. Let’s see.
Scope is short for Cinemascope, or in other words, widescreen. Aspect ratio of scope movies today is standardised at 2.39:1, the shape of the screen of most multiplex cinemas. TheMummy was shot with anamorphic lenses that squeezed a widescreen image within a square-frame which was un-squeezed by the projector to fill the entire cinemascope screen.
If there is a collective effort, we might be able to get this -
“The Mummy 1999
Print is in like new condition apart from splices at heads and tails.
Shipped on 7 x cores
English audio, Dolby SR,DD,DTS ( DTS discs not included )”
Approximately US $117.14
Price (Buy It Now):
Approximately US $499.81