captainsolo said:
Thanks to those on this thread. The WOWOW certainly seems to be the source element for the re-timed Raiders and corrects many of the issues I saw in the new 35mm print and feels much more natural to my eyes.
It is the only way to fly
digitalfreaknyc said:
Just fyi...Vudu now has the theatrical version available in HDX.
http://www.vudu.com/movies/#!content/9052/Robin-Hood-Prince-of-Thieves
Pink telecine?
nirbateman said:
I think using LD's to determine color schemes for older films is a miscalculation. Especially when they were filmed in Technicolor, when the potential for mistakes in prints was huge.
Finally someone on my wavelength!
I think the THX is the least of them judging by those shots
Yep the WP is the one for me, looks just right
PDB said:
dvdmike said:
Synnöve said:
Y'all need to keep in mind that none of the transfers are really representative of a release print or negative simply due to the drastically different color spaces consumer video and film use, and the evolving methods of mapping film colors to consumer video color spaces. These sorts of factors will drastically effect the look of the resultant transfer.
That was what I was saying!! using the workprint as it is closest to an actual print and in BD's colour space already
No that's 100% wrong. The workprint is not even close to a release print. That is not the way making release prints works. Synnove is talking about digital formats. We are talking about chemical timing of a release print, workprints rarely have any chemical color timing. I quote wikipedia:
A workprint is a rough version of a motion picture, used by the film editor(s) during the editing process. Such copies generally contain original recorded sound that will later be re-dubbed, stock footage as placeholders for missing shots or special effects, and animation tests for in-production animated shots or sequences.
For most of the first century of filmmaking, workprints were done using second-generation prints from the original camera negatives. After the editor and director approved of the final edit of the workprint, the same edits were made to the negative.
If anything the workprint is closer to the negative then a release print. It was a quick rough print made for a preview. Thats why they used 70mm, to perverse as much detail as possible given the quick nature of the print. It was never meant to be seen again. Release prints are timed after the ip as a result of answer print. The are already a few generations removed from the ocn and their colors can be radically different then the negative. Negatives are great for seeing details but release prints are best for what a film should look like. Workprints are in no way the true color and look of a film.
Why not try a small section?
Synnöve said:
Y'all need to keep in mind that none of the transfers are really representative of a release print or negative simply due to the drastically different color spaces consumer video and film use, and the evolving methods of mapping film colors to consumer video color spaces. These sorts of factors will drastically effect the look of the resultant transfer.
That was what I was saying!! using the workprint as it is closest to an actual print and in BD's colour space already
Of Blade Runner there were only blow ups, no 70mm prints.
And the work print is a direct scan of a film print and will be better looking than the LD due to the colour space
The is no such thing as a 70mm print, it was a blow up and they all come with their own issues
Jonno said:
No... because it's a workprint.
Paul M. Sammon's notes on a screening of the WP:
Print doesn't seem properly color-corrected. Images are darker, grainier than theatrical print. Flesh-tones are off in some scenes (towards the red). Jumpy edits. Scratches. Dirt marks. Sound too high/distorted in some scenes. Image seems clipped off each side of frame - loss because of blow up/reduction?
(from Future Noir)
that has what relation to the BD master? I too have read Noir and that was about. A crappy old 35mm reel the BD is in the correct colour space for this project for starters
The workprint would be a better source then the LD for colour surely
Sad news :(
There are two squeeze discs also
?
PDB said:
That Blade Runner collection is fantastic but sadly, neither the 30th Anniversary nor the 5 disc collection have the right color timing (the way I remember them) for the Theatrical/International Cut). Those top pics are from the 5 disc, which has the same video as the 30th. The theatrical had a golden hue on its release prints. Its the same as Alien, they went back to the negative and didn't color time to a release print. Instead everything was given a cool blue color timing (the Final Cut was given a green hue like Alien, which is Scott's prerogative since its his Final Cut.)
It might make a fun future project. Those pics were just a test to see what a re-timing might look like. Back to work on Alien...
The WP (The one true version) is pretty untouched
Uploading PM me for a link
THere is an extracted version floating about, we synced it with the (UGH) skynet edition if its still not about I will rip it later on
TServo2049 said:
I doubt that the Dolby SR and CDS theatrical tracks had different sound effects - correct me if I'm wrong, but by 1991, just before the advent of digital 5.1, was there really that much difference between matrixed and discrete mixes other than dynamic range and separation and maybe some extra LFE?
We weren't getting vastly different mixes like in the late 70s, if the silenced gunshots do show up on the theatrical Dolby SR track, they'd have probably have been on the theatrical CDS mix too...right?
Also, you said Rydstrom's near-field remix was done for the SE - wouldn't that mean the pre-2000 theatrical cut releases, or at least the pre-SE ones, weren't remixed for near-field?
all home mixes could have changed is the point, and a few of the 70mm mixes have changes foley effects
PDB said:
dvdmike said:
The same in every version? The SE had a full near field remix for home video starting with the LD release so there are at least two mixes not including the digital / analogue mixes
I meant the sound effects not the mix. Rydstorm says he didn't change the effects in the interview.
this is what I need to prove one way or the other
Yes but it is an original release print and it will show the original mix no matter the format including the original foley effects
Most CDS mixes were 4.0 or 4.1, I hope the guy with the cam, replies to me so we can put it to rest.
I may be wrong on this but it would be great to find out definitively.
The same in every version? The SE had a full near field remix for home video starting with the LD release so there are at least two mixes not including the digital / analogue mixes
He changed the mix WAY before the 2000 dvd
That is indeed true I however just found this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnEACdAr1rk
And asked him for those scenes
TServo2049 said:
Perhaps we do have to wait for a 35mm print to surface. (But do any CDS decoders still exist?)
Another question - would the Dolby Surround tracks on the original LD be the same as the Dolby SR theatrical mix (which is what most people would have heard in theaters)?
1 I doubt it they were flaky to begin with and I am pretty sure not all prints had the CDS it was a few 35mm and 70mm blow ups
2 In theory yes, but I and others do not remember it sounding this way
_,,,^..^,,,_ said:
dvdmike said:
_,,,^..^,,,_said:
dvdmikesaid:
I have all home LD and dvd/bd editions and none have the gunshots.
What's about this one:PLFED 30341?
I have that its in the pic in the OP at the top I have a rip I made of that scene somewhere I can upload it to YT one tick
Sorry, my bad, haven't noticed it... well, do you think it sounds like the NTSC version(s) by the way?
Yep i think its identical, and that may mean I am wrong or none of the home mixes have the CDS mix
DP