Thanks, Vouka,

Andrea, the added grain definitely makes the image look sharper. However, I would advise you to use real 35mm film grain scans, like Crumblepop 35mm grain. This grain pattern looks a bit like noise. We need only those scenes where the open matte gains good amt of info at the vertical space. Then we could construct an IMAX version.

Any action-oriented scenes look open-matte in this, like the battle in the sky with death eaters early in the film?

I see. But, the channel logo obscures the image badly. We need to find one without a logo and in HD.

Vouka, can you provide screens for the animation scene from this OM version?

It would be nice to see the open-matte animation from HP DH Part 1 preserved.

Why aren’t cinema screen flat? I dislike that almost all cinemas around the world today are scope. By the way, I like my world spherical, not flat.
My Sony Trinitron is not Flat, but Curved. My favourite films are flat or in Academy format.

I’d agree with TServo2049, film prints do have a warmer push. But that warm does not feel like an overlay, or a yellow filter. It feels very organic. I saw The Dark Knight Rises in IMAX 15/70 and it also had almost the same type of colours as in the IMAX cells of Interstellar.
Lab dye colour has richer and more deeper colours than digital colour space allows. I have never seen a digitally graded film look even close to the gorgeous colours on a film print, ever!

So, I think keeping the warm tone of the film cell would make it more theatrically appropriate. But, correction has to be on a scene-by-scene basis, based on the numerous 70mm cells that are available in the internet.

Any progress on this? Can the missing reel be found/added from elsewhere, or an intact print?

TServo2049 said:

That 70mm correction seems to match up with how I remember the movie looking in IMAX.

Ok. Feel good to be proven wrong, as I like these colours. 😃

They look good but should be a bit more contrast y, like the prints. Bringing down the gamma a bit would make the image look more contrast y while not blowing up highlights as happens by increasing contrast. It will also help make the colours more punchy.

However, hold on a sec, the colours on the IMAX 70mm print should not reflect projected colours. In fact, the lamp temperature would actually make the colours on the print appear warmer than they are in the source. So, the blue-ish tint in the IMAX 70mm film cell sould not show up during projection. The 70mm print was intentionally struck cooler to compensate for the Kelvin temperature of the IMAX bulbs which should make the image slightly more yellow.

As for regular 70mm looking blue-ish, I don’t know whether all the theatrical versions of Interstellar (35mm, 70mm, IMAX 15/70) had the exact same colour timing. It is well known that even individual 35mm prints of other films have varied from each other in look, so this shouldn’t come as a surprise. there is bound to be differences in an organic process as opposed to digital, which is less fun.

That can be fixed later. It’s a minor issue.

This is the listing -

http://www.ebay.com/itm/35mm-Feature-JURASSIC-PARK-3-2001-/332190465906?ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT

Price $250 + $250 shipping to US.

Anyone willing to contribute?

Jetrell Fo said:

This sounds great and we have the cinema DTS for this as well.
😃

Great! That’d really come in handy, since this does not have English Audio.
The theatrical stereo audio is also available and will be used.

I am willing to pay full price for the print, as well as price for HDD if required. Could some of you guys who have access to scanners please help me as I don’t have such equipment anywhere near me. Those who have experience with scanning and preserving please respond. Thank you.
My plan is to buy it from my end and then just ship it to the address of the person willing to get the print archived. Price for scanning will also be provided, if asked.

Donations are always welcome too. But I don’t want to lose the opportunity to have this preserved.

Thaddäus Tentakel said:
Here’s a screenshot from my old kabel eins HD record made by the end of 2012. This channel also belongs to ProSiebenSAT.1 so the film was zoomed to 2.20:1 there as well.

…there are better records from other countries on the net without cuts and logos and in the original AR.

The 2.20:1 aspect ratio is not zoomed/cropped but open matte. Titanic was shot 98 percent on Super35 film (underwater shots of the wreckage were techniscope), which gives an image slightly wider than 1.33:1. About 16:10 perhaps. The 2.20:1 aspect ratio was used on the film’s 5-perf 70mm theatrical release back in the day. In the 70mm the film had more image vertically while not losing anything from the sides.
I have also seen this HDTV broadcast (which is actually more of 2.25:1) and it is both taller and wider than both the 2D and 3D Blu-ray.

I don’t think HBONow is hosting BVS anymore. They only keep movies for about a month.

Love single screens. Miss the experience these days.

^…^ said:

Yep, nice, for sure different from a simple desaturated version - a bit like Mad Max Fury Road b&w version!

Thanks. I’ll add more images.

Swazzy said:

-1’s 35mm scan of the movie might peak your interest.

Poita’s scan is the source.

More images added! Will keep adding, gradually.

Thanks. Now you can see the images.

Your Majesty, pardon me, I could not understand how to…
Once I use the method you suggest, the link disappears, no image appears.

Thanks! By the way, how can I link the pictures on OT, so they appear on this page rather than just the url? Any ideas?

This was an experiment meant to give a classic monochrome film look to an iconic film. Software used - VLC, Photoshop. I concentrated on giving this film similar gray shades as seen on black & white film, not just desaturate. Have a look at the images below and share your opinion. : )

I have seen this a few months ago as well. I forgot the link. This should be the actual colour reference for this project. The warm-orange colours in this new print are beautiful and very very '80s.

Dvd colours can hardly be taken as correct reference. From my experience, I’ve almost never seen any home video faithfully preserve the 35mm print look. I think many will prefer the warmer toned look of the better print (not this red faded one) as seen in the earlier photos. The warm yellow-orange tone of the prints suits Shining the best. I truly appreciate your effort at correcting the colour, just saying that the unfaded print (not the one you have) colours are perfect and beautiful; much better than colours on the DVD.

What you can do is add a bit of warm filter to your corrected image and see how it looks. Poita’s images from the print that’s missing reel 4 is the correct warm colour and shows the beautiful orange timing. That should be the true reference colour-wise.

The gray-blue tone looks far better than the warm grading done for the BD. The former feels very similar to 35mm colours.

However, look at a 35mm frame here and see if it matches up -

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/aRoAAOSwnbZYDcWZ/s-l1600.jpg

My first introduction to Star Wars was through the prequel trilogy, on TV. I really disliked them and Star Wars became to me a green-screen and shiny CGI-explotation movie until I saw the original trilogy a long, long time later. However, the climactic moments of Revenge of the Sith (minus the volcano saber battle) was really good emotionally and performance-wise.

My first introduction to the original trilogy was through Harmy’s restored theatrical versions. I still haven’t seen the Special Editions. I have seen TFA and RO in theatres and definitely planning on catching the rest on the big screen as well.

To my generation, (the '90s kids) Jurassic Park was our franchise and I like all three of those films. JW is good too, though it feels different to the spirit of the first trilogy (of JP).