Could I trouble anyone for an invite for sse 1.6? Any help here would be greatly appreciated!
Indeed, the holy grail of fan preservation would be a scan of a 35mm print, ideally one of the very rare technicolor prints.
The problems, as outlined in the linked thread are that you first have to find one of these prints in decent condition with an owner willing to scan it.
The next step would be finding someone willing to do the scan. While DIY solutions can work, you likely will run into problems down the line whether it be sync issues or framing issues, or physical issues with the film itself that a professional post house can deal with.
There's a local community college near where I live that recently acquired a 2k DI scanner, and if someone had a print, I'm curious if we'd be able to pull some strings. Since they aren't a commercial post house, they might have less red tape to deal with, and if the right person was asked, who knows. Just throwing that out there.
BTW: there is a someone who may have already done a high quality scan of a 35mm print. Mike Verta recently posted this drool inducing still on his forum:
http://www.mikeverta.com/Posts/SW_SP_R1.001658.png
That appears to be nearing 4k resolution and has outstanding detail.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
Regarding the TRV-900:
- The workprinter I have is SD only. Using an HD camera wouldn't work because the system wouldn't be able to keep up, and the software wouldn't be able to build the movie file. There are new models of workprinters that have come out recently (only within the past year) that handle HD, but I can't afford them. The website is www.moviestuff.tv. The cost of such a workprinter would be several thousand dollars, after you factor in the camera, the accelerator, and other PC upgrades. Considering the condition of the films, I can't justify the expense.
- The TRV900 doesn't suffer from most of the things you describe when used in this manner, because it never actually records video. Only the camera element is used, and the workprinter assembles the individual frames captured by the software into to a movie. In fact, this particular video camera is very popular for this application, because of its 3 large CCDs, large lens, focus ring, and low-light capability that exceeds most modern camcorders (unless you want to spend several thousand dollars). For this application, newer doesn't always mean better because I'm actually not even using the camera's video capability.
Thanks for clarifying the workflow. If I'm understanding correctly, the software is essentially gathering raw sensor data and assembling a progressive movie file? I'm still curious how much it could benefit from a different camera. The 900's sensor is still limited even in it's raw state. Something like a 1/3" CCD camera would be ideal, like an old DVX100 which could be had for around 500$ these days and be a much better capture device with greater range for those highlights. That said, if you do ever decide to upgrade, it would only be fair that we offer donations for the expenses.
Hi Puggo,
I really admire what you've done so far, and I've been so thrilled over the last few weeks discovering all the many fan preservations available from the users on the site. I'm one of those guys who found out about the new BluRay changes, and finally had enough and decided to look into what was out there.
I've been dying to see the theatrical OT come to life beyond GOUT. I could personally care less what Lucas does to the films, just as long as the original films are properly preserved ala Blade Runner. The 16mm scope preservation is a great idea, and potentially the best source for the original content until a useable 35mm scan becomes available to us...
Again, I totally admire and respect all the effort and time you're putting into theses restorations. Having said that, I nearly gagged when I read you're using a Sony TRV900 for the telecine. I understand budgetary constraints, especially for a self funded project like this. Have you considered looking into borrowing a newer camera, perhaps an HDLSR from a friend? The main problem with the Sony 900, aside from being 10 years old and interlaced SD, is the very limited dynamic range, and the "baked in" artifacts like sharpening. Today, almost any camera will have a much better dynamic range than the Sony. I think given all the work and time you're putting into this project, that Sony handycam is a real disservice to you. I strongly urge, no I beg you, to consider looking into a new camera with a much wider dynamic range so that you can faithfully capture most of the beautiful range present in the 16mm print. Plus, shooting it in higher resolution will definitely capture whatever detail is in the print.
If done with a better camera, I am certain that theses 16mm scope prints would be the new reference material for the theatrical OT.
Regardless, I'm looking forward to Puggo Strikes Back.
cheers,
-Craig
*EDIT* So maybe I jumped the gun a bit before reading the entire thread...I see most of what I said was addressed already, and an HDR attempt was even made which was going to be my second suggestion. I'm wondering what the limitations are for the 16 workprint rig and why it can only use DV cameras?