A picture of our glorious scan:
Here it is projection-accurate:
And here it is corrected for fade:
A picture of our glorious scan:
Here it is projection-accurate:
And here it is corrected for fade:
I trust they look the same, they’re just scanned very differently. Notice the colour of the soundtrack - that’s always exactly the same colour on Technicolor because it’s a silver-applicated track that is printed separately to the picture.
I got an extra donation, THANKS!
Here’s a screenshot from the existing Cinderella scan (download at full size ~2.5K). Hmmm… interesting!
One of the existing donors sent through a contribution. THANKS! You’re a legend. Anyone else who’s interested in helping please get in contact with me ASAP!
So if someone wants a copy once it’s already scanned you won’t give it to them? Or will you charge them for a copy?
The short answer is no, he wouldn’t be “charging people for a copy”. Dr. Cooper is a good friend of mine, sometimes projects can’t be distributed even when we would like to, and there are different reasons why this can be the case. I don’t want to go into specifics because sometimes the reasons are quite complicated, but other times they’re not. Managing people’s expectations can also be tricky, we even get interesting requests from people from time to time as well.
I now have a video preview of Reel 1 available to all donors. I haven’t been able to contact everyone just yet, but don’t worry. I’ll be sending a group message on OT with the link to a few people and individually contacting others. If anyone doesn’t get the link but they think they should feel free to message me. Please do not share the preview - it’s a low quality encode that isn’t intended to show the full quality of the scan.
I will work to get previews of the other reels to donors as well, you just may have to give me a bit of time as I don’t even have the scan myself yet. I’m getting them at the goodwill of an intermediary.
Anyone who didn’t get a chance to donate but is interested in getting access to the preview files can donate towards ALIEN. I won’t be able to give out full-reel previews for Alien, but don’t worry I will work out some previews for donors at some point of the scan as well.
Yes and it was a deliberate directorial choice because BATB is quite a dark film overall - it’s much darker than Aladdin, Lion King, or The Little Mermaid. Yet there are other dark scenes like this:
With the beast fully visible. It’s the early scenes where he is obscured in shadow so he can be revealed properly later.
As I’ve always said, no home release of this film has ever looked right:
It is possibly the most modified of all the Disney animations on home release. Every home release going back to VHS and Laserdisc has made the beast visible way earlier than he is in the actual film. It changes the entire mood of these scenes where the beast is but a silhouette.
Alien has been scanned, but we haven’t paid for the scan yet. We need to pay 720€, if anyone is able to donate to this please get in contact ASAP! This won’t slow down Cinderella and Pinocchio because those are with other scanners. BatB has already been paid in full and delivered to us.
Although it took a very long time (18 months!) I can say that we got a bargain with this one. The scanner has done a lot of extra work for us, even fade-correcting the scan and doing multiple re-scans for free to make sure that the colour was fully recoverable. If you can help please get in contact!
Anyone who donates will get early access to BatB previews.
No unfortunately not. I’d suggest physically cleaning the film instead of digital cleaning, it’s a lot less work. You can get the demo version of PF Clean here:
It’s in the “standalone” category.
I’ve sent you a message, click the speech bubble at the top-right of the page to the left of your avatar.
BATB has been scanned. I’ll have some previews in about a week or so, we’re sending the hard drive to one of my friends.
I use DaVinci Resolve, it’s powerful and free.
Whatever you can transfer. I’ll have the audio transferred off two prints as it is (well 2/3rds of the second print or so), so it’s only to provide an alternate audio option for people wanting “higher quality”. I’ll put up a short video sample shortly (not here in my thread) so you can see and hear the quality of the transfer. I won’t be including any tracks from DVD/Bluray so the only tracks I’m interested in are Laserdisc or other older home video formats or 16mm or 35mm tracks obviously (they can be recorded straight from a projector’s audio out).
Have you seen the Amazon Prime version? Is it any good? It’s in the correct aspect ratio at least…
I’m interested in the audio from Pinocchio if you rip it. Don’t need the video, obviously, as I’m getting a scan done.
I hope to have a release from the borrowed print ready by the end of the month - but that is for donors only. A release from my print is probably a year or more away at this point. But FYI, if the old Cindy scan is blowing your mind - just wait until you see Pinocchio. I have one of the best prints in private hands.
I’ve had to increase the funding goal. This is just for scanning related costs and won’t cover the full amount either, but is enough that I could afford the rest. If it helps motivate you guys - between I paid about $2500 to purchase these two prints.
So far I’ve only had one donation towards these, from freedomland (THANKS!) I’ll be getting back to everyone that has offered shortly. 😄 I’ll also be starting a ledger so if anyone wants anonymity please say so in private conversation.
What Mr. Cook said was that they would find the best settings for a film and then hope they didn’t stray while they monitored the transfer to check. The machine was a best to change the settings on (an hour and a half at the start of the day) and between the two comments and many others in the 90 minute interview I understand that they did not tweak the scenes but rather looked for the best settings for the entire film (not sure if he meant for each reel or for the entire film).
That’s not what he said. He said they had to calibrate the machine every morning, and that they had to fine-tune the settings for every film they transferred because they were all different. Nothing about that suggests a transfer as straight-forward as you’re imagining.
He never mentions using a special telecine film. He never talks about 16mm. He talks about interpostives and internegatives which are the two intermediate steps in chemical processing from o-neg to release print. Both are lower contrast than the release prints.
When he talked about using an interneg he said “the interneg is actually another film stock …” I’m not sure exactly what he meant, but when he talked about the film being too fragile to fast-forward on the Rank II it was in the context of using internegs.
And according to the man at BBC interviewed about the next generation machine (Mr. Cook was using a Rank Cinetel 2 and the man at the BBC circa 1990 was using Rank Cinetel 3), it could do release prints, negatives, and intermediates. I conformed that with an independent source. So it can do anything on 35mm or 16mm from the o-neg to a release print. Please refer to all his comments about the 1982 telecine that happened right before he joined the team and refer to the images of the LD archive of that telecine that I have included. It is a fine transfer that really contradicts what you are trying to say. Per Mr. Cook’s interview, it was a release print that was turning green and they had to restore the color rather than just do a straight transfer. From how it turned out, they didn’t do a bad job and the dark areas contain far more detail than the Technicolor prints.
We’ve been over this already. If release prints worked so well why were they using dupe-negs and interpositives?
Just because it can do something doesn’t mean it does it well or that it is designed for it. Blackmagic claim their $30K BMD 4K scanner is designed to transfer prints - but it’s a complete lie. I can show you samples I have from positive prints transferred on it - they come out noisy as fuck. Anyone in the business could tell you the same thing - you would not use that scanner to transfer theatrical prints, and there may be other types of film it struggles with as well. Now does that mean that everyone does the right thing? Of course not - I have no doubt that some small companies have installed these and are using them to transfer prints - but as Ian Malcolm would say “just because you can doesn’t mean you should”.
And you are incorrect about prints not having crushed blacks. Please refer to the Technicolor scans. Either Mike Verta’s samples, DrDre’s scan, or the full film release as 4k77. It is full of shots where the dark areas are just a blob of darkness where all the telecines show an abundance of detail. We know that at least one telecine was from a release print (1982), at least two were from interpositives, and some from internegatives (interpositives would not have the reel change cues and internegatives would). Not one of them is from a special telecine transfer (not surprising since none of these are TV station telecines which is where you might find a special 16mm telecine print).
As I said, prints don’t hold as much detail in the dark areas, not even IB prints. It’s not because the blacks were “crushed” (the black point being set lower than shadow detail).
Your theory of the nature of the source of the telecines is not born out by the abilities of the machines used, the interviews with two different telecine operators, or the accounts of the sources of other telecines which agree with what Mr. Cook has said. I think the evidence presented makes it very clear how Fox did telecines and that it was from a release print or intermediate (the O-neg was too precious most of the time except when no other prints were available such as the Chaplin films). That matches what I have always heard and observed from watching movies on various movie channels from across the years. A great many telecines are made from theatrical prints, especially for older technicolor films where a full restoration would have to be done to realign the 3 strip Technicolor negatives - pretty cost prohibitive for a telecine for TV viewing. We could continue to discuss this, but I think the horse is dead and the evidence I have posted is pretty clear cut. Fox never used a special print for the Star Wars telecines. It was always a print on hand. Even the print used for the Definitive Collection was not one done specifically for that and was a standard interpositive.
We’ve been over this, I already said that negatives and inter-positives and other lab film would transfer just as well as a telecine print, but be on much more fragile film. I’m not sure what you think this proves… you only have the accounts of one distributor, and they were not using release prints as matter of course. Lab film is not referred to as “prints”, so the film they used for the DC was an interpositive film not a print.
Your continued comments about a low contrast print match the nature of interpostives and internegatives so I don’t know why you keep insisting that it had to be a special print when the evidence says otherwise.
What I said was that theatrical prints transfer poorly, and are more difficult for the telecine operator. As for what the telecine machines were designed to handle, you just have to listen to what Mr Cook said - the machine would tear apart lab film if used to fast-forward and stop. This is undoubtedly because when the Mk II was designed (in 1964) it was designed for TV broadcast not for home video. They didn’t imagine having to routinely work with lab film.
For a huge film archive like Fox, Paramount, MGM/Republic, WB, and Universal each have, having to make a special print for each telecine would become costly. Why do that when you can just buy a machine that can do anything. The Rank Cinetel was just that - a machine that use any source material.
Striking a low-contrast 16mm print for telecine would be a lot cheaper than having to replace a worn out 35mm interpositive. As I’ve already been over this, just because you can transfer theatrical prints on a telecine doesn’t mean they are easy to work with and produce nice results. They don’t. I’m sure the distribution company was not asking the film studios to send them theatrical prints, that would be almost last on their list of preferred film to work with.
RU.08, if you don’t want to listen to it, you’ll need to take my word for it. No telecine prints. Not a single one in over 200 movies he transfered. The studios didn’t use them for home video transfers. That would be a TV station specific thing.
You’re missing the point entirely. Telecine machines were not designed to transfer projection prints. They work well with low contrast film (negatives, inter positives, master positives, telecine prints, etc).
You should provide proper references. I’ve listened to part of the interview and so far he doesn’t say anything like what you claimed, so no I’m not taking your word on it. Here are some quotes from it:
11:19- “It wasn’t until Rank Cintel came out with film transfer machines in the 60’s that any scene correction was done at all. They did what they call a ‘one light’ which was a single pass of the move through the projector and record it all through the camera, and then distribute it however it was.”
12:58- “To operate it everything that controlled that machine was on a little stick and cards in cages in the front of the machine and every morning I’d have to go through and do basic alignments on that machine before they ever started, because it would sit overnight and it would drift. It would take me roughtly an hour and a half every day to tweak that machine on a calibration frame, and then we’d check in in motion because in motion the light level and the colour would change slightly.”
20:33- “When we got that film (Star Wars) that entire series they were in good shape. I think we had to put one splice on the interneg. The interneg is actually another film stock, I looked it up a few months ago, and there’s a Kodak site that talks about internegs and the typical film stock for it. We put one splice in that because the interneg that we did get had been used so much that it broke once. So we had to splice it and we were really careful with it. We didn’t often do a fast-forward or a ree-to-reel take because the Rank was so strong that when you put the brakes on it would stop so hard so fast that you take a good chance of breaking any film on it.”
21:49- “Yep, every single film has its own little characteristics, chemical psychology, every single film that you get in the transfer suite is slightly different from the one you just did or the one after it. Another example, an extreme example is Yentl because that particular film Barbra Streisand had shot it with a yellow-cast to indicate that it was a period piece, and when we put it on the Rank and looked at the first frames of the video it didn’t look right. It had that yellow cast. And we went through and had done the typical set ups, zeroing everything out, and when we did that there was this yellowish looking, almost mustard looking, film over the film. While she had done that on purpose and our studio wrote a letter at my request to her, and she replied back and she was pretty upset. Robert Altman had shot a film about Buffalo Bill that had a colour cast to it. Every film, even the black and white films, come through the film transfer and they’re slightly different colours depending on age. Even those films have to be handled and calibrated before we actually do the transfer - every single time. And that can take up to half a day. Because not only do you have to calibrate the transfer machine before the film, but you have to look through the entire film and find out ‘are my calibrations going to last me all the way through this film or is there some scene in this that is going to be so extreme that I’ve got to adjust the window of acceptability to that scene and then hope the rest of the movie fits into it?’ Because it happens.”
What you said was this:
Also of note, in the interview Mr. Cook states that they didn’t constantly adust the transfer. So each scene is not individually color corrected. It is one setting for the entire film. So the scene by scene color, saturation, and contrast, at least of the transfers he did, are true to the original print.
Well, if you listen to the interview, he was the one doing it and they set the setting at the beginning if the day and only changed things if the machine started to drift. That probably was between reels. From what he said, the machine was too strong and if you moved the film you risked breaking it. So I believe that his telecines on that machine had a uniform setting for every reel and they tried to stay consistent between reels. When you really think about it, there shouldn’t be any need to change the settings in the middle of a properly timed and processed itermediate.
That’s not at all what he said in the first 25 minutes (unless he said it later?):
Calibrating the machines each day before transfer did not mean further calibration didn’t happen. In fact he specifically says that further calibration did happen and could take up to half a day per film (clearly he is referring to the “rehearsal”). He even mentions that specific scenes can be problematic.
He didn’t say that he didn’t do fine adjustments throughout.
He didn’t say you couldn’t do scene-by-scene adjustments because the “machine was too strong” he simply said that you couldn’t do a fast-forward or entire reel transfer when using a negative because of the strength of the machine. All that means is that you couldn’t fast forward through scenes in the rehearsal by the sound of it. And it would only apply to lab film as it’s much much thinner than prints - I would think the prints for telecine were more durable with thicker base just like projection prints are.
He doesn’t say they always used internegs/interpositives to transfer the Star Wars films throughout the 80’s and early 90’s. He was clearly talking about his own experience.
You claimed he never used telecine prints, yet he clearly says he sent a letter to Barbra Streisand because the film she had sent wasn’t suitable for home video transfer - what do you think they asked for her to send? Where does he claim he only ever worked with dupe-negs and interpositives? I never claimed you can’t transfer those, just that you don’t usually transfer release prints as they don’t transfer well.
And the lightened black level would hide any variation so it would be pretty forgiving.
That’s not going to make a film with an inconsistent black level more consistent.
Plus, the shadows are all very bright and full of details. The black levels of the Technicolor print and Blu-ray show both of them have crushed blacks while the release prints (see the 1982 LD) and interpositives don’t. So there would be no need to make the tweaks you think were made and that he denies making.
Prints don’t have “crushed blacks”, they have lower levels of detail in the shadows.
Nowhere in the first 25 minutes of the interview does he deny tweaking specific scenes - when exactly do you claim that he denies doing this?
Well, if you listen to the interview, he was the one doing it and they set the setting at the beginning if the day and only changed things if the machine started to drift.
I haven’t listened to it, it’s 90 minutes - could you give some timestamps?
From what he said, the machine was too strong and if you moved the film you risked breaking it.
Well that explains why they used a release print in bad shape (I’m assuming this is the 1982 transfer?) A machine rough on film would be far more likely to damage or tear lab film, and if you didn’t have a telecine print on hand you probably wouldn’t want to risk putting through an interneg or interpos. But it still doesn’t mean it would have come out looking like a projected print, that’s just not how telecine transfers worked.
So I believe that his telecines on that machine had a uniform setting for every reel and they tried to stay consistent between reels. When you really think about it, there shouldn’t be any need to change the settings in the middle of a properly timed and processed itermediate.
Yes they do, particularly because black points on film can vary a lot. In the movie theatre it’s forgiving, but in home viewing it isn’t. Even if this guy said he didn’t do much scene-to-scene tinkering I would still think scenes with a higher black point to the rest of the reel he would adjust.
My point was is that for virtually every transfer they were using an intermediate print. Either an interpositive or an internegative.
Sure, but those are low contrast film which give the telecine operator a lot of room to adjust the image. It won’t look anything like a release print after it is transferred to videotape.
but the 1982 transfer was specifically a release print in very bad shape.
Lucasfilm is known for cutting corners, but that is low even by their own standards. FYI repeatedly using the Interpositive for this purpose is also likely what led the original film elements to be in such poor shape by 1993 when they did their first photochemical restoration in preparation for the Special Edition.
Also of note, in the interview Mr. Cook states that they didn’t constantly adust the transfer.
That just means that He or Mr Lucas or Gilbert Taylor were not (for the most part) guiding/interfering with the telecine operator’s decisions. And from the way they did some of the PAL transfers it very much appears they were done at the same time using the same settings on the same machines. For example the 1993 release in particular it appears for the first two films anyway that they “rehearsed” the transfer and then used the same rehearsal to make both a NTSC telecine and a PAL telecine. I am guessing though that this wasn’t a unit really intended for PAL which would explain why there’s no extra detail in there (probably “Scanned” at 480 lines and interpolated them), ROTJ on the other hand does show greater detail on PAL which would indicate they used different hardware to do that transfer (maybe it was transferred separately).
So each scene is not individually color corrected. It is one setting for the entire film. So the scene by scene color, saturation, and contrast, at least of the transfers he did, are true to the original print.
They wouldn’t tune every scene, just a handful throughout that might look distracting.
Hi guys! As many of you know I borrowed and scanned an IB Tech Cinderella print last year (here). I have now moved to phase 2 of that project (with a release of the borrowed print forthcoming to all donors within a few weeks). I have sent my print (also IB Tech) to be scanned, and it is to be done professionally at full 4K triple-flashed. I have so far a handful of sample frames, here’s one (full 4K):
I also have another project. Brace yourselves. Pinocchio - 1940 from two IB Tech prints. One is complete in very good condition, the other is dying from VS and only some reels can be scanned.
I’m already very overdue on one payment of ~$220 and I feel really bad about it so any help would be very much appreciated. All donors will receive early previews to all scanned reels. You will also get the early full quality exclusive release of Cinderella from “Print 1” (also a very good print I must say) that I plan to have ready by the end of this month.
Here is Reel 1 of Cinderella from the “borrowed print”. This is not full quality, just a preview encode:
Funding target: $1800
Current total: $290
I have found first hand info on what prints were used for the CBS/FOX telecines. 1982 transfer of Star Wars was a release print. The initial releases of TESB and ROTJ were interpositives as was the concurrent release of Star Wars. The 1985 release of the trilogy was also interpositives. Tapes were sent to Lucasfilm, but no one from Lucasfilm was present. And it seems that virtually all films telecined at the CBS/FOX facility were either interpositives or internegatives. One exception was a collection of Chaplin films.
Not a single special telecine print. Not a single 16mm print. And done on a Rank Cinetel 2.
The interview with Wayne Cook can be found here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LagwssLxlk
Sure but how many times did they use a release print? Once out of all their domestic home video releases by the sound of it. But what about their foreign releases? The French release? Japan? Australia? Germany? I can just about guarantee you they were not using release prints for all those releases.
It doesn’t surprise me they used the IP for other releases, like I already said typically for home video you use a low-contrast film (anything but a projection/release print) as that’s what telecines are designed to transfer. The IP is less valuable than the cut camera negative, and often less beat up than the duplicate neg (the interneg) used for striking release prints so it makes sense to use it.
But now you have to explain to me why those releases have negative cue marks in them. Because if they were from the IP that means the cut camera negative (or the o-neg) had cue marks etched into it. To me that doesn’t exactly add up…
“The transfer of already-completed features and film programs is always performed from prints or intermediate elements that were originally produced as a part of the print-finishing process.”
Facinating statement. So if they didn’t make a specific print that indicates they would use what they had on hand.
That’s correct, but they would never use a theatrical print unless it was the ONLY suitable element they had (i.e. if the negative or interpositive no longer existed, or if they had faded beyond use). So for a lot of older films from the 30’s-50’s they may not have had anything except theatrical prints because often the original negatives were burned instead of being archived, and for colour films of that time many of the original negatives had completely faded beyond use.
Star Wars is not from a time when every movie came out on home video. I trust reports of what the sources for the Definitive Collection were over what some think how it must be because that has since become the norm. The real world is not that clean and tidy.
The Definitive Collection isn’t until 15 years after the film was released. By that time no doubt the 1977 telecine prints were faded just like the theatrical prints other than the Tech prints. They could well have transferred it directly from the interpositive if that’s what they said they did, I’m not arguing there.
Also, it doesn’t matter that home video was in its infancy as television wasn’t, and telecines were use primarily for broadcast. It’s entirely possible that for the early home video releases especially those outside of the US that distributors used telecine prints intended for broadcast.
Now, when we talk about how the average TV station handled telecines (which I’m sure is a different standard from how a major network would operate or a home video arm of a major studio), I have no doubt that 16mm prints were very common.
The only difference would be that the film’s director or the DOP would often be on-hand to guide the home video transfers to get the look they wanted, whereas the TV networks would rely on their telecine operators to make their own decisions.
Anything important made at those stations would be transferred to film to be archived.
Not in 1963, in 1963 the actors’ union had a contract with the networks including BBC that required them to destroy episodes following broadcast and syndication, because they were worried that repeating old episodes would put actors out of work. That’s why they don’t have the negatives for any of the old doctor who episodes, the only have syndication prints that were sent out. But their policy of requisitioning those prints when found is what prevents a lot of collectors who do have many of the lost episodes from coming forward - I hope the collectors who own the remaining missing episodes will at some time get their prints transferred.
From a quality perspective, even an SD telecine should be done from the highest quality print available. Every generation adds more grain and degrades the colors.
Not necessarily, lab film is often finer-grain than the film for projection prints. But that isn’t always the case, I’ve seen Aliens on 70mm and it’s as grainy as hell - it looks like a grainy 35mm. So clearly the negative that Cameron shot on or the interpositive was very grainy! But that’s unusual.
Don’t sweat it, it happens to all of us. Anyway I do welcome you and wish you all the best with your project. 😃