I think it was more determined by what order they did the films in. From memory most of the Sean Connery films were done well, but then Goldeneye which is by far the most popular Brosnan Bond is a DNR-heavy mess.
Maybe we should look for a GoldenEye print? š
I was under the impression Poita was using them specifically because they were easy to sync to the reels.
Not really, as long as the sound-head is connected to the scanner the optical audio will be in sync when scanned (obviously with errors at splices).
Iām not sure the samples have the DTS audio (I doubt it actually), however the cinema DTS is available.
Last public video, its about 1GB in size, above is a shot from it.
You can really see how inconsistent the SE was shot to shot, both in the grade and the image quality. This has not been colour corrected.
Itās obvious why the home releases had a total overhaul.
That preview looks GREAT!
Itās also easy to identify the digital scenes as they have distinctive framing (cropped left and right compared to other scenes). That certainly confirms what we believed that the entire film was not from a digital intermediate.
The issue with the Bonds is a mixed one - some of them look great on Bluray and they have done a good restoration job, others were rushed to meet the deadline and look awful. Really they should have restored them in batches instead of trying to do all 22 Bonds (at the time) at once.
Docsapās edits arenāt always perfect with this film actually, Iād love to have a crack at it myself sometime if he wants to make the files available.
Any differences for this compared to these three Blu-ray disc releases?
Ray, itās completely different. Docsap restored all the stuff that was cut or modified at the last minute before the film was theatrically released.
Hi!
How did you get the Swan Archives footage? I canāt find a way to download those low fps flash clips.
Thanks.
Iām guessing Docsap borrowed the 35mm cut footage and had it transferred himself?
Interesting, could you show how the Speeder shot looks projected?
Good luck! I hope people do help you out with this as itās important we can get good quality LD transfers.
Would have loved to watch this about Christmas. Any chance?
Unfortunately not, however as a donor you do have previews of all 4 reels you can watch and that covers the entire movie. Although not release quality it is 1080p and quite acceptable for a casual viewing. Just a reminder to people though that the previews are not to be shared with non-donors, so if I see them shared it will mean I will be less generous with previews from future scans.
Jurassic Park isnāt TN1ās scan, itās poitaās. There is always a different grading done for home video or broadcast, hereās a good video on the old telecine process if youāre interested:
Itās amazing how much the CGI additions stick out.
Yeah that Green-cast thing was a dead give-away for all kinds of films, not just the Special Editions! I always wondered why they didnāt correct the colour before compositing the imagesā¦
I have about ā¬200 in donations so far, from three four donors. Thanks go to all whoāve donated!
Yeah itās clear they wanted it make it look more like Aladdin and Lion King on Bluray.
Yes, the SE print is worse shot to shot than the IB prints.
Thatās very interesting. Itās not a complete surprise though given they were working from brand new freshly shot camera negatives in 1977, and in 1995 (or whenever work started on the SE) they were working with o-negs that were not in great shape, and other lab elements that were problematic as well. I had the impression that they didnāt replace the entire o-neg, but rather they cut out all the scenes/shots they thought had problems and then struck new o-neg by doing new composites or working from the master positives. Itās funny actually that they wasted time on doing re-composites for the space shots that probably benefited the least from it!
Love it dbear! Lots of people criticised the BD WIP as well and felt the LD WIP was more authentic, itās not perfect of course but itās actually pretty close and I think its limitations are mostly due to the SD telecine transfer, not because they intentionally fiddled with it. Thanks again for sharing it!
Ah who knows, but my work must continue!
Can I ask, I think this might be an acetate print rather than polyester, someone was of the opinion that late 90ās acetate prints retain more details in the dark areas/shadows, could you let me know your opinion on that?
The print would have been professionally cleaned before scanning.
Thanks for posting the Bluray screenshots. As you can see they bluray looks nothing like the 35mm, and no home video release looks authentic which is what I said here. Belleās hair being black in the night scenes was in my notes when I last saw the movie projected from 35mm about this time in 2014 (THREE years ago now)!
All films undergo some changes for home video viewing. And that generally involves boosting the colour/saturation so it looks acceptable in a brightly lit roomā¦ in a darkened movie theatre you donāt notice the lack of colour in a print, and your eyes are more forgiving of inconsistencies with colour and brightness. But in a living room you have household objects around that are illuminated and give you a stronger basis for comparison. For that reason alone darker films are made quite a bit brighter, but also the poor dynamic range even of bluray to resolve dark details results in banding if some brightness isnāt applied.
It may be a few weeks before I can post more previews, when I can I will. If you want to help speed things along feel free to send a donation for the Alien scan, once thatās done weāll have access to the hard drives which also hold the BATB and Face/Off scans.
Okay, looks like weāre finally ready to scan. If you offered a donation now would be the time to get in contact with me!
Here are some sample frames:
At long last we have some samples from the scanner:
Why should he? He isnāt arguing for SD capture/presentation or any nonsense like that.
Well the artefacts are certainly still present in HD resolution as well.
He mentioned the IMAX and 35MM being the same stock. In any case, Iām quite content to trust that this guy, whoā¦
-has shot 13 features on film,
-is been somewhat nerdy about his tools,
-is part of the AMPAS Science and Technology Council,
-had their conclusions endorsed by the president of the ASC,
-is lensing the new SW film,ā¦ probably knows enough about what heās doing such that the question of āif he used the right film stock/scanned it correctlyā isnāt one worth asking.
It doesnāt change the fact that he didnāt tell us what film stock he used, he just said 4-perf and 15-perf negative, he never specified what stock it was. There may just be one standard Kodak colour negative used at the moment, I donāt know, but we donāt know what he used.
We have access to a print, yes.
