Sign In

RU.08

User Group
Members
Join date
5-May-2011
Last activity
14-May-2021
Posts
1,275
Web Site
https://valeyard.net/

Post History

Post
#1427401
Topic
Cinderella (1950) 35mm Preservation opportunity! (a WIP)
Time

I’m still waiting for things on my end, the scan (along with my print) has been shipped by sea. I didn’t ask for it to be sent that way, but that’s how it was sent.

I didn’t promise people a complete copy of this or that right away, sorry if it’s a bit slow. I should hopefully have another BATB print this year … but again that’s up to the seller and then I have to arrange to get it scanned as well. 😃 It takes time and a lot of expenses which are often out-of-reach.

I should be able to do something from the old scans soon, but they have issues as many people know.

Post
#1419231
Topic
POLL: Disney scanning
Time

MattMahdi said:

Interesting idea. My only fear – and I did just vote in the affirmative – is a completely closed system. I know that there have been times at OT when I have arrived just in time for projects such as would be featured here, and others where I have just arrived too late and that was that. I’d hope there would be a way for new enthusiasts to occasionally join. (Thinking of a certain private torrent site, frequently mentioned here, that’s been devoid of any invitations for years.)

The idea would be a forum for active participants in classic animation scanning so everyone can meet in one place. I’d probably set it up without any regular donors to begin with and then let the forum decide who they’re comfortable with inviting.

It’s not envisioned as a forum for release, rather as a safe private space for people organising projects and others who may want to participate.

Post
#1418570
Topic
POLL: Disney scanning
Time

I’m thinking about setting up a new forum for Disney scanning. This is something I’ve been thinking about for a while.

This is how it will work. I would set up a forum on a VPS and start inviting people over, everyone there must bring something to be a member. This would include collectors/people with film, scanners who want to be on the forum, people who do Disney projects, people who help in practical ways including working on releases, and people who donate towards costs. I will set-up a simple recurring payment system for the latter group to ensure everyone is actively participating in some way. The forum itself would be private and not visible to non-members. It would allow me to bring together people from a variety of places into one place with a common purpose.

Record your vote here. It’s an external poll as I’m posting this question across a few places.

Feel free to discuss the idea.

Post
#1416615
Topic
Alien 1979 - 35mm scan opportunity (a WIP)
Time

A donor encode is now available (well I can make it available to all donors in a couple of hours - PM me if you donated). This is not considered a final version at this stage and was the result of 2 separate print scans.

We’re not using VHS or LD or anything other than film as the reference for theatrical colour timing. The operator of a SD telecine was literally called a “colourist” because they would grade the transfer on-the-fly for home video or broadcast. There’s nothing at all theatrically accurate about that process, and they come from what are known as “TV prints” which are 16mm prints struck specifically for telecine.

Post
#1416061
Topic
Info: How many Disney 35mm scans exist?
Time

I know all details of the TB scan of SW. It’s not at a quality that I personally would be happy with and I feel we can improve upon it even if I was to borrow the same print (a 1975 print if I’m not mistaken) and do a fresh transfer. I’m not bashing the scan at all, but it’s pretty basic especially if you care about early theatrical colours since by the 70’s they were recoloured. That’s a technical limitation of the film material itself.

Post
#1416012
Topic
Info: How many Disney 35mm scans exist?
Time

I’ll be doing Lion King hopefully this year, hopefully we’ll be re-scanning SOTS sometime and BATB hopefully later in the year from a better print. I’ll also be digitising several classics this year from a collection, we’re just working out how best to get the films cleaned first and then they’ll all be transferred en-mass (or as we can afford to) and I should be able to share with donors. For example, we can scan 3 or 4 distinctly separate Snow White prints on 35 and 16mm. There’s something like 20 prints probably covering about 8 classics we can scan in that collection.

I’m still hamstring by funding though.

Post
#1407358
Topic
Alien 1979 - 35mm scan opportunity (a WIP)
Time

Hey great question.

I am independent, not part of TSWT.COM but I am in good contact with them. This project is being handled by someone else (not me and also not TSWT.COM) unless you hear otherwise they are anonymous.

I also use my own scanners, although I have invited others to use them from time to time not everyone chooses to.

I am not asking for any more funding for this project and I’m focusing my efforts on Disney in particular.

Thanks!

Post
#1370665
Topic
Info: Mike Verta’s 4K Restoration - May 2020 Livestream
Time

Cthulhunicron said:

I know, but they said the o-negative has faded because it some of the film stock was notorious for quick fading, and some of it was unusable.

Film that couldn’t be scanned in the 90’s because it was too far faded can be scanned today.

Other sections of the negative were destroyed when they cleaned it.

No doubt, but there is as I said plenty of other material.

In 1997, they said they restored the negative by making duplications of sections from internegatives, interpositives, and the separation masters. So it seems to me that around 1997, what Lucasfilm is calling the “restored negative” (now conformed to the 97 SE), it would have to partially (or mostly) consist of new pieces of film printed in the 90s. All cgi shots were printed onto film, all digital composites were printed onto film, and the restored sections were new film created from IN, IP, or SM sources.

Right, but just because they printed those sections onto film doesn’t mean the interpos, dupe-neg, and separation film is gone.

If there were any sections of the restored negative that were actually from the original negative, it seems like they would have faded even worse by 2013 when they did the 4K scan.

Of course, but the scanning technology is much, much, much more advanced now. In the 90’s no one was scanning for digital 2K. They were doing it for TV, DVD, or digital effects on film.

Unless they were able to avoid additional fading through better storage methods. I suppose worst case scenario, if the sections of the negative that were printed prior to the 90s were unusable , they could have been scanned from the separation masters, since those don’t fade. I’ve heard even the IPs and INs had fading.

Separation masters are black-and-white film, so obviously can’t fade. That said, any dupe-neg would do fine to do a restoration from if the o-neg and the interpos are unavailable, and there would have been several dupe-negs.

Post
#1370521
Topic
Info: Mike Verta’s 4K Restoration - May 2020 Livestream
Time

yotsuya said:

They way he described it was that he was removing grain that was the result of additional generations. So yes, the grain is reduced/removed, but if he did it right, it would be the o-neg level of grain which was made worse with each generation.

That’s what he said but it’s not what he did.

However, as someone who watches quite a lot of 35mm projected I can tell you the grain you see in a scan, even a top-quality scan with no visible scanner noise, is significantly more than is apparent on projection. So it is quite reasonable to do some grain reduction to match projection.

Cthulhunicron said:

So, the O-negative had badly faded by 1994, so it seems like that means that what Lucasfilm is calling the O-negative is actually partially (or mostly) comprised of new film printed in the 90s. We know parts of the o-negative were unusable, and other parts were destroyed in the cleaning process. Damaged sections were re-created from the separation masters, interpositives, and internegatives. Any shots containing CGI (including digital recomposites) were rendered in 2K and then printed to film in 1997.

So when they did the 4K scan, most of what they were scanning would logically have to be new film printed in the 90s, correct? Also, is it possible that the 1997 version contains more frames from the actual o-negative than the 4K scan? It seems like if there were any o-negative frames in 1994 that had survived with minimal fading, then the fading would have been even worse by the time they started working on the 4K version.

There’s plenty of material because they kept everything. The best material is the camera negative, then there’s the dupe positives, the dupe negatives, the separation masters, and so on.

Post
#1369945
Topic
Info: Mike Verta’s 4K Restoration - May 2020 Livestream
Time

act on instinct said:

I think there’s some sour grapes on here because we don’t have access to Legacy, but this is more than a decade of work and it has been a labor of love, I’m not comfortable brushing aside all that dedication and effort as MV just doing whatever he wants, he could really be much less considerate if it was the case that he was exclusively altering to personal taste.

There’s no sour-grapes from me, I just want people to know/understand what Legacy is and what it isn’t. It’s up to people to decide for themselves whether they would call this project a “restoration” or something else. I personally would not call it a “restoration” and whether you want to call it a “fan made special edition” or “fan edit” or something else is up to you.

There are many issues with 4K77 as well of course that make it at best an incomplete restoration, and some of the decisions there were as well to remove some of the imperfections that are in the original film rather than only print/scan imperfections like dirt and scanner noise. As far as fan projects go of course it is very good and really significant improvements will require new film scans (not easy to acquire!)

Post
#1369557
Topic
Info: Mike Verta’s 4K Restoration - May 2020 Livestream
Time

Okay so I watched a little bit of the vid, and I can tell you that Mike is being both loose with the truth, and not fully forthcoming about what he has changed. The '77 crawl as I mentioned he rotoscoped every letter, it’s in one of his Vimeo videos, yet he says it’s what he got just from layering prints! He removed the colour distortions from optical compositing and the “garbage mattes” from space composites because he feels that audiences didn’t see them in 1977. That’d be no different to claiming that Terminator audiences in 1984 didn’t see the wires attached to the HK models as a justification for removing them. He goes on about how the Mos Eisley drive-through shot is the worst looking shot in the film, but he doesn’t make clear that lots of movies have one low quality shot like that in them, or that actually all of the optical composite shots especially involving optical zooms, dissolves, and wipes typically come out at lower quality. Which is why higher budget films do those effects using a 65mm intermediate. Touching them up to bring them up to the quality of the rest of the film is exactly what the intention of the 1997 Special Edition was - it was a photochemical restoration more than anything else, with a few CGI shots inserted.

Finally Mike says that Legacy is the “original version” - I disagree. It’s his version, that he is happy with and that’s perfectly fine. But he has made alterations to it to make it the way he feels the movie should look, including making it way sharper than was ever intended in 1977.

Post
#1369514
Topic
Info: Mike Verta’s 4K Restoration - May 2020 Livestream
Time

44rh1n said:

I wish Disney would just release his restoration. It looks phenomenal!

Mike’s “restoration” (if you can call it that, it’s really more of a fan-made special edition) is not a professional restoration. From feedback I received from someone who has seen it, it’s inconsistent and the best looking shots are ones where the camera is static since Mike focused on resolution and dirt removal. The reason why it looks phenomenal in his previews is because he’s hand-picked his best looking shots. Since resolution was his focus he also oversharpened the entire movie, not unlike the 2004 Lowry Digital restoration. As per his own videos he rotoscoped certain elements to make them sharper (for example the opening crawl) resulting in them looking nothing like they do on film. The re-compositing is ironically the same thing that GL did in 1997 as the main changes for the Special Edition, and Mike has also fixed things in the original the he didn’t like, so it’s odd that MV calls his edition a “restoration” when he’s making similar changes to what GL did, just using different tools and techniques. From what I understand the quality of the movie is not consistent since the techniques that he developed only work well for certain shots and not others. Mike’s creative decisions aside, he doesn’t have the tools or expertise for correct colour timing, to fix warpage, or reduce flicker.

This isn’t to criticise Mike, I haven’t seen Legacy myself. It’s his project and up to him to decide what he likes. It’s just to let people know that Mike’s idea of a completed restoration is an edition that he is happy with, with a bunch of changes in it, which looks different to the original film due to his own creative decisions, and without many of the restorative corrections made which most people would expect out of a professional restoration. If you want the original Star Wars, the O-OT, Legacy isn’t it. If Disney released it, well I honestly don’t know who it would really please (besides Mike obviously) we’d still be asking them to restore and release the original 1977 movie without any changes.