littlejoe416 said:

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

gmarsh1996 said:

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy

No, he means that presenting the movie with the visual trademarks and imperfections typical of the 35mm format was not the filmmakers’ original intent, but it was the only theatrical delivery format available at the time. Had digital projection caught on just a few years earlier, I guarantee that The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie would have been presented that way.

Ok? That’s a moot point tho

No, it’s not. gmarsh1996 is trying to understand why users in this community go through the trouble of reapplying a 35mm color palette and grainy texture— byproducts of the only available delivery format available in 2004– to a digitally sourced movie that was never intended to be visually presented that way. You thought his point was that the filmmakers never intended to show the movie on analog film in theaters, which is not what he said.

He’s questioning the altering of the movie’s visual quality because, as I stated in the last post, had digital projection been available at the time of the film’s release, it absolutely would have been presented that way since slightly altered colors and a dip in sharpness and resolve are anomalies the filmmakers would have preferred sidestepping altogether. Hope that clears things up.

Ok sure, but still, the first question they asked was why have a digitally created movie on 35mm.

Correct, that’s how he phrased it, before clarifying that he wants to understand why users “feel the need to recreate the film feel,” not literally “Why put a digital film on 35mm?” He even points out that was done “because of necessity,” so he clearly knows why.

littlejoe416 said:
Digital projection isn’t relevant to the history of this movie regarding how it was shown in theaters

Yes, it is. The abscense of that option is, anyway. Once again: had it been available, the movie likely would’ve gone straight to digital and not 35mm. The only reason I bring this up at all is because the discrepancies typical of that format conversion would betray the filmmakers’ original intent, which was gmarsh1996’s whole point in the first place; why take the time to re-create a look that was a byproduct of converting digital film to analog and goes against what the filmmakers intended when they colored and graded the movie in an all-digital environment?

That is what he’s trying to understand, and why I brought the absence of digital projection into this, but we can go back and forth on this forever so let’s forget I ever brought up digital projection. Gone. The fact remains that however different the movie looked on 35mm in palette and texture was not how it was meant to look, and— to finally answer your query, gmarsh1996— recreating that look is most likely fueled by nostalgia and a fascination with how a personal favorite may have looked when it first played in theaters. You’ll find tons of projects like that on OriginalTrilogy, and there will likely be plenty more to come in the future.

littlejoe416 said:
nevermind whether the filmmakers would have preferred digital or not, it wasn’t ever an option to begin with. So that’s why.

Exactly. I repeat: re-creating a look that came out of necessity due to the lack of a digital delivery option, and not creative intent, is what was put into question.

lpw1107 said:

Let me ask you something. How did you get a hold of those prints?

Knowing the right people, God’s favor, and good timing.

The owner of the 1956 print loaned it to me for preservation, which would not have even been arranged in the first place if I hadn’t known someone close to them.

I had one of the other two Technicolor prints offered to me after asking around in private collector circles. Because I wasn’t the only one interested in the print (it was uncensored, after all), it almost didn’t happen.

The other prints came from eBay.

littlejoe416 said:

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

gmarsh1996 said:

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy

No, he means that presenting the movie with the visual trademarks and imperfections typical of the 35mm format was not the filmmakers’ original intent, but it was the only theatrical delivery format available at the time. Had digital projection caught on just a few years earlier, I guarantee that The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie would have been presented that way.

Ok? That’s a moot point tho

No, it’s not. gmarsh1996 is trying to understand why users in this community go through the trouble of reapplying a 35mm color palette and grainy texture— byproducts of the only available delivery format available in 2004– to a digitally sourced movie that was never intended to be visually presented that way. You thought his point was that the filmmakers never intended to show the movie on analog film in theaters, which is not what he said.

He’s questioning the altering of the movie’s visual quality because, as I stated in the last post, had digital projection been available at the time of the film’s release, it absolutely would have been presented that way since slightly altered colors and a dip in sharpness and resolve are anomalies the filmmakers would have preferred sidestepping altogether. Hope that clears things up.

littlejoe416 said:

gmarsh1996 said:

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy

No, he means that presenting the movie with the visual trademarks and imperfections typical of the 35mm format was not the filmmakers’ original intent, but it was the only theatrical delivery format available at the time. Had digital projection caught on just a few years earlier, I guarantee that The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie would have been presented that way.

Swazzy said:

Glad to have confirmation it was considerably darker on film…

Well, remember, after a scan, you can color-correct and grade the visual elements in whichever way you want. The new 4K may be film-sourced and a few points darker than the preexisting HD transfer, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s what it looked like on original theatrical release prints. What you see in the 4K is likely a regrade to give a film a slightly newer look. You’d need to track down an original 2004 print and have it projected to know what TSSM more or less looked like in theaters. My memory of the print shown at SVA in 2018 is that it looked identical to what’s on the home video releases, but even I’m beginning to question that because it’s been so long since I’ve seen the darn thing.

Swazzy said:

Are you certain this is how it looks with HDR, or is there a HDR grade that was supposed to be applied but wasn’t in these screenshots?

On an actual HDR-enabled display, it’s only a touch brighter than the screenshots I posted, which are tone-mapped SDR snapshots of the new transfer. But you’re still more or less seeing how the new version looks.

spleaterzeldax said:

How can you tell it’s film sourced and what’s your general opinion?

A fine layer of film grain is present in the transfer, and if you look very closely at the edges of the frame, you can see some gate weave. I still have to watch the 4K version all the way through to give it a thorough review.

Well… it’s dimmer. Unlike the DVD and Blu-ray releases, the HDR version is a film-sourced transfer, matted to 1.85:1 with some of the colors dialed up. (Note the colors on the eyes of Mr. Krabs, Plankton, Gary, and Patrick’s pants.) I still need to check the rest of the HDR version and see how it compares to the original transfer.

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

CMGF said:

Whether the Disney+ rumor is true or not, if this guy is right about the Deems Taylor audio and it was actually found… then, is there any way we may be able to get our hands on it?

Oh, absolutely. I can bet on it. When the 4K/HDR transfers for “The Black Cauldron” and “The Sword in the Stone” went live, it didn’t take very long for 1:1 rips to show up and make their rounds. If Fantasia’s 4K doesn’t see a physical release before it drops on Disney+ (unlikely, I think, but there’s a first time for everything), then you can expect rips to show up soon after.

I mean, I’m totally for that if it’s true, but whoever started/passed along that rumor may be confusing the news with Snow White’s 4K release on Disney+, which I believe is slated for the 16th of this month. As for Fantasia, I don’t think Disney would quietly slip in a 4K remaster to one of its “Big 5” features with so little fanfare, but I suppose we’ll know whether the rumor is true over the next few days.

GlupShitto said:

Curious how this is coming along?

It’s coming along fine; I don’t have as much time as I’d prefer to make more consistent progress and updates, but things are still moving forward. I’m currently having the IB Tech prints scanned. Going by the proxy previews alone, the footage looks great. I’ll post an update soon after receiving the files.

CMGF said:

Are you still going to post this list? I thought it was a good idea, would make it easier to follow the project without asking for updates all the time (and will also give those who “can’t wait” an idea why they should, I guess)

Done.

MonkeyLizard10 said:

Going back to the other topic of 5.1 audio, another option, although unfortunately not for a lot of movies, is to use the Cinema DTS audio. 1995 would be far enough back for this film to have one.

I’m almost certain that Toy Story never played anywhere with Cinema DTS audio in '95, but it did receive a DTS LaserDisc. If someone can arrange a bit-perfect capture of the soundtrack, it’d be a terrific addition to this project.

RU.08 said:

Please don’t confuse Trist. ScanStations have two ways to transfer audio, the hissy hardware reader or software extraction that works better than AEO Light.

I never meant to cause any confusion. Until now, I had no idea about ScanStation’s software extraction option. Good to know.

MonkeyLizard10 said:

true, BUT I’ve heard the whole near vs. far field mix thing is a good deal overblown and that a lot of it was pushed by a single mixing studio that apparently wanted to use the idea to prop up their finances and sort of talked all the studios into the ‘critical’ need for it. I’ve read that many say that a lot of the claims pushed to get the whole thing going, upon further examination, didn’t really pan out like they claimed and some say the whole thing caused more trouble and even worse home results in the end, although it seems there is still some arguing over who is correct.

Yeah, it’s quite the hot topic in audio engineering circles. In this context, having as many audio options as possible is always best when all is said and done. It’s less convenient to get the Dolby 5.1 on the print preserved, but a lot easier to get the analog stereo track digitized using AEO Light— especially if the raw scan resolution is well past 2K. That would only be necessary if the scanner couldn’t (or simply didn’t) capture the analog audio along with the image scan or the sound on the capture was too hissy; unfortunately, LaserGraphics ScanStation units are kind of notorious for that. But all things in due time; I’m sure TristAndShout64 will cross that bridge when he gets to it.

A friendly reminder that with any mix— Dolby Digital or analog— on the actual print itself, you’re likely getting the “far field” version of the soundtrack, with mixing choices and dynamic range better suited for listening in large auditoriums. In contrast, that same mix is typically adjusted for “near field” listening in significantly smaller environments for the film’s home video release. The former mix is prepared knowing it will play from speakers a considerable distance from the listener(s); it also considers the architectural impact of the soundtrack in that room to give the audience a full, reflected acoustic effect. The latter is more direct and sometimes may even sound more detailed— or, at least, unmarred by the aural impact of a large auditorium because you’re sitting much closer to speakers with smaller drivers in a smaller room.

Neither is necessarily better or worse than the other (not always, anyway…). Still, it’s always best to consider the differences between what’s on a print and what typically ends up on the home video release. An excellent example of everything mentioned here can be heard in Aladdin’s theatrical and home video versions. In the scene where the Cave of Wonders begins to fall apart, the differences in the intensity of the sound effects are night and day. Pay particular attention to the moment when the lamp shrine bursts into flames. Not even the LaserDisc audio, an otherwise fine track all around, sounds that aggressive. You can hear the DVD/35mm audio comparison here:

All this is to say yes, you will want to include the analog track— for posterity if nothing else. =)

Hard yes. Filmic, vibrant Technicolor-esque palate, and tack sharp. It’s beautiful.

Are you referring to the Gus Gus animation cel that ykarus1974 posted? Cel auction photos typically look that bright for a couple of reasons; the auctioneer usually wants to put the cel’s color density on full display and give potential bidders the best idea of the frame’s overall condition. Hence, they jack up the light over the artwork to an appropriate level. Also, and I can’t stress this next part enough, animation cels designed for Technicolor photography and photochemical processing, by themselves, rarely reflect how they actually look in the final film— especially those taken under questionable lighting conditions to make a sale. You’ll notice, for example, that Gus’ nose and shoes are a darker shade in the HDR grading than the cel photo.

Now, whether or not that shot was meant to look so conservatively lit in the original color timing is up for debate. Still, in the case of that auction photo (as well as the others shown), it’s brighter to leave little to the imagination of potential buyers, not necessarily because that’s how that scene was meant to look. Hope this helps.

ykarus1974 said:

what do you mean by “properly mapped” ?

Converted, really. This is known as HDR to SDR “tone mapping.” The long and short of it is that when you try playing HDR content on a monitor or device that can’t correctly display the REC.2020 color space (which is the color space that just about every 4K disc uses for the feature film), it spits out a gray, washed-out image. So you either do the obvious and upgrade your devices to those with HDR display capabilities or convert the HDR content in question to 8-bit standard dynamic range (SDR) video with a REC.709 color space, allowing you to watch it on just about any device with no significant display or color issues.

That latter scenario would be the solution if you want to watch, say, the newly-remastered Prince of Egypt in 4K, but on an SDR monitor because the standard 1080p Blu-ray does not carry an SDR version of the new transfer. (Which it does not.)

1998/2018 1080p Transfer

2023 4K Transfer [Tone mapped from HDR Blu-ray]

Yeah, the 4K disc doesn’t look nearly as muted. Those stills are from the HDR master, yes, but they haven’t been adjusted to be displayed on an SDR monitor. Properly mapped, this is what the new transfer actually looks like:

monks19 said:

Any fresh news on this project ?

Since the last update, I managed to get another mono IB Tech print for the project. It includes reels 1 and 4 (missing in the first mono IB Tech print) and is exceptionally clean. Also, the SP color print from 1969, which I’ve mentioned before, has been scanned as a just-in-case resource for any missing or badly damaged frames from the Technicolor prints. I’m just about covered on the visual front of this project, thank God, but there have been some fascinating developments in the sound department— particularly concerning the interstitials. For now, that’s all I can say.

monks19 said:

I’ve been able to see the last result and all I can say WOW!!! Terrific work on this. I’m looking forward for any future work/improvements on this one. The only things I think that still need some works are the parts that are still looking rough on the image (dammages and splices are quite presents at the beginning of the movie) and of course the Fantasound sound track that needs some patches and adjustmants here and there.

I think you’re referring to this release, which I had nothing to do with. The project page you’re on right now is about an entirely separate Fantasia project, the end goal of which is to present as much of the original film as possible in 4K/HDR, multi-channel surround audio, and include a much cleaner optical mono mix as well. As usual, it’s slow goings over here, but the project is still progressing nevertheless.

Yeah, the distorted ABC Family logo is enough of a tell that the YouTube clip is a 16:9 video squeezed into a 4:3 frame.

I’m pretty familiar with Return of Jafar; saw the movie dozens of times as a kid, and I can tell you straight up before making any A/B comparisons that the ABC Family clip is the same matted transfer that’s on the Blu-ray. A few examples off the top of my head: in the unmatted version, you can see the ground opening up after Jafar claps his hands, but it’s not visible in the YouTube clip. Also, in the unmatted version, there used to be plenty of room above and beneath Jafar in the shot where he explodes. In the YouTube clip, he looks cramped and awkwardly placed in that shot.

Unfortunately, I don’t think Disney had ever broadcasted an HD transfer of the original 4:3 version.

Just finished watching the video on my HDR monitor, and the dynamic range on the regraded footage looks stellar, particularly during the Powerline concert.

How did you manage to upmix the audio? If you’re ever looking to improve on that front, I highly recommend Penteo Surround Pro. To my knowledge and experience, it’s the only plugin that upmixes stereo audio without introducing additional perceptible artifacts, allowing the multichannel audio to fold back to its original format perfectly.

It’s… not cheap. The “plus” (+) variant of the plugin is even more expensive, but at the very least, the standard “Pro” version is absolutely worth it. I have the standard one, so if you ever need a cleaner upmix of the LaserDisc audio, I’d be more than happy to help.

A sample of the transition from 1.33:1 to 2.20:1.

CMGF said:

Do you, by any chance, plan to release this print regardless to the project?

I did consider it, but I may be more comfortable releasing the 1969 print for several reasons. After color correction, it looks identical to the '56 release; there isn’t a single splice throughout the print, and the original rounded corners are fully retained— it doesn’t lop anything off the edges of the image area to accommodate the stretch and animated transitions from the original aspect ratio to 2.20 the way the SuperScope release does. Moreover, the collector who loaned the SuperScope print to me is extremely particular with whom they lend it; I’m amazed I was even offered a chance to digitize it in the first place, let alone be able to go through with it. I had it preserved more for posterity and possible color reference than to share it with others, so, likely, this print will not make its rounds. But again, as beautiful as it looks, the '69 release print will look just as good— if not slightly better— by the time I get through with it, so there’s nothing to worry about.

CMGF said:
And have you already got the files of the 2nd IB tech print?

That one hasn’t even been scanned yet, but it certainly will be some time after I get the 1969 release print digitized, and that should happen sometime over the next month or two if God permits. I know I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating that we’re moving slowly, but we are moving nevertheless. Once the 1969 print is scanned, it’ll be much easier to whip up what I consider the “Version 1” of the project. Version 2 is… ambitious. There’s a lot I would love to do for Version 2, particularly on the audio front, but I’m putting the cart before the horse as of this writing. I hope to share more about what’s planned for v2 after I’ve successfully put together the first one, and that’s pretty darn close to finally happening.

It’s been a while, so it’s time for an update, and it’s a big one.

The 1956 SuperScope print I’d been given access to (now almost two years ago (!)) has not only been scanned, but I also received the files just a few days ago. Given the rarity of this release, I sprung for a 6.5K HDR overscan to accommodate the highest possible quality after matting and color grading the footage. While the scan itself is stunning, and I could not be happier with the work done by the facility that captured the footage, there’s a lot of good, some bad, and even a little ugly concerning the A/V quality of the print. Let’s dive right into it, addressing the unfortunate news first.

The Bad

• The 4-track mag stereo soundtrack on this particular print is… not great. Half the time, it’s completely unusable. If the audio isn’t briefly dropping out in one channel, it’s virtually absent in another reel because the Magna-Tech it went through couldn’t even read the damaged magnetic strip properly; or the frequencies fluctuate wildly from intelligible to suffocated during a significant portion of another segment.
— This is the problem with the right channel during half of The Nutcracker Suite and most of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
— In the case of Night on Bald Mountain, aggressive clicking completely ruins the right channel during the sequence’s climactic finale.
— In Reel 5, which contains the film’s entr’acte, the right channel is hardly present during the Jam Session, and by the time you get to Meet the Soundtrack, it’s practically nonexistent— same goes for the first movement of the Pastoral Symphony at the end of the reel, and a significant portion of the second movement at the start of Reel 6.

• Both the “Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies” and “Chinese Dance” segments from The Nutcracker Suite appear to be in the earliest stages of vinegar syndrome, as the size of the image kept warping and weaving even under the optimal scanning conditions of the unit it went through.

The Ugly

• Because Disney prepared this release of Fantasia to be shown on 2.20 SuperScope screens, they applied some very conspicuous animated matting to switch from footage they wanted to keep windowboxed in its original aspect ratio (like the interstitials and the entirety of “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice”), and footage they artificially stretched to fill the wide screen. As a result, the opening and closing scenes from almost every segment are rendered unusable. Pretty upsetting, as they would require another scan of the two other prints available to this project to fill those gaps. I’ll likely post a clip here that illustrates the animated matting issue sometime in the next few days.

• There’s a nasty splice near the end of Toccata and Fugue in D Minor where 13 seconds of footage is entirely missing. Needs patching.

And now for…

The Good

Take a good look at the samples above this text; it’s how the print came off the scanner before any color correction was applied. It seems that there’s very little to “correct” because the reels, for the most part, were already in spectacular shape when they got to the scanner. This is saying something, given the age and what type of print this is; there aren’t many magnetic stereo Technicolor prints of Fantasia still around— let alone before the color has already started to fade. I’m almost tempted to leave the color as it is and render the whole thing out as a grindhouse-style transfer, but there are some glaring instances of fade and hue imbalance that I can’t ignore, and I can assure you that they will be addressed.

As for the magnetic stereo mix, the soundtrack I had professionally captured back in 2020 is still the best version of the original mix. Where the 1956 audio supersedes my 1969 print, however, is the EQ. The long and short of it is that the frequencies on the former sound better, but this is an easy fix with iZotope’s “EQ Match” module, available in both their RX and Ozone programs. I’ve already tested essentially copying and pasting the '56 EQ profile to the '69 audio with satisfactory results, so we’re covered on that front.

In conclusion…

Life happens, so I can’t promise that I’ll be able to post more updates as frequently as you may prefer, but I can promise you all that this project is still very active and receiving as much of my attention and TLC as possible. As good of a source as this new scan is for the project, it’s still another drop in the bucket (albeit a big one), and may not even be the primary scan used for the final grading and transfer. The two aforementioned prints (one Technicolor and the other an SP color print) are still the preferred source material for the project, but believe me when I tell you that eventually I will find extensive use for the ‘56 print. I may also cobble together a sample of the first 15 minutes of the film using this new scan so that you all have a good idea of what the final project looks and sounds like at play, but again, there are no promises as to when— I’ll get to it as soon as I can.

Sometime today, or perhaps later this week, I’ll post a “to do” list of sorts at the end of the original post, to make it easier for those who have followed this project since early pandemic, and newcomers who are just discovering it, to keep track of where it stands and what needs to be done next.

Also, since we’re still here… happy 82nd birthday, Fantasia. 🎂

No, it’s only available through the remaining 35mm release prints.