RU.08

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.

Did you see my PM? Click the speech bubble at the top of the page next to your avatar.

Looking forward to hearing an email from you. If you can help out in London it would be very much appreciated as I’ve got a decent cheap scanner available in London but we would like to have someone who doesn’t mind picking up the film and shipping it or helping out to sell it afterwards etc if needed. That would be a really big help to anyone who wants to do a scan in the UK without having to ship their print to Europe or the US.

I don’t think he bought the print.

I don’t think I’ve seen this movie before myself, but I do like the first two Halloween films. NCFan is doing this on a Scanstation, have you seen a print scanned off a current model before? They will be way easier to grade etc compared with older tech and the quality is very professional. You may like to see how they scan compared with the Tech used with where you work which is based on Trilinear CCD, the Scanstations are not quite as sharp as the RGB scanners but if sharpness is your thing you can always do some modest sharpening in post after colour correction. That won’t look anything like projection though if that’s what you’re going for as projection softens the image a little bit even when you have a sharp print.

For anyone who’s interested in this film I’d suggest donating towards the scanning cost. Most people don’t know this, but individual machines vary a lot and how they’re operated makes a big difference. This is one operated to a professional restoration standard compared with many others which are operated to lower standards and often produce vastly inferior results as a consequence. This scan will look vastly superior to most other fan scans.

declanfiore said:

Thank you for the welcome! From what I’ve seen, the people that are actually doing the restorations themselves don’t have any knowledge on fan restorations/projects. But the guys I work with are very specific with their work and hate using tools such as NR which I was very appreciative to find out. The head of digital restoration here said he can count on one hand how many times he’s used NR and hates doing it due to compromising detail.

I’d love to raise awareness of fan projects and spread the word, but we mostly work with Arrow Video who are one of the few companies that actually take good care of their restorations!

I’m sending you a PM. Check the speech-bubble near your avatar at the top of the page.

FWIW I’m doing all my scanning professionally at the moment. I want to get into restoration as well down the line.

I’m doing some more Disney scanning this month. If you’re interested in knowing more and contributing shoot me a private message.

Hopefully I can get some releases ready this month as well for donors from some of the older scans. Everyone’s busy at the moment, but will be nice to see a couple of the classics that people love.

Interesting how my comments have aged! Haha. I’d like to correct a mistake I made - I said it wasn’t designed for prints - that’s partly correct, but it’s not the full story. The scanner has a setting for prints, that isn’t it’s purpose though and it was designed to scan good condition negatives not for film older than 30-40 years. Take a look at what Blackmagic said it was designed for in 2015 when they launched it, and also the 2014 pre-launch tech preview.

ilovewaterslides said:

I think this scanner should work like a charm with 35mm copies but they’re not going to tell: “Now you can finally scan all your 35mm theatrical copies for a reasonable price” on their site since it’s not completely legal to own one. That was the goal of my initial post.

Actually, most professional scanner manufacturers are the ones that really don’t care about prints since they’re owned by archives instead of by wealthy rightsholders who can afford to pay for premium scanning, and in most cases you never need to scan a print for restoration. So if it did do a fantastic job for prints then Blackmagic would not be shy about using it as a selling point (Lasergraphics uses it as a selling point), prints are much more difficult to scan well compared to negatives so if a scanning machine can scan prints well then it can definitely scan negatives well.

The seller is reputable FWIW if someone wants to bid and is interested in the item.

I wouldn’t suggest fund-raising without buying the print first, if you get outbid you’d have to return all the donations. Are you in the UK? Also, how do you plan to get it scanned?

Bobson Dugnutt said:

Where’d you get your scanning prices from? I think if you get in touch with Willarob, TomArrow, or those guys who have done some great scanning recently, it only costs a few hundred.

Just so you’re aware those aren’t the full facts. NCFan reached out and I’m going to get a quote for them with a company I know. The scanner Williarob uses charges about $.22/ft commercially, the “fan rate” comes with conditions and isn’t the best scanner for prints. NCFan actually has a competitive quote from a good company, but we can likely do a better price at a different company.

It’s a US TV movie, the proper speed is 23.976fps/59.94i.

IIRC Doctor Who 1996 PAL uses a DEFT standards conversion which I describe here. I don’t know if they’ve changed that for later releases, but the native format of the movie is 59.94i so I suggest finding the highest quality NTSC source and starting there. You can IVTC most of that, but the special effects shots and credits will be 30 fps so you have to make a choice about how to convert those, and really should do those scenes separately to the rest of the film.

I think the original region 1 DVD release was converted from the PAL master so be aware of that, you may need to get the VHS or a broadcast recording to get the best version.

Hifi tapes have two audio tracks, record it through a mono-VCR to get the mono track as well.

I’ll be doing more scans soon. We have Covid delays again but I have access to good scanners and to prints.

I’m thinking about setting up a subscription payment system to get things rolling. The goal will be to do every Disney classic - and where possible to scan multiple prints. I might re-scan Pinoke next year as well.

Well it’s 3K or 3.2K if you want to describe it that way, but the most common 4K 35mm scanner is the Blackmagic Cintel and it’s not as good since it has a rather noisy camera that hasn’t been changed in 4 or 5 years. So getting a better 4K scan in Europe right now isn’t that easy. Most other 4K scanners aren’t designed for prints either, so they have a range of issues dealing with print that they don’t have with negative. Most of the 4K places you have seen or talked to probably won’t be able to do as good a job.

The resolution doesn’t really matter I might add, your print won’t resolve a full 3K let alone 4K so you won’t be missing much detail. Scanning at higher resolution can improve the debayering but not much else.

Good luck, and again you will be happy with this scan, this scanner works really well with prints.

You’ll be very happy with the scan quality, it has a good Sony Pregius imager with a low noise floor and a very good backlight which also makes a big difference.