RU.08

We have the DTS there is no need to purchase those discs (and especially not at that price).

DylanDrew said:

yea everyone with a better scanner who actually knows how to use it produces worse scans than you. Ok retard. Every single scan you’ve ever done looks like complete shit. Nobody who actually knows what a good scan looks like would ever waste space on their hdd to download it. Your scans are for Twitter clankers that don’t know any better. There’s a reason you spit when you talk and cant produce a coherent sentence without chat gpt

Dylan, without commenting on PNC17’s work I can tell you there’s a lot of SHIT scans that get done commercially that end up on streaming and on bluray/uhd. You’d be shocked if you actually saw what happens with a lot of workflows.

The dynamic range looks quite limited on PNC17’s screencaps, but not necessarily more than you would see on a lot of commercial scanners that struggle with the density of print. For example take a look at the Alien³ commercial Bluray and you’ll see the same limited dynamic range - except they worked from the negatives to produce it and not a print! It makes me wonder if the backlight is the issue with PNC17’s homebrew scanner.

NC-17peter said:

Anyway to check out the ones you have done so I can get a reference for your standards? thx m8

Well you did Batman on a commercial scanner, just scan a reel on your one and compare the results.

NC-17peter said:

But if you ask me a lot of commercial real time scanners are essential hybrid Telecines to me. It’s taking a video real time then separating into dpx… This why I see poor results with most commercial scanners.

Not at all accurate.

NC-17peter said:

Our baseline: RAW, 16-bit, 6K, ISO 200, camera set as flat/log as possible. Exports: ProRes 4444 (HQ) at 6000×4000. I’ve used JPEG 2000 before, but it doesn’t offer the same latitude as RAW for nuanced control. For DCPs, we’re careful to avoid crushed blacks or blown highlights—aiming for a projection-accurate look without introducing “projector flicker” artifacts.

Reference: https://x.com/NCseventeen/status/1956399052423147697

Interesting. I would not call that “projection accurate”.

It looks a lot like the early 2000’s scans (off negs) where the dynamic range is limited in that way.

Sambarker04 said:

UPDATE (12/08/25): To be fair, I’m just not in a good mood last night since this is the most difficult project I might have done, so hopefully I’ll find a way to get this completed. It’s just how I’m not allow to mention my collaborator’s name again, and maybe because EPho3nix was trolling me or hopefully he was just joking around, as you can see from the last few posts. We’ll see if it will go on or not.

EPho3nix is not a troll.

Sambarker04 said:

So this is something that I and someone I know have been working on for a while. Our job was to revive the leaked 35mm scan to make it the ultimate presentation of the film as originally seen in cinemas back in 1995.

You should leave Trist’s scan alone, I think he made his preference pretty clear.

There’s nothing to stop you from collaborating with someone else and scanning another print, then you can do whatever you want as it’s your project.

Eventually, based on the review copy file I made, his Discord pals approved to let me do it.

No they haven’t, otherwise you would already have the original prores files to work from.

However, looking back at the review copy, I felt like something is wrong with it, especially with the color grade.

That’s what everyone says when they see how Disney’s animated films originally looked, especially the digitally animated ones. The final color grade is done to the film after the digital film-outs and the choices made when animating were based on the filmout process.

I used VEGAS Pro’s Color Match plugin using the LD footage as source.

A LaserDisc is not a color grading source. Here are some videos that recreate the telecine process using a retired Mk3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7m3CfxR6bI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvh-oPAI-mo

With telecines you don’t even know if the telecine prints were struck off the color-timed negatives or not. Those low-contrast telecine prints were expensive to strike costing several times more than regular projection prints and it was expected that the telecine operators would transfer them how they preferred.

The operator was called a colorist because he decides the color timing on-the-fly and he can do it scene-by-scene. All the preferences for color timing the entire film can be reviewed and saved before the “actual” transfer to broadcast/master tape. That’s why a LaserDisc, a VHS or a DVD can come out completely different each time it is released, why it comes out different each time the movie is broadcast, and why it typically looks totally different to the original theatrical prints. The preference now with professional restorations is to use a reference print supplied by the rightsholder for the color timing of the original negative scans. The gold standard is to set up the screening room to the director/DOP’s specs - or as closely as possible to it.

So long-story short there, the way that TS was scanned it does not require a lot of color grading in post to be theatrically accurate.

ForestGWolfy said:

I take it back Neogeomaster is a manipulative scammy scambag

He is definitely a grifter:

Selling a scan he doesn’t even have for €1000! I can promise that scan did not cost anywhere near that amount, the expensive part was in buying the print and shipping it around etc as well as the hard drives. All he has is low resolution preview files encoded from the scan.

mistitan said:

Thanks Clark for the insight! That’s some crazy stuff. I’d be careful.

I’ve sent you a DM (private topic), as you’re new to the forum it may not be clear where that is - just click on the speech icon at the top right that’s next to your avatar.

Clark Teddles said:

James Camera found out about the 70mm Print of Titanic that was playing here in Sydney and got it locked away since he doesn’t want that version(?) to be seen.

The Ritz played the NFSA’s 70mm print, it’s the NFSA that’s not allowed to rent it out any more not the Ritz. Yes that was at Cameron’s direct request, not not necessarily because he “found out” anything as the film had played there off 70mm on a number of occasions without any issues.

It’s a strange embargo because the 70mm is the definitive version of the film.

mr_merrick said:

The sample mistitan posted above isn’t a 70mm print. I did see a 70mm screening in Leicester Square on release and wonder why Cameron would want that version pulled? I have my own notions but can’t be sure.

It’s the same as the 35mm version, except on large format and thus 2.2:1. 70mm lets more light through, has more shadow detail (and with Titanic this is noticeable), and the dirt or cinch damage on the film is less visible when projected on the same size screen. Titanic was filmed on Super35 with select shots filmed on 65mm.

If Cameron’s not letting the 70mm version be rented then he won’t be letting the 35mm version be officially rented either, although there are plenty of cinemas around that will rent the DCP and swap in a 35mm print anyway for films where renting it on 35mm isn’t an option with the distributor.

Limited by my scanner: each frame takes 2 1/2 minutes to scan, frames need to be manually straightened if a restore is to take place. Because the scanner is only able to scan 22 frames in a single go, I need to be available every hour or so to place new film in the scanner, ensure it’s in the proper place, and hit “Scan.” This single thing alone makes this a full-time job, as it can take up to a full work day to scan a single long filmstrip. Archival-quality 35mm scanners are prohibitively expensive and little, if any, testing has been done with filmstrips on motion picture scanners to see if they’d even work with pieces of film this short.

You can scan still photography on a motion-picture scanner, but in order to do that you need to splice all your strips together into large reels, for example 1,000ft.

Acquire better scanning hardware: The sweet spot seems to be a BlackMagic Cintel at approximately $35,000, simply because every other machine in the market starts at almost a million dollars. However I have not specifically set this as a current goal because I still need to cover operating and household expenses, even if a Cintel were just to magically show up on my doorstep this afternoon. From the samples I’ve seen of Cintel transfers, it is able to register each film frame in exactly the same place, which would eliminate the crop-and-straighten pass for restores.

The other machines do not cost $1,000,000+!

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but you want a still photography scanner not a motion picture scanner. A BMD Cintel is not suited to you needs at all, and it would not be cost effective. Professional scanning on better machines than it generally starts at .20/ft, I presume your filmstrips are around 2-5ft in length each, so to put them through a motion-picture scanner you’re going to have to splice hundreds of them together just to make small reels - heck just a 300ft reel would consist of a minimum of 60 film strips. If you did all 3,000 filmstrips and they average say 4ft each then it would cost you about $2,400 to scan that way - although it would be an awful lot of work for yourself as you would need to: spice them all together, and then break them back down, check the scans are not clipped (ordinarily this would be checked for you - but you can’t expect 60 different “clips” spliced together to be individually checked - you’d need to do that yourself).

The still photography scanners cost a small fraction to purchase or build yourself compared with a motion-picture scanner.

The old still photography scanners (like Fuji Frontier SP3000) are not suited either. They were only designed to scan negatives, and you have positive print film.

If I were you I’d look into the Filmomat 135 Autocarrier. Setting that up perfectly to get the film as “square” as possible would require you purchase some SMPTE resolution film. You can DIY everything yourself if you prefer. There are significantly less challenges with still photography scanning compared with the motion-picture scanners. You can buy functionally the same camera that the Cintel uses for about $600 used, or you can buy something much better for not that much more and you’re not limited to global-shutter cameras which saves you $$.

The optical perf stabilisation you mention (that Blackmagic does in the Cintel’s hardware) can be done in Fusion.

I can’t speak to how perfectly flat a table-top system like the 135 Autocarrier can get the film. The motion-picture scanners have sophisticated film transport modules that provide constant even tension for the film, whereas still photography scanners load the film in as a strip with no lateral tension. Your best bet would be to get someone that already has one to do some sample scans for you. The geometric imperfections would be less important for you anyway, as mentioned it would be more about getting the frame as “square” as possible so that you don’t have to rotate the film digitally at all.

If you have strips that show excessive geometric distortion you always have the option to do them on a commercial motion-picture scanner, doing a few 300ft reels that way won’t break the bank - it’ll just be a lot of manual work on your end to do that.

I hope that helps!

The CGI is in the negative, but they did re-do some of the CGI ontop of the CGI (that is, there is some fresh CGI on CGI such as re-done Jabba).

Director said:

Well, it seems you have more questions than I can answer inside a thread, but yes, there was no release In 1996, but the film versions and reels that were used in 1997 release, were ready in the end of 1996. And the Swedish website was a torrent website, the user was using English for communication. The original scan file has been created in May 22, 2012, and last modified in 2013. I do not wish to use any TN1 scans due to their scans having bad colour that would require me to spend another 5 years. And the films “always being 480p”… did you even read the responses? that was a mistake I made.

There’s a few different things here.

The colour grading in Star Wars and Empire in particular is all over the place on 35mm. That was part of the creative process GL chose to follow: audiences are more forgiving of inconsistent colourtiming in a blackened cinema. He made other decisions as well that resulted in lower-quality scenes technically but allowed more of the effects scenes: lower spec matte paintings, shooting scenes for optical composition on 35mm instead of 65mm and so-on. Secondly, different shots fade at different rates based on the density of the shot itself. This is why, for example, all the optical-wipes had to be re-done for the 1997 SE - because those scenes had faded to the point that it was impossible to restore them to be consistent with the before and after scenes.

The detail in an average SW print is about 1.5K - not 480p (0.7K).

Could you answer your DMs please.

The scan will be done by the same people who did the manhunter & keep scans. Manhunter was our print & luke got it from us & they did a wicked job. We were very glad to help them out.

LG no longer uses that scanner as it isn’t very good for prints. For reference (as you probably aren’t aware of this) I quoted him $1,300 for a professional scan of Manhunter in 2020 however that proved to be a bit much for him at the time. If I wasn’t scant myself at the time I would have paid for it.

Tim Burton’s Batman is a very dark movie, you’re going to be loosing an awful lot of detail in the shadows doing it on that scanner.

I prefer this because I am give people content like 35mm emulation, the common scans & some rarities.

You need to stop uploading other people’s scans, public piracy is against the rules of this forum and against Patreon’s rules. Profiting from fanediting (“35mm emulation”) is also against the OT forum rules:

• If you are profiting from fanediting…
  If you are selling fanediting…
  If you are monetizing fanediting…
  If you are asking others to financially subscribe to support your fanediting…
  …you have violated this rule.

V

They’re called cutters. They take perfectly good prints and cut them up to sell for profit.

Please do not buy.

That link you shared is printed from digital anyway. But it’s from a print. So it was printed to a negative, a theatrical print was struck from the digitally printed negative, and then that seller has cut up the print to make those strips.

Or are they doing something to put maybe a Blu-Ray or dare I say DVD rip onto film stock?

There are services that allow you to do this, but I can tell this is cut up of a real print just from looking at it. There’s printed-through damage from the negative easy to spot if you know what to look for.

sebkarlbjork said:

I own the full 35mm Die Hard With the vengeance film reels. If anyone wants to do a scan of it and do a donations post with cost for shipping and scanning all the reels I’m would happily lend it out.

If you could send me a DM I’d appreciate it. I’m not personally a Die Hard fan but there are some big fans of Die Hard on my Discord server who’d most likely love to borrow your print and do a professional scan.

sebkarlbjork said:

I own the full 35mm Die Hard With the vengeance film reels. If anyone wants to do a scan of it and do a donations post with cost for shipping and scanning all the reels I’m would happily lend it out.

Are you on my Discord server?

Lat to the party, but yeah trailers aren’t color timed. Or, that is to say, they are made well before the final color timing of the final film is done so even the same shot can look completely different on a trailer compared to the theatrical release.

JRSSCPRKFAN said:

PS. I cant wait to hear the new audio. Sounds exciting!

The existing audio is perfectly fine, one is captured optically and sounds great the other is Cinema DTS so there’s no loss in quality from the DTS CD to what I gave you.

The picture quality on the other hand… the new scans are a lot higher spec.

Please check your DM because I sent you the audio for that scan. It’s the speech bubble at the top of the page next to your avatar image.

It is not Team Negative One’s scan. They were given it to work on but they never made the release from which you got it. I won’t go into the internal details, but it was an English language print and the restored scan you have had both optical audio and cinema DTS synced to it already in English. Somebody removed it and uploaded it with foreign audio. I’ve sent you a link to the audio so you can download it and sync it.

That said, the scan is old. It was done in 2014. The newer scans will blow that one out of the water in terms of quality.

JRSSCPRKFAN said:

A new year, a new Jurassic Park Scan! This Jurassic Park scan will be a free for all scan, meaning that anybody and everybody can watch it for free! It uses the new Jurassic Park audio in perfect sync with a (muted) french scan. Experience the colors, grain, and open matte of the original Jurassic Park as seen in theaters in 1993.

I don’t mean to burst your bubble, but you don’t have a French scan. What you have is this scan with the English audio removed and the French audio synced by someone and uploaded somewhere. I’d have to check how the scan was paid for, but the guy that loaned the print for the scan doesn’t mind if you have a copy so if you want the original Prores just say and we may be able to give it to you.

That said, the colours are not right at all because the scanner used had limited dynamic range. No amount of colour correction will make it as good as the newer scans that are currently being done or worked on. It’s not actually a 4K scan either, it’s Bayer UHD … which is fine for 1080p finishing, but there’s a lot of detail lost. Don’t get me wrong, for 2015 the quality was acceptable.

Anyway, I remember someone uploading the scan somewhere with French audio synced a few years ago (a French blog I think), so I’m 99% sure that’s what you have.

timdiggerm said:

Or Disney finally told the IA to take it down. Or the IA is upping their enforcement in light of their recent lawsuit issues.

The Internet Archives themselves has a strict proactive anti-piracy policy. The lawsuits were their own fault for not loaning 1:1 copies, had they just done that the lawsuits would have ended in their favour.

This print is gone long gone guys, if you want to scan HA2 you’ll need to source another print for scanning.

imsorrydave2448 said:

I’ve seen much worse, and I’m far more worried about the quality of the actual film itself than the color fade. Also I’ve never seen a full print of the original Planet of the Apes. Only people selling an incomplete version with a few reels, and other Planet of the Apes films. Do you have an archived link to the sale of that print?

It may be too badly faded for the color to recover even with the best possible scan. Even the best scanners in the world cannot cannot get full color separation because it’s just not possible with today’s technology. This is what the spectrum looks like with unfaded film:

Once that yellow peak has faded below magenta it can’t come back, not at the moment anyway and quite possibly never.

Lots of faded films can still scan though and recover good color, it just all depends on the extent of the fade.

And yes I can show you the ad send me a private message.

There is no way that a print that badly faded is worth $1,000 even if it’s in otherwise perfect condition. The last faded one I saw come up for sale was priced at $125 plus postage (from the US).

Send me a PM I’d be interested to know where you got quotes from and what you were quoted. 😉 With scanning price and quality does not always go together…

…

Bino08 said:

Well, can you refer me to someone who owns a print they would lend for scanning?

I believe so. Scanning would be about $950 I think plus postage.

Why not just re-scan the print that we already know is good? Yes it will be more expensive, yes the dye-layers are misaligned and it will need to be done R/G/B to do it right but literally EVERY Technicolor SOTS print is like that and it will scan far, far better than a faded Eastman print.