The “import version” doesn’t have the theatrical soundtrack only the 5.1 up-mix.
We have the opportunity to borrow and scan a Cinderella IB Technicolor print in the US. The cost of scanning this is $370. Total scanning costs are about $600. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you guys that’s a bargain, we don’t have to purchase, rent, or even ship the print.
And, the print is in EXCELLENT CONDITION. Probably better condition than my print. And, unlike mine, it can be scanned as soon as NEXT WEEK!
As some of you know I have a print as well and it can be scanned in the future. But this is a limited opportunity to get a print that’s in top condition scanned, and that may end up making scanning mine (which will cost more) unnecessary.
And more great news, after this is scanned we can rent Lady and the Tramp from the same source for scanning. And after that is scanned we can rent Sleeping Beauty too. And more!
Begin your pledges/donations, please!
Current list of generous donors:
Donations so far: $550 / 600
An exclusive early release will be made available to donors, hopefully followed by a wider “myspleen” release at some point later this year/early next year.
Short test scan done on the first couple of minutes of Reel 1:
It’s heavily compressed, but hopefully shows the condition the print is in. Remember that heads and tails of reels are where most of the wear usually is.
Screenshots:
Cinderella is a two-phase project. Only donors will be given access to the phase 1 release.
Phase 1:
Phase 2:
Thanks to Soupdrinker0 the scan for Titanic is fully funded! Of course doesn’t doesn’t cover other expenses like postage or hard drives, etc, but I’m really grateful to the forum and all involved.
Thanks to everyone who donated, but especially to alexp120 and Soupdrinker who between them covered 90% of the scan cost!
You can still donate if you wish to help with the other costs, so from this point on donations can be directed to me rather than cpalmer2k. A very special thanks also to cpalmer2k for agreeing to handle the scanning funds. You can also donate to my other projects and that will be really appreciated.
I will have a new video up today showing new footage.
The scan is progressing, we have so far the first three reels scanned, and hopefully the other seven will be done very soon.
Keep the donations coming guys, it’s not fair to make Soupdrinker pay for your pledges! Plus, if we get more than $375 I can put the money towards improving the release in various ways.
Thanks again to everyone who has donated, and to cpalmer2k for handling the funds!!
You can’t use it as a colour reference unfortunately. These are all uncorrected scans. To get the correct colour, etc, you really need to project it. Or send it to a scanner that provides calibrated LUTs (those labs are more expensive though).
Had tickets but had to miss it sadly, I saw aliens there tho
Oh I’m sorry to hear that! Did anyone else manage to see it?
They are the first not counting the huge donation that alexp120 sent to start off the whole process. 😃 Thanks Soupdrinker, you’re a very generous champ!
Interesting. As you can see from my header, I’m not only a massive fan of Cameron (Although that whole Avatar thing that he’s on is…worrying to say the least) “Titanic” is my favorite movie of all time and withthought that I wouldn’t love cinema as I do today. (Sorry, Lucas but Canada got there first.) I hope that you’ll release the print into the wild someday.
I sent you a message, click the message bubble in the top right of the page next to your avatar. 😃 As cpalmer2k mentioned, funding has been a bit slower than we would have liked which is delaying us a bit. But, once it’s scanned I expect we should be able to get a release out before the years end!
Well I’ll be Goddamned! I might be able to contribute some money toward this project!
Ha, reminds me of the first cut I did of the preview video that had both the “I’ll be Goddammed” in it. 😛 Money would certainly be welcome, cpalmer2k can’t pay for the scan until he has all the monies.
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.
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”.
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):
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?
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?
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!
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.
