Papai2013

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.

^…^ said:

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.”

Density said:

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.

Ok. Thanks.

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!

SilverWook said:

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.

[Colson said:]
Source on that? It would be awesome.

Text -
http://www.indiewire.com/2017/07/the-dark-knight-trilogy-4k-remastered-christopher-nolan-christian-bale-heath-ledger-1201853785/

and Video -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpqC2nRfJp4

@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 -

http://www.ebay.com/itm/35mm-Feature-Film-The-Mummy-SCOPE-/253049169462?hash=item3aeae7e636:g:GUYAAOSwpINZaxUK

“The Mummy 1999
Print is in like new condition apart from splices at heads and tails.
Scope print
Polyester
Shipped on 7 x cores
English audio, Dolby SR,DD,DTS ( DTS discs not included )”

Starting bid:
AU $150.00
Approximately US $117.14

Price (Buy It Now):
AU $640.00
Approximately US $499.81

Nolan will scan directly from the photochemically timed Interpositive. There will be no Digital grading from the negative scan. As a result we will get the truest representation of the theatrical colour timing of the 35mm and 70mm prints (IMAX included). I’ll try and buy the UHD set when it becomes available.

That being said, I am very much interested in This OT project. He has done a lot of work before the 4K news was announced. So we should stick with him.

What I am more interested in however, is the eventual 4K disc of ‘Interstellar.’

Also, Nolan should consider releasing all the 1.43:1 shots uncropped on the discs, as special bonus features; separate from the movie. The IMAX shots deserve to be seen in their full glory.

This thread is about the 11-Oscar winning 1997 film.

@RU.08, sent you a PM.

Ok. But see that there is no ghosting, double images. Mis-alignment can be a problem.

IMAX digital also merges two images for a brighter picture.

Andrea, why do you need to merge captures? This in itself is the best possible quality source of a WEB-DL. Plus this is 1080p. Do you have another 1080p source?

Wow. Great. But, could you reduce the size, by half would do (25 GB). 50Gb is huge. Don’t worry about English. As long as you can communicate your intent, it’s fine.

Almost all 1.85:1 films were shot Full aperture 4-perf 35mm film. Today, almost all such movies are shot on 16:9 digital and then slightly cropped from top and bottom to create 1.85:1 DCPs.

Godfather series, Jurassic Park series, etc were all shot full frame then masked vertically during projection. Most of those films were put on VHS and then DVD with virtually the entire filmed image as “Full Screen” editions, because television was 4:3 back then, which is basically same as 4-perf full aperture aspect ratio.

Even widescreen films like Terminator 2, Titanic, True Lies were shot on super 35mm, which gives a usable area of about 1.66:1, and has a common top framing. The bottom image is unusable as far as I understand. Then they were cropped and given an anamorphic squeeze optically during the internegative stage of processing. The release prints contained this 2:1 anamorphic squeezed image that was then un-squeezed by a special lens during projection, to fill the entire cinemascope screen.