Papai2013

undefined said:

fallinlight said:

How is progress?

Last PM I got from MonkeyLizard10 on 25-Jul-2023:

A PM is a “Private message” in case you didn’t know it. Why are you posting a PM of all things on the public threads? PMs are between you and the other person and should remain discreet. This is why it’s called “Private.” You, however, made a private discussion public, which is neither supportable nor the right thing to do.

MonkeyLizard10 said:

Papai2013 said:

I don’t think there is any need for a Dolby Vision or HDR grade to create colour that closely matches the prints. There was no Dolby Vision or HDR in 2001 or a decade from then.

I believe that 8bit SDR doesn’t quite capture what many theatrical prints deliver and certainly not what original camera negatives can. So you actually do need HDR, even if only maybe just a modest bit, to match film ideally. You also need wide gamut color, something beyond REC709 primaries (at least for some films, it depends, of course, if something is all dusty tan and gray, it won’t make a difference, if it has intense deep yellows, reds, etc. without going to wide gamut color you will clip away some of the original colors).

I understand, but I was thinking of 10 bit SDR, not 8-bit. I don’t have an HDR monitor or an HDR-capable TV, nor am I capable of buying one at this point. So, for me, 4K 10 bit SDR is the maximum image format I can watch at home. My monitor is 1920X1200 (16:10). I can watch 4K SDR, but not HDR.

This entire drama was so fruitless and sour. These are passion projects that take enormous amounts of money to buy the prints and then enormous amounts of time and more funds to restore. Nobody here has an assembly line where they can churn out products ready to consumed at the drop of a hat. Most of us work underpaid jobs, have numerous personal, family-related issues, health issues, etc. The biggest issue is time. The fact that such projects are at all happening is a miracle. To act like a crybaby because one has helped fund a project is unwarranted. People who have no patience and are unable to trust others should just do it on their own and not cry or rant here, or anywhere. Peace!

fallinlight said:

Hi @Papai2013,

I hope you are well. It has been educational reading your posts regarding film prints and the filmic process, thank you.

Kind regards,

fallinlight

Thank you for the kind words. Hope you and your loved ones are well.

MonkeyLizard10 said:

A few updates, the calibration is getting to be very close to finished (the second copy of the first image is posted in ProPhotoRGB wide gamut since for that one regular sRGB gamut clipped the colors, needs to be viewed in a color-managed browser to be seen normally and, of course, on a wide gamut set monitor set to wide gamut mode to see the extended colors):

Pics look great!

fmalover said:

Not to mention that 35mm prints have this organic look that makes the movie feel alive.

I for one don’t mind the generational loss that results from creating a film print, because another bonus is that visual effects, whether traditional optical effects or CGI, blend a lot better with the live action elements of the image as a result.

You are right. Generational loss GIVES film it’s aesthetic beauty, including the heightened grain and higher contrast, richer colours. We are not supposed to see the negative or the interpositive. Grain and the inherent photochemical softness hides the imperfections of CGI and blends the image better with the rest of the live action footage. In digitally shot movies, there’s no grain and the image is too sharp. It fails to hide the fakery of the CG.

JadedSkywalker said:

The amazing thing is i bet your Bring it On trailer is better than the actual film on blu-ray which is quite lackluster.

Home Video versions will almost always be lackluster for movies shot and colour-timed on film because these companies use the Interpositive (IP) or the negative (O-neg), which have better resolution, but don’t have the grain or richness of photochemical colours that you see on 35mm film prints. O-neg or IPs look much smoother and not as crisper or textured as film prints. This is because prints used to go through a 4-step processing to become cinema release prints. With every step, the processing made the images denser/thicker and grains became more prominent, or so I heard. It is this grain that adds to the textured look of projected prints, which home videos obtained from O-neg or IPs lack.

take a look at the Jurassic Park 35mm scan. Why does it look far more richer than the 4K UHD. This is because the prints are four generations removed from the O-neg, while the UHD is a direct scan of the O-Neg. The result is the print looks crisper and textured while the UHD looks less defined. It doesn’t help that home video companies then apply an additional layer of denoising to water down whatever textures were left; resulting in a mushy, flattened look. Plus, cinema prints have richer and deeper colours because they use actual colour dyes. Digital colour does not look or feel as deep or thick, no matter the processing. Steve Yedlin came close to achieving print-level colours on The last jedi and Knives Out, but the images still looked recognisably digital.

Speaking of digital vs film, one noticeable difference between film prints and Digital Cinema Packages (DCPs) is that 35mm prints have an inherent soft, soothing image, while digital prints look sharp and harsher to the eyes, comparatively. I spoke to a cinema manager and he confirmed my observations.

See No Evil said:

Here is a rough preview encode of my new 5K scan of The Shining (1980)

Hi See No Evil, I had sent you a DM and an email. If possible, kindly take a look and respond via DM or email. Thank you.

MonkeyLizard10 said:

Papai2013 said:

Thanks for the reply.

My suggestion would be to preserve the full image and release an initial grindhouse-type version for those that want to see the entire image, edge corners included.

Possibly I could toss out a copy like that directly from Resolve, it wouldn’t have super correct colors though. I’ll see, it would take a fair amount of time to carry out since this is not ProRes based.

For others, you can do a second release with fixed 1.78:1 or 1.85:1, or as you wish.

The widescreen VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, Blu-ray and the UHD are all in 1.85:1. All of them crop out image from the top and the left and right sides, but not the bottom as much. The theatrical 35mm framing was higher and included more headroom. This was done so that the heads of the dinosaurs don’t get cropped out. In the 35mm projections, the dinosaur heads always remain inside the frame, whereas in the Blu-ray (2D and 3D) and the UHD versions, they almost always get cropped out, especially during the VFX shots. The home video editors did not pay attention to the original projected framing, nor the colours. Which is why those releases are revisionist and dull-looking.

Another thing is both the blu-rays and the UHD are pushed towards the left side, cropping the right. This creates problems in composition of the VFX shots. Those shots are centred and right-leaning in the 35mm projected image and the Widescreen Laserdisc/WS VHS, but not in the high-def releases. When the T.rex roars in the Visitor’s centre lobby after killing the raptor, she is pushed towards the extreme right in the blu-ray and the UHD. This creates the unintended side effect of leaving a large negative space on the left side, while cropping out the right edge, which if retained, would have otherwise balanced the composition.

The projected framing shows more image on the right and less on the left because the left side is covered by the soundtrack. The film gate masks the soundtrack at the left edge, which is why you see less on that side, but the right is mostly left uncropped because there is no soundtrack to cover and the aperture already masks the image to the intended widescreen shape.

The laserdisc is the most balanced framing because it includes almost the entire width of the 35mm frame and is also right-leaning, like the 35mm.

So, that should be the reference while planning a restoration.

Thanks, this stuff is very helpful! I will keep that in mind when I do the cropping.

You are welcome. Over two decades, I have inspected each and every frame of Jurassic Park’s home video iterations, having owned several copies across formats + the different 35mm releases. This has helped me learn a thing or two about the original framing and the colours before they were ruined by the DVD, Blu-ray[s] and the UHD. Hope I don’t sound like I am bragging too much, ha ha. That certainly wasn’t my intention.

Another suggestion I’d give is, try and erase the yellow scratch line at the right edge with Topaz or other software before cropping, if possible. It appears on some, if not all the frames. Such noticeable scratch lines harm the viewing experience.

Thanks for the reply.

My suggestion would be to preserve the full image and release an initial grindhouse-type version for those that want to see the entire image, edge corners included.

For others, you can do a second release with fixed 1.78:1 or 1.85:1, or as you wish.

The widescreen VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, Blu-ray and the UHD are all in 1.85:1. All of them crop out image from the top and the left and right sides, but not the bottom as much. The theatrical 35mm framing was higher and included more headroom. This was done so that the heads of the dinosaurs don’t get cropped out. In the 35mm projections, the dinosaur heads always remain inside the frame, whereas in the Blu-ray (2D and 3D) and the UHD versions, they almost always get cropped out, especially during the VFX shots. The home video editors did not pay attention to the original projected framing, nor the colours. Which is why those releases are revisionist and dull-looking.

Another thing is both the blu-rays and the UHD are pushed towards the left side, cropping the right. This creates problems in composition of the VFX shots. Those shots are centred and right-leaning in the 35mm projected image and the Widescreen Laserdisc/WS VHS, but not in the high-def releases. When the T.rex roars in the Visitor’s centre lobby after killing the raptor, she is pushed towards the extreme right in the blu-ray and the UHD. This creates the unintended side effect of leaving a large negative space on the left side, while cropping out the right edge, which if retained, would have otherwise balanced the composition.

The projected framing shows more image on the right and less on the left because the left side is covered by the soundtrack. The film gate masks the soundtrack at the left edge, which is why you see less on that side, but the right is mostly left uncropped because there is no soundtrack to cover and the aperture already masks the image to the intended widescreen shape.

The laserdisc is the most balanced framing because it includes almost the entire width of the 35mm frame and is also right-leaning, like the 35mm.

So, that should be the reference while planning a restoration.

MonkeyLizard10 said:

A few more samples:

Hi, I’ve noticed that you are cropping some image from the corners. There should be more image on the top and right that is missing from these pics of your scan. Also, there is a sliver more image on the left and bottom of the prints than your pics show. Are the pics representative how your scans will finally look, in terms of framing? The original 35mm “Super Wide open matte” scan that we have, possess a slightly wider and taller image than the pics you show. So, I’m sure the prints have a larger image that you can use. I guess you are cropping out the top and the sides because of the vignetting (rounded corners), but it might be wise to leave them as is. The viewers might wish to see the entire frame without any cropping at the edges, even if slight.

I also noticed that you are cropping the VFX shots a tiny bit at the edges. As far as I have studied, the VFX shots are in varying ratios. Some in 1.75:1, some 1.78:1, some closer to 1.66:1, and two shots in [roughly] 1.89:1 (both closeups of Grant in the Brachiosaurus scene).

MonkeyLizard10 said:

I think it would be best to leave them as is with the full frame and allow the viewer to make their own adjustment if they wish. That’s just my suggestion. Please don’t take it otherwise.

As for your colours, they look really nice. I prefer the yellowish tone of the screenshots as it creates the warmth of the sunlight missing in the previous scans (V1 and V2), and adds to the “tropical island” feel. All the best for your project.

Firecracker00 said:
I never knew that they couldn’t film at the place where the lake is, strange I don’t recall hearing this on any JP documentary of behind the scene.

Do you know where these open matte versions have come from, how do people get hold of these which won’t be released on any home video copy?

They couldn’t film inside the ranch as it was private property and the owner did not allow. So, they took a still photo and animated it digitally. If you have the ‘Beyond Jurassic Park’ DVD or the Trilogy Blu-ray, then you’ll find a documentary on the VFX of the trilogy where this information is available.

If you search with the right keywords, I think you can find it. As for a legal copy, the open matte versions of Jurassic Park 1, 2 and 3 are available as “Fullscreen” DVDs from Universal home video. They are not fully open matte though. The matted shots are panned and scanned as per the available image area.

Firecracker00 said:

Thanks for that, I heard something similar to what you said there on a youtube video about the open matte version. But why does the bluray version I have show a small amount to the left side but the open matte version is cropped, only slightly but noticeable?. Do you know where the open matte version of JP came from and how they got hold of them?. Also, I noticed there was a 16:9 aspect during a non effects shot where the camera moves into Grant’s face as he is looking towards the herd of Brachiosaurs moving across the lake below, but the other non effects shots go back to the open matte look.

I don’t know why that close-up shot (and another one where he says “they move in herds”) was matted. Such shots probably had green screen. We know that they couldn’t film inside the ranch where the lake is. The wide shot of the Brachios wading on the lake is a still photo frame that was animated during post-production. The actors were shot with a green screen in the foreground and later composited in the photo, edited to look like a motion picture image; with heatwaves, reflections on the water surface and camera shakes, etc.

Firecracker00 said:

I came across an open matte copy of Jurassic Park… During shots of the CGI effects the image is shown in a wide format and I’ve heard this was the way the effects shots were filmed, but I did notice that the left hand side of the frame during those CGI shots that it’s cropped slightly but the right side shows more than the DVD and bluray version but the bluray and DVD versions show more than the open matte version. Does anyone know why the left side is cropped, shouldn’t it show the full image?.

The very left side of the frame gets printed over by the sound strip that is placed at the left side of the print. The right side has nothing obscuring the edges, hence you see more picture. The effects shots were filmed on VistaVision cameras that have a tall 1.47:1 aspect ratio. They were then cropped to a 16:9 type of shape, for ease of rendering (less amount of effects rendered is less cost in post-production and more time saved). The film gate through which the entire print passes, not only hides the sprocket holes and splices, but also obscures more image at the edges for stabilisation purposes. The DVD, Blu-ray don’t show much more image than the theatre, but the Laserdisc and THX Widescreen VHS did. They showed the full width of the negative. The DVD and Blu-ray actually show less image and a slightly different framing than the projected theatrical prints. They cut off more headroom than the projected image did.

SpacemanDoug said:

I wouldn’t say the 4K is 100% like the old blu-ray, because at least on the 4K the annoying green tinge is gone, but in other aspects it could be a lot better

It’s almost the same. There are some very subtle improvements, sure, owing to the 4K scan, but they are negligible. The colour grading is the biggest offender for me. It’s just cold and pale compared to the warmer and richer hues of the original photochemical timing. Also, the 4K is more cropped than the 35mm projection. In the projected print, you see more of the top and the right and slightly less of the left side and the bottom. The top and right portion in the of the frame is more cropped in the BD/4K which compromises the composition. The dinosaur snouts/heads get cropped out of frame in the home videos when they bellow/roar at the skies. In the 35mm projections, the heads can be clearly seen inside the frame. The BD/4K also adds extra image at the left, which affects the composition negatively in certain wide shots where the right side was needed more.

Every single home video version, except the 1994 VHS, has the wrong colour grading. The colours were pushed towards blue and pink, plus desaturated. The greens and yellows, reds were too pale. The original photochemical timing had warm hues - the skin of the actors looked sun-tanned.

When you look at the 1997 VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, BD, 4K, the skin looks pale and pinkish. The yellow-brown-red tone of the film prints is completely gone in the home video versions. The 3D tried to recreate this effect in the Rec 709 colour space, but they went overboard with the reds and oranges, resulting in reddish skies. But, out of all the higher definition versions, my favourite is the 3D, though it’s not accurate.

The 4K looks no different than the pale and dull-looking Blu-ray. It’s like they scanned the negative/interpositive but decided not to work on the colour correction. The greens of the Ford Explorers should be deep green, not light green. The yellows should be stronger to act as a contrast, but it isn’t the case with the 4K. This is why many 4K buyers/reviewers wonder if they just upscaled the 2011 Blu-ray master.

RU.08 said:

SpookyDollhouse said:

Higher color gamut alone would benefit it and HDR would be icing on the cake.

Film doesn’t have a “colour gamut”, it’s basically got intensity of reds, greens, and blues which is represented by each corresponding resistive dye layer (magenta blocks green etc). Film has a bit_ more in the reds and oranges and a little bit more in cyan blue and yellow compared with Rec709, but that’s it:

Thanks for the above explanation, RU.08. I feel that photochemical colour timing is an organic process that has physical limitations based on the dyes and the chemical reactions that take place. With digital, you could do a lot more; which doesn’t make HDR or Dolby Vision better by default. It’s just a different look. If the final product looks good in the rec 709 or at most Rec 2020 SDR colour space and matches with the look of projected film, then it’s job done I think. I don’t consider HDR or Dolby Vision to be an absolute necessity when preserving 35mm film. But who knows, I may be wrong.

SpookyDollhouse said:

Papai2013 said:

Not 2 start a quarrel but I don’t think you know how HDR works. Film (negatives and prints alike) has higher dynamic range than SDR. Higher color gamut alone would benefit it and HDR would be icing on the cake. It’s only revisionist if you make it so.

There was no way to see anything close to theatrical quality in the home back when these films came out. Now we have a tool that brings us closer to that experience; to call that tool “revisionist” is, well, a misnomer.

I never called the HDR grading tool “revisionist” in my post, did I? I said I feel SDR colouring (especially using 10 bit Rec 709/Rec 2020 gamut) would be enough. Also, I have no way of seeing HDR anyway. My monitor is a 10 bit one that does not support HDR. When I see 4K films, I watch the SDR 10 bit versions only and they feel adequate to me. Sorry if you found my post to be quarrelsome or otherwise. I may be wrong, but I feel most people don’t have HDR displays across the world. There are many Asian countries where people still have SD TVs or 720p/1080p TVs, like in India. HDR TVs and good ones at that, are quite expensive. The cheap ones don’t last long and don’t do HDR justice anyway. Most cable broadcasts are in SD and HD still. You only get 4K in streaming and that still is not something that is the popular option worldwide. 4K HDR is costlier than SDR to purchase online.

Just compare Jurassic Park on 3D and on UHD disc. The former, despite being in SDR HD, is closer to the original warm colour timing and maintains the proper shades of the primary colours even if it pushes towards a bit too orange. The UHD with HDR looks as bland and cold as the DVDs and the Blu-rays with improper tone mapping and incorrect shades of colours.

HDR is a tool, just like SDR. It is not better or worse. Christopher Nolan does not use Dolby Vision on the UHD discs and yet his films look brilliantly shot, timed and composed. So, personally, I don’t think Dolby Vision/HDR is a necessity. And again, there’s no way for me to see it that way either.

Having said that, if you folks can edit it that way, that’s fine as well. I am not opposed to the idea and certainly won’t stop anyone from doing it. I personally feel that HDR/Dolby Vision are not absolutely necessary tools for preserving the 35mm colour tones and shades. Please don’t feel offended.

: )

Fullmetaled said:

@RU.08 are you going to give both Jurassic park and Jurassic park 3 a hdr/Dolby vision grade so the awful uhd blu ray can be retired to the dust bin of garbage video transfers?

I don’t think there is any need for a Dolby Vision or HDR grade to create colour that closely matches the prints. There was no Dolby Vision or HDR in 2001 or a decade from then. While JP3 is colour timed photochemically, many films post 2001 were graded digitally and they looked fine. SDR colour with proper white balance is enough. 4K scan will ensure almost all details have been preserved. But removal of print damage is needed as the print has scratches at various sections. This will take time.

SilverWook said:

I’m seeing a lot better these days, but I have other issues with the right eye that distorts my vision and makes reading text on the screen difficult at times. It may be a long while before that’s resolved.

If you haven’t heard, WB sent a C&D to a fan editor whose Hobbit edit may have been a little too high profile, so I’m trying to figure out how to proceed with extreme caution. Someone on facebook found screenshots from earlier in the thread a couple years back and posted them there, so my paranoia is a bit justified.

Hope you recover your sight soon. Yes, your paranoia is justified. If studios start to send notices for fan edits then everyone has to proceed with caution. The problem is, once a content is released, the editor can no longer control how it gets shared, among whom and where it ends up. On the other hand, if the editor cannot share it, or share it only with a tiny number of people, then it’s probably not worth the time to undertake such projects anyway. So, it’s a tricky situation. Creative drive vs corporate batons.
It’s genuinely scary how undemocratic the world is becoming day by day. Even something as non-profit and reverential as a fan edit is being targeted by mega corporations who make a tremendous amount of money anyway. Everyone it seems, want exclusivity nowadays and are aggressively enforcing it. Do correct me if I am wrong.

ZombiEsushi said:

I wasn’t aware that Spielberg doesn’t like to release extended footage for his movies given that he has released extended cuts (or at least included deleted scenes on the dvds) for ET, Close Encounters and the Lost World. I wonder if it is just this movie he has an issue with…

Maybe. Jurassic Park is one of the few Spielberg films that has consistently gotten incorrect home video versions released with framing and colour timing different from the original 35mm projection. The colour issue is the most obvious. Even Lost World looks much better comparatively. so, who knows why JP does not get the royal treatment it deserves, seeing that it has become a beloved modern classic.

CourtlyHades296 said:

There was also a European version framed at 1.66:1.

Hi, can you provide evidence of this? I’m not questioning your claim. Just curious about it. Thanks. 😃

P.S: I love the 1.66:1 aspect ratio! It means more image height in both the live-action and Cgi scenes than in the 1.85:1 version.

Hi @RU.08, I’ve sent you a PM.

The images look great! Yes, The Shining in 4:3 does look like full-frame classic IMAX, even on a traditional CRT TV because of the large composition and the haunting and enveloping scenery. Those who have projectors that can fill their walls at home will get the best experience.

ReleaseTheImaxCut said:

In regards to your earlier comment I really wish Spielberg would release deleted scenes of his movies. I know he doesn’t like to do so for some reason but I always wondered why The Lost World was an exception? They even show an extended version on the SyFy channel which I wonder if anyone has made that. Even then not all of the deleted scenes are available. Saving Private Ryan is another one I’d love to see. For Jurassic Park there doesn’t seem to be as much filmed but whatever we can get would be great!

True.