RU.08

Guys please stop sending me PMs about this. I don’t have a link any more and it’s not my scan. Also it’s 2022 not 2018 times have moved on. In 2018 the scan quality on this project was good. Note: good, not great. If True Lies is important to people you should look for a new print and get it scanned professionally. It can be done affordably at quality that will wipe the floor with the old scan.

I can get another print as well. Which may be required depending on the condition of the one they have. 😉

I’ve got a private channel set up now on my discord server for this, so anyone who’s interested in this project is welcome to head over there if they’d like as well. The permalink is https://valeyardfilmarchives.org/discord/

I’ve sent you a private message, I’d love to coordinate with you over the JP trilogy- if possible join my Discord server.

See No Evil said:

One unexpected issue is processing time. Each 5K frame is 5120x3840px @ 300dpi (28.1mb), with each of the four reels around 31,000 frames a piece (that’s 123,709 frames @ 3.31TB total). I’m running an i7-7700k @ 4.2gHz CPU with 16GB ram & GTX 1060 6GB GPU, and even then it takes around 26 hours encoding time per reel!

That’s largely due to I/O, make sure you’re encoding to a different hard drive/SSD compared to what you’re reading from. Also if you think that’s bad, try 6464x4852 some time!

Not about the movie Venny, the seller. “zontar2000”. His notoriety for dishonesty precedes him. Buy from that guy at your peril.

God, how that notorious asshole sold a shit print for $1.2K I will never understand.

Yeah it has to be done scene-by-scene basically to the frame line.

CatBus said:

It’s okay, I was being diplomatic in my own way, explaining how there can be so many wildly different color corrections for the same film, without outright saying most of them are wrong. Yes, basically there’s DrDre’s color corrections and then there’s subjectively messing around with color, but that’s not really fair to the non-Dre corrections, some of which are pleasant enough to watch in spite of their wrongness.

DrDre’s colormatch tool isn’t how to do “colour correction correctly” at all - what it’s useful for is precisely matching one source to another for editing purposes.

The way that the proper colour corrections are done is the colouring room is set up to the specifications of the Director’s projection room, a reference print is supplied (they usually have one) and then the colour correction is done scene-by-scene and compared directly against projection. Getting it right is an artform in its own right because how a film looks in a darkened cinema is different to how the same film would look if projected in a brightly-lit living room. They even used to make prints specific to those kind of conditions - they’re called “Drive-in prints” and they’re designed to be projected while there’s still some amount of daylight so that drive-in venues could maximise their showtime hours. Then there’s also the fact that the audience is more forgiving in the cinema than they are at home with inconsistent colour grading - and again that largely comes down to having the lights on or off.

Empire Strikes Back which I’ve seen projected not that long ago is wildly inconsistent in the colour grading, even in the cinema it does not look the way a modern audience would expect a blockbuster to look - so of course you have to make some gentile enhancements to the grading to give it a more consistent look.

I did re-scan it, that reel has a printing error. If the original scan had been done the way that I’d asked I would have been able to see this (it was pre-cropped almost right to the frame line and resized to UHD), you can try stabilising either scan.

CatBus said:

It’s an inexact science, starting out from a point very, very far from where the color really ought to be. It’s a miracle we even get something close.

I’m sorry CatBus but I don’t have the time, energy, or willpower to explain everything wrong with what you’ve just said. Send me a PM if you like.

What I will say about film is that I think it’s fair to say that now we can fully reproduce it digitally with all detail in the film. It took time, but the technology is advanced enough now. In fact the best Bayer equipment now rivals RGB for quality, and I mean that it gets very very close, something that no one thought was possible a few years ago.

The Aluminum Falcon said:

I’d guess it’s 2010 or 2011 actually because it’s the same as the BD master. Would that make it more likely for it to be a film out?

It’s not a 2010 print, it’d have a cyan soundtrack if was printed that late.

ValenStudios said:

Oh THANK YOU!!! I’d love to see the print immediately, but first, I need to know what condition is it exactly beyond just “not perfect”? Does it have any scratches, cigar marks, splices, what are we talking here? I hope it’s nothing too severe and can be taken care of, as well as what aspect ratio are we talking with this print. Because from what I’m aware of, the theatrical and Laserdisc intended aspect ratio is 1:85.1, matted from the original CAPS 1:66.1 (as seen in the 2003 DVD) and as I’ve seen from 35mm scans to Disney animated movies from the 80’s and 90’s, they seem to be open matte-ish only to have a soft matte for theaters to take care of (and some being hard mattes), I wouldn’t mind either aspect ratio although kind of ironic for what the project is for, I’d prefer if the print would be 1:66.1 uncropped for the project but that wouldn’t mean I won’t give the option for 1:85.1.

It’s 1.85:1, I don’t know if Disney printed any of them at 1.66:1 you have to be aware that the digital film-out goes to negative and it’s more expensive to print more unnecessary lines than what you need. After that it’s just generally contact-printed.

I can scan it professionally, like I said it’s not an ideal print for various reasons, although no I don’t think there’s any splices in it it has other flaws. Send me a private message or head over to my Discord server.

Darth telly said:

The current 4k version on Itunes is 1.66:1.

Sadly none of the CAPS conversions look anything like the original theatrical versions. Lion King is probably the closest since it is a brightly coloured film (with BATB being the absolute worst), but it’s still very different really.

Come join my Discord server.

The film looks very dirty - the scanner didn’t clean it first?

I was hoping that even if this ‘early 2000s’ print was related to that Blu-Ray release, then it would be the original print which they would have scanned and digitized before adding the tweaks before outputting the final digital tweaked version. I wasn’t even aware that the tweaked version existed as a physical print. You can see in this screenshot, Rob Tapert has been digitally removed from the background. So they must have scanned an original print, tweaked it, and transferred that back to 35mm film for some reason. This is that revised version.

In the early 00’s they definitely would not have digitised the whole film for film-out. The difference between digital and photochemical should be fairly obvious as well making those scenes easy to identify which may assist you in the future if you ever scan another print.

Someone needs to stabilise reel 4 of BATB. Anyone is welcome to give it a shot.

gweedo16 said:

Update on Eyes Wide Shut 35mm Print-

The Film has been scanned and is being sent to me and an early collaborator soon. Unfortunately, the scan turned out to be 1.85:1, not 1.33:1. Although, I looked at a preview of the scan and the colors, grain and all look truly beautiful. This project was a bit more expensive than I expected, though.

The total costs of obtaining the reels, scanning, shipping, drives etc. was around $962.

Where is your physical print at the moment? Could you send me a private message please, if you can let me know how/where it was scanned (in private) and if we can see a preview of the scan it’d be possible to decide if it’s worth doing a re-scan.

Oh I see he has another thread on this same project here. You should continue the discussion there and @SilverWook should lock this thread?

Tantive3+1 we can put you in touch with a good scanner if you do buy the print.

Probably around 2K true detail give or take, it’s hard to explain. I may be able to do a re-scan in the future though, but that depends on a number of things.

I have a print, it’s not perfect but it would make for a better restoration compared to using the digital-only sources like the bluray.

The scan is a lot closer to any of the home video releases, but it’s not projection-accurate either. We still have a couple of Titanic prints I believe.

They can be scanned, just need someone to pay for the scanning.

Do you want to pay for the scanning?

StarWars4Ever said:

Can anyone kindly PM me a download link? I had donated to this project years back but never got the chance to see it due to a busy work schedule.

Send me a message I’ll dig out the donor encode for you.