Sign In

RU.08

User Group
Members
Join date
5-May-2011
Last activity
18-Oct-2019
Posts
1,209
Web Site
https://valeyard.net/

Post History

Post
#1256252
Topic
Mulan (1998) - 35 mm
Time

Warstorck said:

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.

Post
#1256029
Topic
Beauty and the Beast 35mm "Help Needed"
Time

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.

Thanks everyone!

Post
#1256012
Topic
Beauty and the Beast 35mm "Help Needed"
Time

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.

Post
#1255992
Topic
Alien 1979 35mm scan opportunity
Time

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.

Post
#1255278
Topic
Disney Project Thread
Time

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).

Post
#1254900
Topic
Cinderella (1950) and Pinocchio (1940) 35mm Preservations! <strong>Help needed!</strong>
Time

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.

Post
#1254659
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

yotsuya said:

RU.08,

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.

Post
#1254540
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

yotsuya said:

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:

yotsuya said:

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.

yotsuya said:

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?

Post
#1254490
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

yotsuya said:

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.

Post
#1254036
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

yotsuya said:

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.

Post
#1253902
Topic
Cinderella (1950) and Pinocchio (1940) 35mm Preservations! <strong>Help needed!</strong>
Time

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:

https://mega.nz/#!Mqhl2JhT!uKe-SIIxTzv_e_7WNBXvq8GFlIowmK6t4B0nODC8DTM

Funding target: $1800

Donors:

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • kchrules
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

Current total: $290

Post
#1253899
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

yotsuya said:

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…

Post
#1253879
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

yotsuya said:

“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.

Post
#1253689
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

yotsuya said:

For Star Wars there is a single negative. From that the many interpositives were made and the one or two color separations. From the interpositives the internegatives were made which is when the cigarette burns are added. I think that is also where subtitles are added. From the internegatives the regular prints are made. It is a well documented process. No where have I ever heard of special telecine prints. I have heard that telecines have been made from both release prints and interpositives.

Well I’m not surprised you haven’t heard of telecine prints if you keep insisting on calling changeover cues “cigarette burns”. Foreign language subtitles for subtitling the films are etched in directly to the prints, however the subtitles you probably mean are the Greedo Subtitles and they are an optical composite - so from a master positive I would say and inserted into the negatives used to strike prints.

Now, if you want to talk television,the easiest way to distribute is on film. The early years of Doctor Who have survived because they were transferred to film for international distribution.

That’s a bit more of a complicated process because they filmed the 50i picture on a broadcast monitor at 25fps (dropping every 2nd field) onto 16mm in a process they called “Telerecording”. Then that film would be stored and used to strike prints for telecine and distributed (and yes they are all low contrast prints before you ask that wouldn’t look very good projected). The telecine prints could be transferred in PAL countries back to 50i (although it has lost half the original resolution) or in NTSC countries to 60i using 2:3 pulldown played back at 24fps (or 23.976fps for colour television). Also, the ease of this process for PAL material I suspect is why more US television shows were originally shot on film compared to UK shows. Telerecording wasn’t really suitible to transfer NTSC videotape to film.

But we are talking a studio film, telecined by the studio for home video release. Why strike a new print when you have retired intermediates and prints on hand to use. That would be a lot of needless film transfers to do a telecine on a machine that can handle 35mm film of any type. And add to that the volume of transfers Fox was doing for home video. I can’t be specific with many of those telecines, but the 1985 US release was definitely done in house.

Because it’s a lot easier to transfer low contrast film - even today any modern film scanner - the Lasergraphics Scanstation for example - works much better with negatives or inter-positives, or other lower contrast lab films than it does with release prints that have a much higher density and are more difficult to transfer without introducing excessive scanner noise. That’s not to say you can’t get good results from theatrical prints - you can I know as I’ve had several scanned - but you need to work with a scanner who understands the issues that they present and is able to accommodate them, otherwise what you end up with is a noisy mess.

To put it simply - all lab film other than release prints is low contrast. You only use theatrical prints for telecine if it’s the last resort - even if you didn’t have any telecine prints you’d use the internegative or the interpositive or the o-neg or the master positive or whatever lab film you have available with a timed soundtrack before you would even consider using a theatrical print. Telecine machines were not designed to transfer projection prints, and they didn’t do a very good job with them - end of story.

And we can go round and round about the quality of the prints, but if you like the look of the Tech prints, that’s fine. I don’t. I think they are flawed and not an accurate source for the original colors. I think we can get closer by tracking how each existing copy was made and correcting for the flaws.

And I think you need a better source for your evidence than telecine transfers as they use different prints.

Post
#1253590
Topic
Star Wars - What is wrong and what is right... Goodbye Magenta
Time

yotsuya said:

RU.08 - perhaps you have missed the many articles on the conditon of the O-neg for Star Wars. It was used for the production of all the interpositives - there was no duplicate negative made. Lucas was lamenting that. They did an expensive 3 color separation master and no duplicate negative was ever struck from it. The o-neg shows considerable wear from the constant use of making the many interpositives and presentation prints needed over the years.

I don’t mean a backup struck from the separation masters, I mean a duplicate struck from the inter-positive. It may be that they struck a reduction negative (16mm) from the inter-positive in 1976 and used that as the master for all the telecine prints until the 90’s. Regardless, the foreign releases would not have been made by cutting up the o-neg, but they could have been reversal prints (although not the telecine prints).

That all the telecines before the Definitive Collection have the reel change/cigarette burn (two terms for the same circular marks) and the fresh interpositive widely reported as the source for the Definitive Collection doesn’t just means that it really is a fresh print.

“Cigarette burn” is not a term for the changeover cues. They were frictionally called that in Fight Club, no one in the industry has ever used that term. And again, they’re in the negative so it doesn’t indicate that they were using theatrical prints, just that the negative they were struck from had changeover cues in it probably because it was the same negative used to strike prints.

And the report that a separate print must be used for the telecine process just is not accurate. I found a description of one of the common high end telecine machines that can do 16 or 35 mm, prints, negatives, or intermediates (as in interpositives).

No one said you “must use” a specific print, I was simply stating what was industry standard. For some really low budget independent films and that kind of thing, they may not have had telecine master prints. For a standard Hollywood Feature though it would be very unusual if they didn’t.

And TN1 released a raw scan of their SSE project. I have it. They had to splice in the opening sequence because the better print for reel 1 was not in English.

I’m pretty sure the faded opening sequence is in fact spliced on to the Spanish LPP.

There are some other slices as well, but largely the reels are uncorrected. Reel 5 is very dark (to dark to be of much use on this topic), but the scenes I question from the Technicolor Print are in reel 2 and that reel has a very consisted yellow tone and the contrast of the original image is quite easy to make out and it is quite different form the Technicolor prints.

Which again you can’t say is the result of how the reels actually look. I have two scans done of the same reel 3 of Jungle Book by the same scanner - and the colours look like they come from completely different prints. What happened was a splice opened up when scanning, and so the reel had to be re-scanned later but that wasn’t done for a few weeks, when it was done the scanner ran the whole reel through again - so I have about 3/4 of the reel on the first scan and the whole reel on the re-scan and the colours are completely different. Looks like a separate print.

There is no doubt that the Spanish LPP scan would have some of these issues as well - if reel 5 appears much darker it doesn’t mean the reel really was darker than the rest of the print (although it might have been), it just means it scanned that way. If they re-scanned it on a different day it could look different.

The Telecines all have similar contrast to those shots that match the raw scan for TN1’s SSE. So telling me that the final product was graded to the GOUT is irrelevant to what I am pointing out because I am going off of the uncorrected raw scan. And it would be interesting to ask the question if the SSE has scene by scene color correction or a more general color correction to each reel or spliced section. Having watched it several times I feel it is the later.

But what does “uncorrected raw scan” mean? With a homebrew setup like the one TN1 used, I’m willing to bet the camera did an auto-white balance at the start of each capture. That would mean each reel would look different when scanned. A professional scanner uses a calibrated lead strip of film to do the white balance, and then scans the film - I can just about guarantee you TN1 did not do that with the Spanish LPP so what you have is 6x scans (or more) done separately with separate white balances.

The assumption is being made that the Technicolor prints are the most accurate color for the 1977 release and what I am seeing is that those prints are heavily flawed in a number of ways. They have faded the least over the last 40 years, but they are not the best source of the 1977 theatrical optical print colors.

We’re going around in circles here. I expect the dye-transfer prints to look a little different, that’s normal. But you can’t conclude they’re “wrong” because a handful of scenes don’t look right to you. The cinema screen is much more forgiving than the home viewing environment, you notice inconsistencies less in the cinema because you’re watching the film in a blacked-out environment, you no longer have a reference point other than what’s on the screen for colour.

So I see no evidence that Star Wars/A New Hope ever had duplicate negatives or special telecine prints made. And the reason a lot of the prints have black cigarette burns is that they are typically applied to the internegative. Not a duplicate negative.

The internegative is a dupe-neg. In any case we’re now on the same page, the film prints were struck from a duplicate negative. You’re mistaken though if you think they only struck theatrical prints and not telecine prints as well.

And your comment about the transfer for Song of the South was amusing. If you read the credits you will find the name Natalie Kalmus. You will also find, if you pick up a copy of Gone With the Wind (the last restoration was true to the original Technicolor timing), that the colors are similarly bright. That was a hallmark of all the early Technicolor movies. This is why we used technicolor to describe things that are brightly colored. Natalie Kalmus, wife of the inventor of the process, insisted that all movies made in Technicolor highlighted the process by using bright colors that were further brightened in the post production process. A selection of movies from DVD/Blu-ray, or from TCM that carry her name will show that the transfer for Song of the South is accurate to how she wanted the movie to look. That is why Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz had Ruby slippers instead of the original Silver. After her involvement ended, the Technicolor process was muted to more realistic colors and it was common to use a color negative and leave Technicolor to just the prints.

You can see obvious flaws in the telecine, and that’s my point.

Star Wars was the last film to have technicolor prints.

So Suspiria doesn’t count then?

Anyone here worked at a production facility that was closing down? Shoddy work is typical of that environment. The green tint to the dark areas of Star Wars isn’t news and is a known flaw. Why there can’t be other flaws if there is already one known makes no sense. The general look of the Star Wars Technicolor prints points to someone not doing their best. And I’d rather believe they goofed up making the separations in the color timing than they screwed up the printing process. And that is what it looks like. The shots I question look like they were overexposed and washed out. The green shadows could be a timing issue as well.

Your only evidence is your subjective opinion, without a known reference point, that the dye-transfer prints “look wrong”. With respect that’s just not going to cut it. I’ve seen films that look like a mess on 35mm with it having little to nothing to do with the final prints themselves.

Films I’ve seen on photochemical prints (Kodak, Fuji, etc) often have green or other colour tints in the dark areas. While you might say that’s a “flaw” there’s absolutely no evidence that it has anything to do with the printing process. You often find a handful of scenes like this in reels with other scenes that have “normal” black levels without a tint - how can that be due to a part of the final printing process? Simple - it can’t, it isn’t. It’s in the negative.

Post
#1253512
Topic
SUPERMAN THE MOVIE The 35mm Silver Screen Edition
Time

ITHoTMK said:

Awful. Okay. That was just a web compressed version. There is obviously a higher quality version both uncompressed and one encoded for those who want to burn it to Bluray. But based on this post I don’t think I will be sharing it privately.

I didn’t mean to offend, just to say the 15GB version was badly compressed (not surprising given the size and the length of the film). I’ve seen worse though as well, and those were “completed projects”. I’m sorry if I came off as rude, I’ve had a bad week which started with my cat being attacked by a dog.

Post
#1253501
Topic
SUPERMAN THE MOVIE The 35mm Silver Screen Edition
Time

ITHoTMK said:

FULL LINK COMING SOON.

Don’t put a direct link on the forum, it has to be shared privately. Are you re-encoding this from the source files? Because the 15.2 GB version is available as a direct link on capedwonder.com but the compression is awful it needs to be re-done from the master files.

deathstar1138 said:

I wonder if this is the same as:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AvPwFEAcx88J:https://www.supermanhomepage.com/superman-the-movie-the-35mm-silver-screen-edition/+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

That version seemed to be a fake one, where they just put
grain over the bluray edition.

It’s not fake, but it’s not a private scan either. They (ITHoTMK I’m guessing?) took an existing transfer of the film (probably a telecine for broadcast I’m guessing) and reconfigured it to be theatrical by inserting shots from other sources. But the compression was awful - the 15.2GB capedwonder direct link still works. Hopefully ITHoTMK is re-encoding it properly to bluray bitrate in which case it should look a lot better than the original encode.

Whether it actually came from a “print” is debatable - if it did it came from a telecine master print, not from a theatrical print. There’s way too much detail in the dark areas for it to have come from a theatrical print.