Sign In

poita

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
11-Sep-2012
Last activity
10-Jul-2018
Posts
3020

Post History

Post
#1223245
Topic
1997 Star Wars Special Edition 35mm Project
Time

Yes you can get distortions, especially at splices where the film may not sit perfectly flat. No mechanical process is perfect, so you do get some distortion sometimes that is highly visible, with warping, out of focus areas etc. and very slight distortion that would only be noticeable if you compared them directly, but you would’t notice otherwise. Contact prints can also get newtons-rings type problems, which again, might not be highly visible, but can distort the image slightly.

Averaging a bunch of release prints gets you a little closer to the original, you negate some of the effect of the individual print grain, and if you use the correct stacking methods, might pick up some extra detail/resolution that is in one print versus another, but it is tricky, you might just end up substituting noise from one print to another in some areas.

You are never going to even get close to the negative however. The release print is timed differently, often throwing away 4 stops or more of exposure latitude, often intentionally.
And there is loss going from an IP to a release print that is lost forever it won’t be there in any of the prints, (e.g. the dynamic range etc) so it can’t be recovered, but yes if you had an infinite number of release prints, you could get close to the IP, assuming you could scan at a crazy high resolution so that the warping of every frame that you would need to do to assure perfect alignment between each print before stacking didn’t just smear out the detail anyway.

So what you get is something that gets closer to the timed interpositive, rather than getting something that is close to the original negative.

In practice, unless you are averaging a lot of prints (like a dozen) the effect isn’t always better than using smart algorithms to reduce the noise in a single print. The prints need to be perfectly aligned for it to work properly, otherwise slight misalignment is reducing detail, so the net affect can be worse. It is however helpful for recovering data where you have a lot of damage on one frame, and no damage on the same frame on other prints.

Back to resolution, it is kind of difficult to put a set number on the resolution of film, measuring a pixel grid is different to the randomness of grain and dye blobs, and the resolution will vary with different exposures, colours and contrast. Even the grain representation looks radically different at different resolutions, we just finished testing grain reproduction at different resolution levels. I’ll post some of our results later if I can get clearance to do so.

Post
#1222945
Topic
1997 Star Wars Special Edition 35mm Project
Time

I think I’ve talked about this paper before.

The main issues with their testing procedure are:

The low contrast test patterns
The projection lenses at the cinemas chosen
The screen textures at the cinemas chosen
The sine wave test patterns used.
The gates and gate pressure of the projectors used.

While the test was worthwhile and produced some useful data, the resolution findings are pretty arbitrary, apart from comparing resolution loss at a relative level between the negative, inter positive, answer print and release prints.
The ‘absolute’ resolution figures are not really useful, all they really tell us is the quality of the projector and screen being used at those particular cinemas.

Also, it is at 1.85:1 so the numbers are off compared to a 2.35:1 or other ratio image.

Had they tested the projection lenses, and the gate pressures and done some analysis of the screens in use, the numbers would have been far more useful.

Cinema presentation varies radically, and gate wear and pressure has a huge effect, as does the light scattering properties of the screen in use, and of course the projection lens, and the lens mount.

As for discerning the resolution of a release print, you can find that out directly and much more accurately by shooting a wider variety of test patterns and then examining the release print with a microscope or a scan of the print.

The resolution discernible in the cinema itself when projected, will be lower than that number, but will vary massively from cinema to cinema, even with the same projector and lens, the wear and aetup and screen properties could halve the discernible resolution compared to different setup.

The resolution present on a release print can easily exceed 1080P. I can show that directly on the scan we just did of the SE, and it isn’t a very sharp print. When projected, well, that number could literally drop to anything, depending on the cinema.

However, even in a terrible cinema, it will look better than a 720P digital projection, the fixed 720P grid will look clearly pixelated at normal projection sizes, whereas even with a poor setup, the release print will look a lot smoother and more detailed, and the effective resolution will be higher due to image information not falling between pixels or being averaged across them.

Post
#1222790
Topic
1997 Star Wars Special Edition 35mm Project
Time

Both the original 1977 film and the 1997 Star Wars SE are all over the place as far as the colour grade goes.

The original ESB is better than Star Wars, but the grade still varies a lot.
So many comp shots and different base films and a lack of digital colour grading at the time all lead to an inconsistent grade. I haven’t watched Jedi enough to be able to confidently say how it looked in 1983 as far as colour goes, other than that the Jabba palace scenes were extremely dark.

Post
#1218152
Topic
Empire Strikes back 35mm restoration feedback thread (POUT)
Time

GigoloJoe said:

Can you clear up some confusion? There are comparison videos on Youtube - ie your UK scan and German scan vs the current Grindhouse. Which print is your latest and how does it compare to all previous?

None of thise aer the latest print. The UK print was somewhat faded, and had a mold problem which caused red flashes on a lot of frames.

The new print is not faded and is mold-free, it should give us both a great colour reference and good quality for the main scan. The other prints will be to help with any frames missing from the new print, and as a resource for any badly damaged frames on the new print.

So long story short, it is much better than any of the previous sources (i.e. the UK, German or Frindhouse).

It is just a matter now of saving up some more dollars for cleaning and scanning and storage etc.

Post
#1217366
Topic
1997 Star Wars Special Edition 35mm Project
Time

Chewielewis said:

RU.08 said:
Right, the dirt is something I noted to poita, in fact the very first thing I noticed and I gave him quite a few examples. It’s not on the print it’s in the print. Not just black dirt, but white dirt also (i.e. dirt on the positives). And yes it would still be in both because it’s a composite shot and the dirt is on the film used to make the composite.

Black dirt is dirt on the positive, white dirt is on the negative. So this dirt can’t have been on the original photography element else it would be white. It’s also not on the grindhouse version of 4K77.

That dirt splodge is not ‘on’ the print. I can tell that by looking at the IR dirtmap.

The wipes were done optically, not digitally and were done by Pacific Title.

Yes, not all shots were re-done digitally, but those that were… it was in 2K and put back out to film and cut into the negative. The removed pieces of the negative were kept, and Disney now has them.

Having had to do optical composites, I find it really unlikely that this shot was recomped optically just for the telecine. Firstly, there would be no need, the sabre comps really transfer easilyto video, and it is nice and wide, there would be no reason to think it wouldn’t transfer that well to video.
Secondly, I can see any way that the alignment would end up so precisely perfect to the release print if it is an optical re-comp. There would be more discrepancy, it is really, really, hard to get that level of precision.
It looks like an adjustment made on the telecine, threepio has also been affected by it. Nothing else in the scene is bright enough to be affected, so it makes sense to me.

I’m not saying it is impossible, but there is really no reason to redo this scene for telecine, no reason to believe that it would have been problematic as is, and it would have been a pain in the arse to seek out the elements and re-comp unless there was a really compelling reason to do so.

So, it could have been done, but I’m not convinced so far. Look at the ‘split sabre’ syndrome on the Definitive Edition laserdisc and you can see how much the transfer can mess with the look of the sabres.

I will be able to answer definitively whether it is a digital comp or not when I receive the full files, there is a difference in the framing surround in the shots that have digital content, but unfortunately it is cropped on the ProRes Proxy, so I can’t quite see it, so frustrating, but we will know for sure.

That is something else we will be able to log, which shots have digital enhancement, and which don’t, for the entire movie.

Post
#1216896
Topic
1997 Star Wars Special Edition 35mm Project
Time

NeverarGreat said:

vexedmedia said:

Handman said:

Thanks poita!

It’s really silly how the 97 SE print looks better in every way from the 77 IB Tech in that shot, other than the glaring green sabre.

I beg to differ.

Yeah, the SE print looks quite a bit softer than the Tech, which makes sense since the SE went through at least one more film generation.

It actually isn’t really softer than the tech, the tech is softer in some places and the SE is softer in others, sometimes different areas are sharper on one or the other within the same frame.
The grain structure is different, but once you match the contrast settings on both, the SE in most cases has a better dynamic range, more shadow detail and in 90% of cases is just as sharp, which surprised me. The exception is the CGI shots, they are definitely soft.

The SE scan is still ‘flat’ at this stage, which is so we can capture all of the range of the film. Once you put the dynamics back in, it looks much, much sharper.

Post
#1216690
Topic
1997 Star Wars Special Edition 35mm Project
Time

I found the reference in one of my books:
"Massassi hangar, interior: “Thet had one complete X-Wing, a Y-Wing and some bits and pieces, painted ships. SO I took the plate, reduced it, and then put it down in the left centre; then I took the same plate, reduced it even more, and put it in the background on the right hand side of the frame; then I painted around it, just lots of little lights in the back, a couple of shapes, a few hoses hanging down. Youd be amazed how little is on that painting”

Post
#1216669
Topic
1997 Star Wars Special Edition 35mm Project
Time

ZaneFlare92 said:

It’s interesting how Luke’s Lightsaber on the falcon is pale green like it ended up in the 04 dvd. Like Lucas said about the original negative after cleaning it up and adding the S.E stuff to it. Makes me wonder if the print they were working with when converting to DVD was like what you ended up with when you finish?? Being the reputation George was known for if you tell him something is off or wrong if Lowry decided not to tell him about it and went along with it???

The colour isn’t on the original negative, as the effect was composited in later.

If you look at the original prints, rather than the SE, the sabre is definitely blue.

Here is a shot from a 1977 IB print of the same scene.

SE 1997

Post
#1216659
Topic
1997 Star Wars Special Edition 35mm Project
Time

Chewielewis said:

I’ve never noticed this before. How the hanger shot is duplicated in the distance.

Imgur

Yeah, originally they wanted to use an actual hangar for the shot, but they ended up using the sound stage at Shepperton Studios in England. It wasn’t anywhere near as big as what they wanted, it was only 250ft deep, so John Barry and the crew faked the back half of it by building a forced perspective set, and they used large cardboard cutouts of the fighters at various scales in the background, and then left a space for the shots of the two actual fighters in the foregorund to be repeated via an optical comp after the scene was shot.
I think there is only one full size X-Wing and one Full size Y-Wing in the shot. I have a photo somewhere of them being dropped into position on the sound stage.

Originally the fighters were meant to be lined up outside of the rebel hanger, but they ran out of money, so the shots were re-written to take place inside the ‘hangar bay’.

Post
#1216599
Topic
1997 Star Wars Special Edition 35mm Project
Time

Nice!!

My apologies I haven’t had time to do any colour correction on the images other than dragging the blacks down.

The triple flash process gives you files that capture all of the dynamic range of the print, but take a lot more work to colour correct than a single flash image does (but then you don’t capture the shadow detail).

Later today I can post a RAW file of a frame if anyone wants one. It will be about 100MB or so, vote on a frame and I’ll upload it when I get a chance.

I’m flat out with other work at the moment, and am dealing with a truly, truly difficult client, who flips from being super, incredibly friendly, to being incredibly abusive and threatening, and changes without warning. It shakes you up a bit, I’ll be glad when that job is over and I can spend more time doing stuff I genuinely love.

So pick a frame and I’ll throw a big green looking hunk of pixels up to play with.

Post
#1216597
Topic
Disney to buy 20th (21st) Century Fox? (Disney has now bought them - 14 Dec '17)
Time

“If you were hoping to see all of your favourite Marvel characters under one roof, we have some bad news. If you didn’t like the idea of Disney owning the whole Marvel universe, well, it can always get worse. Comcast is backing a dump truck of cash up to 21st Century Fox’s doorstep, besting Disney’s previous offer to buy the company. And the merger floodgates are officially open.”

I love the reporting 😃