RU.08

little-endian said:

Well, while I am confident that the 35mm print was professionally captured as good as possible and probably virtually shows everything what the LPP film print had to offer, considering that the video releases (from whatever source they come from) show a lot more detail in dark areas, I think it’s fair to consider the blacks to be “crushed” compared to some original negative which must be lying around somewhere - at first independently of where that happened (during the film to video transfer or from film to film).

“Black crush” generally refers to either the dark details being lost due to the capture device (i.e. the camera in the film scanner, video compression, or because of the contrast setting on the display device. My point was simply that the detail is not in the print, it’s already gone. We see the same thing with Lady and the Tramp - if we get to scan an IB Tech print there will be much more detail in the dark areas.

In other words - I didn’t mean to say that any dark detail was crushed on purpose within the scan project, all I am saying is - given the original negative - it should be possible to have all the grainy and cinematic look the current scan has plus the details in the dark areas (which would be nice). After all, one has to have dreams, right? 😉

Yes that’s possible, just not theatrically accurate for this film. 😛

little-endian said:

Compared to the 35mm print, the SD and HD video versions have way higher detail in dark areas/scenes but on the other hand a little lower resolution and - risking to highly speculate here - probably not the color timing which was originally intended. Hence overall, the 35mm print of course provides a rougher cinematic experience, but at the cost of quite some severe black crush, a fact which can’t be embellished either.

Yes that’s correct that the 35mm print doesn’t have much detail in the dark areas, but it’s not correct that the blacks are crushed. LPP film prints do not have much shadow detail.

I’m pretty sure one of the project members owns the D-VHS.

Yeah they released it just before Christmas. It’s one of their best releases so far. The print appears very undamaged - when you compare for example to Ghostbusters.

2022 Update: PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME ANY PMs ABOUT THIS SCAN. - A number of users have done this and I know they’re well-meaning and don’t know better, but 1. this is not my scan as is made clear in the original post below, and 2. Times have moved on - I do not have a download link to this to share any more. It was good scan quality in 2018, but it’s 2022 and compared to what can be done now it’s average at best.

Original Post

Shortly after Aladdin, the team with no name released True Lies to MySpleen and Blutopia. If you’re not a member of those sites please don’t ask for invites, however I do have an alternate link that can be shared privately if you would like to access the release. 😉 I am not involved, but a recent discussion with another member alerted me to the fact that the release wasn’t widely known about outside of those torrent trackers. So here is its OT.com discussion thread!

Screenshots:

Info (from Myspleen):

True.Lies.1994.35mm.1080p.Cinema.DTS.v1.0

Sourced from a 4K scan of an original release theatrical print

MD5 checksum of the .mkv file: 58F1568B7ED673EA7470DAC162547F31

Size of the .mkv file: 27 621 105 041 bytes

(read this before asking any questions)
________________

Are you still waiting for the True Lies blu-ray to come out? You don't have to anymore, here's something better.

Following our tradition of the "v1.0" releases:

- Only some mild cleanup was applied
- The print is LPP, so no color fading here
- The encode is blu-ray compliant
- The release is NOT synchronized to official BD (certainly not in the case of this movie...)

Before you ask "Why is this movie so blue???": because that's how it looked in the theaters. You may have seen a D-VHS rip of this movie, but that one appears to be a scan of the original negative, or interpositive, without any color timing applied.

Audio track #1 (default) is the cinema DTS track ripped from the discs used in theaters. It's recommended to watch the movie with this track
Audio track #2 is a capture of the optical Dolby Stereo track present on the print. It was played in theaters without DTS system, included in this release for completion only

Example frames:

https://postimg.io/gallery/2ey3b0qck/

________________

FAQ
(I mostly just copy-paste this into nfo of every release, but sometimes I add new answers)

Q: Do you have a website, or some other place where I could send you spam e-mails/PMs?
A: No. We kinda have a certain "home tracker" (at least for now, it can change anytime), where I upload all releases and respond to PMs and comments. ALL other torrents, warez etc. found on the internet were uploaded by someone else and could have been modified. Our releases always include a BD-sized encode, .nfo file and the donation picture. Since these files end up in many different places on the internet, I will not disclose the name of the tracker I upload to.

Q: Why are colors in some of your scans so different than those in official releases?
A: Because sadly very few studios care about having their movies properly presented on home video. They often make quick, cheap scans of the negative, slap it with some automated dirt cleanup and push it out for easy money. Color timing was a difficult, chemical process that many don't bother to recreate, and the result is always a dull image without any distinctive traits.

Q: You said the file is sourced from a 4K scan, why don't you release a 4K version?
A: I won't go into details here, basically we think that it's too early to dive into 4K encodes. Don't worry, the original scan files are safe and all movies that we have will get a 4K release at some point in the future.

Q: Why do some of your audio captures contain obvious errors?
A: Sometimes the audio capture from the print is supposed to be the main track for viewing - in which case we give it the attention it deserves. On the other hand, very often the 35mm track is inferior to a Laserdisc capture of the same mix, because of damage, missing parts and other problems that can't be completely fixed. Movies that contain cinema DTS tracks also have the optical 35mm track included only for completion, with minimal amount of work done with it.

Q: What does "open matte" mean?
A: A standard 35mm film cell can hold image at about 1.37:1 aspect ratio. This is similar in shape to old CRT TVs, obviously not many movies were shown in theaters like that. There were two general ways to get widescreen image from film - some were shot with anamorphic lens, which basically "squeezed" image with 2.35:1 ratio to fit on film, and then theater projectors used special lens to stretch it back out. The other way was just cropping top and bottom parts of the image, leaving image in e.g. 1.85:1. Some filmmakers used "hard matting" technique, which came down to attaching two black bars to the camera lens, restricting some of the light from going in and thereby forcing a certain aspect ratio. Others either didn't care, or simply decided against it, leaving the cropping to projectionists at theaters. An "open matte" version in our slang means that the image from the print is shown in its entirety, complete with parts that were never intended to be seen.

Q: What does "LPP" mean?
A: LPP is a low fade film stock. It was introduced in 1982, and all movies produced after that year have used this type of stock. "Low fade" means "really, really low fade". The color on a properly stored LPP print will outlive all of us.

Q: Why do some releases have "LPP" in their name, while others don't?
A: We include the stock in the release name only for movies from before 1982, that were reprinted on LPP stock.

Q: Why is it so dark/shouldn't black levels be higher/is the detail lost in dark areas?
A: Dark areas on 35mm prints hold very little detail, what is present there on the negative (which most commercial blu-rays are based on) never makes it to theatrical prints due to generational loss. Increasing black levels is a matter of preference and doesn't actually reveal any detail. If you feel the movie is too dark, you can simply increase the brightness setting on your TV/video player and achieve the same effect. Keep in mind, that this is not necessarily bad - filmmakers made their films knowing that dark areas would look really dark on the prints. What you're seeing on blu-rays is often not what was originally intended to be seen.

Q: Why does this release has less detail than blu-ray? I thought it was supposed to be 1080p?!
A: Commercial blu-rays are most often sourced from negative scans, which hold more detail than theatrical prints, and there is nothing we can do about it. The image on prints, because of analog nature of print production process, is softer, has less detail and is more grainy, but most of the time has better contrast and colors. Our versions look just like they did in theaters, there are no missing scenes, added scenes, changed sfx, changed color timing, DNR scrubbing or any other revisionist changes.

Q: When will you release a cleaned up version of X/open matte version of Y?
A: When it's done. If it's being done at all.

Q: Why can't you release more often?
A: Because we don't have as much time and money for it as we would like. If you want to see more from us, consider donating to the bitcoin address. Prints, hard drives, and other materials we use cost money.
________________

List of our releases (chronologically):

Jurassic.Park.1993.35mm.1080p.Cinema.DTS.v1.0
The.Matrix 1999.35mm.1080p.Cinema.DTS.v1.0 (flawed, do not download)
The.Matrix 1999.35mm.1080p.Cinema.DTS.v2.0
Star.Trek.III.The.Search.For.Spock.1984.35mm.1080p.Dolby.Stereo.v1.0
Raiders.of.the.Lost.Ark.1981.35mm.LPP.1080p.Dolby.Stereo.LITEMAKR.v1.0
Lady.and.the.Tramp.1955.35mm.LPP.1080p.Dolby.Surround.v1.0
Jurassic.Park.1993.35mm.1080p.Cinema.DTS.Open.Matte.v1.0
Jurassic.Park.1993.35mm.1080p.Cinema.DTS.Superwide.Open.Matte.v1.0
Jurassic.Park.1993.35mm.1080p.Cinema.DTS.v2.0
Ghostbusters.1984.35mm.1080p.Dolby.Stereo.v1.0
Aladdin.1992.35mm.1080p.Dolby.Stereo.v1.0
True.Lies.1994.35mm.1080p.Cinema.DTS.v1.0

Very well done to the team behind this release, it looks and sounds GREAT!

Keep in mind this was from a regular scan. It is possible to get audio transferred using specialist equipment, and that should get you results that will match digital quality. It’s also possible to get audio transferred directly from a projector’s output and that would be similar quality to what you get from scans.

Hi guys work is continuing on this, the first print has been scanned and previews are available for donors. We have access to TWO more complete prints! The second print will be used for a few sections, including the section in the preview where there are audio issues due to splices. The third print (not in English) will be scanned entirely! Anyone interested in donating please get in contact. 😃

little-endian said:

@Superrayman3, RU.08, ScruffyNerfHerder

Since some of you keep mentioning the LD, can you please be more specific about what LD release you mean? There are plenty different ones including the 1662 CS which according to DiscLord is supposed to have the unaltered far field mix as PCM.

However, your mentioning of 48kHz suggests AC3 as this is the only format on the LD which uses that sample rate.

Yes that’s the LD the rip is from, it was a bit-perfect rip of the PCM track and up-sampled from 44.1kHz so should have no loss in quality.

It’s not CGI, those are practical effects optically composted.

^…^ said:

I made comparison with BD, and sadly it’s only the 1.85:1 version…

Yeah you beat me to it, even without comparing it to the BD it looks like it’s hard-matted 1.85:1. The 4K remaster is gorgeous, the only reason to do a print scan of Robocop is if you found a very good print and it was open-matte. And yeah it’ll be the censored theatrical version.

Yes very normal. 😃

Thanks go to the most recent donator MWilson!

@Enigmo I can’t answer that as I haven’t reviewed every movie personally, but I would say “probably not” at least from what I have seen so far. I encourage you to go to any 35mm shows that may be playing in your area, although now a couple of years ago I went to several 35mm shows of classic Disney films and I got to experience in some cases for the first time the experience in a cinema shown on 35mm, and in other cases for the first time since the early 1990’s.

The cover image in high resolution is here:

http://cskern.biz/star-wars

But I suggest you ask the artist (Corbyn Kern) before using it.

Very interesting responses from Mr Shickadance and ElectricTriangle, I guess I was mistaken. You still need to be careful though, as ElectricTriangle correctly pointed out a remixed soundtrack and also other creative elements on a release (bluray menus, artwork, audio commentaries, potentially subtitles, and other special features) are copyrightable so you would need to remove any works from the release that are not original.

There isn’t an unlimited window of opportunity, if we don’t scan some of these prints then they will be returned to their owners and we won’t have the opportunity again.

As long as it’s v2.0 a mega link would be welcome. v1 had the incorrect colour grading.

Why are you working from the DVD when there’s a Bluray? Oh right now I see your edit comments. 😃

Jeez, the Bluray is ugly as hell with all that edge enhancement, and the UHD is a horrid grainfest. And yes they’ve blown out the highlights on the UHD.

Short answer: a LOT, please donate!

Yes 4K full aperture which itself is about 2x the resolution of the TITANIC scan for example. And depending on the hardware that itself may be downscaled from the native resolution of 5K or 6K.

RUN_LUKE_RUN said:

I honestly didn’t want to sound rude. If i did I’m sorry. I had a honest question and thank you for taking the time to post your comments to clarify. You have sacrificed so much so people can enjoy your work and i thank you. if i ever save up enough money for my home server i would be happy to lend my processing power to your projects. But for now cryptocurrency miners will continue to jack-up the prices.

I don’t think anyone was accusing you of that. To me it just sounded a little uninformed, not rude. I think the thing is there is a disparity of information between people who are involved (like poita), people who follow closely, and people who are new or don’t follow these projects so closely. In any case posting your enquiry in the forum rather than by private topic I think is helpful as it provides an opportunity for others who are thinking the same thing to get an answer. 😃

Yes, please do send a donation to poita! It would be greatly appreciated, the information is in the first post of this thread.

I believe poita will be getting this scanned next (after ANH: SE but before the other special editions). 😃

I just need something that can encode DNxHD/ProRes faster and let me preview my 1080p timelines quicker. When tweaking Poita’s preview files in Sony Vegas, my 4770 / 635 couldn’t handle the footage unless it was in 8-bit/Video Gamma, as opposed to full 32-bit/Linear Gamma, which made my preview screen play back at ~8fps. Not sure if a GPU upgrade would fix this though.

I think if you run your display from a second GPU then it fixes screen lag. Of course I can’t speak from experience. 😃

We have the opportunity to scan Jungle Book. From three IB Technicolor prints (two in English). Some work has already been done on the first print, here is a video preview of Reel 2:

Password: jbpreview

As you can see, this print is in excellent overall condition with very few lines or scratches, and it is very clean. It does however have some splices, and we will need to scan the second print to do a proper restoration. The total scanning costs are around $900 (that does not cover rental, postage, or hard drive space), although I have already covered some of that as well as received some private donations. The main print we’re working from will be available for a while, however the second print is a limited opportunity. I would like to be able to scan it as well, but currently don’t have the funds to do it. If you’re interested in donating to the cause, please send me a message!

Also, we will shortly have limited access to the Sleeping Beauty and Lady and the Tramp prints as well!

Thanks!

Screenshots of Print #1:

I’ll be concentrating on Titanic first, I plan to start work on that later this month. I also have a copy of Alice in Wonderland a scan that was done back in 2015, and we’ve been looking into possibilities to get a second Alice print scanned. And I’ve been busy getting other scans done, and hopefully there will be several more scans to do very soon (think Sleeping Beauty, Lady and the Tramp, and we have access to two prints of Jungle Book we can scan as well - all IB Technicolor). And after I get those scanned there’s still more to do - Lion King, the second Cinderella print (we will need at least R1 scanned), Fantasia Kostal, and The Land Before Time. So any donations towards scanning would be much appreciated, I have very little money at the moment to continue spending on scans so like poita I’ll soon run into a dead-end.

Here is a preview from Jungle Book:

Password: jbpreview

By the way, although that’s open matte I will almost certainly not release it like that. You can see the framing is really bad and not at all intended to be shown like that.