RU.08

Please do! 😄

I shared it privately with a couple of people. But if you’ve seen the Vimeo preview you’ve seen how the reel looks. The 14 minute version was heavily compressed as well. The test scan was done before the reel was cleaned, and the reels are now getting cleaned to remove hopefully most of the dirt you see in the test scan.

Come on guys this needs to happen!

Yep. Just to drive the point home, our scanner who has extensive experience handling film prints said he was amazed at the condition of this print! I myself have seen archival prints that are not in this condition.

Thanks go to freedomland for his generous donation!

The correct SAR would be 2:1. All scope films have a 2:1 “squeeze” which would equal a 2:1 pixel aspect ratio assuming you didn’t resize the scan at all. There’s not much point in doing that though as people will either have HD or UHD devices, neither of which would benefit from extra resolution thrown at it.

DrDre said:

It shouldn’t matter in the range of colors, where our eyes are the most sensitive, but even for people with so-called 20/20 vision, color sensitivity varies from color to color and from person to person, depending on various factors:

Right, I didn’t disagree but can we both agree you’re talking about photoreceptors in the eye and the neurological links in the brain? And the S/M/L cones in particular? All cones are sensitive to all colours, which is probably why we can’t see the same dynamic range that a 16-bit digital colour sensor can which is receptive to only one type of colour. Anyway most variating in how we percieve colour is due to people having a different ratio of L-type to M-type cones in the eye, which is believed to vary greatly, but I don’t see how it would affect someone with 20/20 vision to match two colour sources accurately with the right tools and methods.

For this thread I’m after the print color, as the lamp color and cinema screens are not a constant factor (for example lamps will emit a slightly different color when they age, and cinema screens exist in varrying quality), and their effect fairly minimal as I’ve shown in the above example. Additionally these are relatively easy to correct for.

Sure, carbon arc lamps age greatly, and if you run a twin-projector set up with two lamps that aren’t the same age or don’t recieve equal wear because you run them with a bias towards one projector then you can end up with the picture looking different on one.

print + led + CCD sensor => print color (under white light) + led color + sensor response curve

How about this?

print (variable) + led (variable) + CCD sensor (variable) => …

There is cross-contamination across the Cyan/Magenta/Yellow dyes, because just like the photoreceptors in our eyes the pixel sensitivity in the CCD, the dyes are not completely transparent to wavelengths outside of their main “colour”.

DrDre said:

Mike Verta photograph (with 1970s carbon-arc lamp & 1970s cinema screen):

DrDre scan (with 2017 LED light & 2017 CCD-sensor & calibration):

Now unless someone can point out some glaring color differences, I rest my case…

I can bring that a bit closer to Mike’s photo, it’s still not 100% though (I lack the expertise or proper tools):

DrDre said:

Balancing the soundtrack or white balancing isn’t going to get you anywhere, as the sensor response is far more complex than a simple RGB curves adjustment will allow you to correct.

I didn’t say that it does, just that all professional scanning machines do a calibration prior to scanning, meaning once you’ve calibrated one reel all reels using the same film can be corrected with a common LUT.

So, adjusting colors watching a projected print may seem like a good idea, but in many ways the way our eyes and brains sense and interpret colors is quite similar to how a scanner sensor works. You might adjust the colors to roughly match what you personally are seeing, but someone else may sense and interpret these colors differently.

I would believe that those that do professional colour correction would have taken perception tests, as well as a robust colorblindness test to ensure they don’t have even a hint of mild colour deficiency. Although I do think you’re overstating the problem, especially since colorblindness is hereditary on the sex chromosome and consequently affects only 1 in 200 women. Other than that, yes of course we all have individual perception of colour, but that’s because we will have a unique number of photoreceptor cells in a unique ratio of S, M, L type cones and rods, and the photoreceptor cells can have different biological characteristics in each person making them sensitive to slightly different types of light. Bad diet can adversely affect photoreceptor cells. But if you have 20/20 vision and no signs of colour deficiency it shouldn’t matter.

Now, the scanner detects the light after it has passed through the dyes and film. This light has a specific distribution of wave lengths, depending on the combination of dyes and film, and thus determine it’s color. While it is true, that a different film stock will alter the colors, this should not affect the color calibration, which is simply mapping the colors detected by the sensor after passing through the dyes and film onto a reference file, which was also calibrated based on a combination of dye and film.

I disagree, and I’m sure poita knows far more about this than I do as a layperson. The issue is that colours are not on the film, the colours are produced by shining a carbon-arc lamp through the film and then projecting it onto a particular type of screen. Represented by this easy to remember formula:

colours = print + light source + reflection surface

When you scan a film it has a different light source, a different sensor and no reflection surface, what you’re trying to achieve is how to make (argument’s sake):

print + LED light + Colour CCD sensor + calibrated monitor + LUT = print + carbon-arc lamp + cinema screen

What your argument is is that the print doesn’t matter because:

LED light + Colour CCD sensor + calibrated monitor + LUT = carbon-arc lamp + cinema screen

But how do you know that’s true?

poita said:

Whist these are really cool, the scanner is not designed for IB Tech, and doesn’t have the correct light source, sensor, or post processing LUTs available to get it to be accurate to a projected print.
It is a cool thing to do, but it isn’t going to be accurate, even the response curve of the sensor is going to be considerably off for this film type.

Yeah I was going to say the same thing. That’s a scanner designed for photographic film, not motion-picture film. I don’t mean to troll the thread or curtail your enthusiasm for colour correction DrDre, but how is it any different from just getting the scan of the full film and then balancing the soundtrack to look consistent?

Also, all professional commercial scanning units perform their own white balance/light calibration prior to scanning each reel. For example you can see it in action at 2:15 in this video:

It was scanned in 4K and released in 1080p:

Jurassic Park 1993 35mm 1080p Cinema DTS v1.0

“No digital cleanup has been done yet, all the scratches, cue marks etc are left in, although the print is relatively clean.” It’s on Myspleen and Bloodsuckerz.

The other two places you should always search are rutracker.org and bloodsuckerz. Although I don’t see them there either. 😃

I think you made a great point - scanning positive film prints is not ideal, we’d dearly love to scan the original negative or interpostive which will never have a problem with black or white levels the way that film prints can have.

Out of question, what restoration software do you use?

don007 said:

Compare my new scan project Raiders of the Lost Ark (left - no color correction. Color its same like my film print) and Raiders of the Lost Ark 35mm LPP Theatrical Experience - v1.0 (right)

Your scan looks great!

pleasehello said:

Holy cow, does that looks fantastic! I would love to see a film scan of Aladdin.

Yeah, how great would that be? I’m still focused on getting BATB done, hopefully I can find a second print in English to scan. I have about 6 other Disney prints though including two Cindy prints, so lots to do… eventually!

There is only one released version to date.

Upload the trailer somewhere!

Xenon lamps have been standard since the early 80’s. Older films would have been seen with a carbon-arc lamp (and a changer-over period in the 70’s). But if they’ve replaced the light source with a modern LED lamp it won’t be accurate - I’ll be sure to ask.

Papai2013 said:

Then we agree to disagree. I distinctly remember the look of 35mm prints and seeing the scans of Star Wars and others confirmed my memories.

The good thing with Titanic is that I should be able to see it for myself soon projected from cinematic film.

Look at your Titanic print. Gorgeous, proper contrast, shadows, deeper colours, good highlights. An image “alive” in every possible way. I cannot say the same for the Alien image on the right.

Yeah there I agree with you, Aliens is a completely different film - but alas Cameron has been revising most of his films on digital.

We have already seen the colours on the Titanic print. There is no debate on the colours of that.

Well you saw a test scan, once I see it projected I’ll know a bit more about how it looks. 😃

Papai2013 said:

It’s very obvious that the image on the left is much more filmic and robust. There is proper highlights, shadows and contrast even if you discount the colour.
The image on the right looks made for TV, not cinema. A Very flat image.

I respectfully disagree, film is not usually that contrasty. In the left picture the blacks have been crushed.

Oops, sorry, don’t know. Couldn’t delete post, move along… move along.

Not to derail your thread, but trailers:

Aladdin trailer, finally! Shared with the permission of the trailer owner:

I am so sorry to hear about your loss Darth Solo, you have my sincerest sympathies. 😦

OK guys, quick funding update. We so far have pledges from: cpalmer2k, alexp120, Beber, Roobee, and Papai2013. You guys are the best - with a bit more we can get this scanned very soon and then get a good quality release out I would say well before the end of the year. Given what we have seen I am planning on just fixing the green perf damage lines, and frames we find with heavy dirt.

Papai2013 said:

How many channels does the optical track have? That is what should be kept in the release, “as is.”

It has TL and TR. The issue is that it’s an analogue format that I’m not sure is really designed for digital? I know in other 35mm release people just leave the Dolby SR tracks as 2.0 - but do they decode correctly in a home theatre? This I don’t know partly because I don’t have a home theatre with surround sound in which to check.

Good question, I don’t know off-hand. We think it’s a UK print given that we found it in Europe, although it could be a US print. And of course there are two or three different stocks (probably all Kodak stocks) in the print.