I'm not a 35mm reel ;^)
They vary a lot. I have paid for some prints, but most are from collectors and I have paid to access them.
There is a definite drop in detail from 4K to 2K, quite a lot actually. Even going from full aperture 4K to DCI 4K native loses some detail.
There is still extra detail being resolved at 10K vs 4K, but not really enough to justify a full 10K scan, it is mainly just defining the grain better.
As it is scanning is being done at double the 'standard' 4K, over 14 Megapixels per frame, and with a huge dynamic range, so we really should be getting all the detail that is likely to be extracted from the prints.
This also allows things like stabilisation to be applied without the sub-pixel smearing that you would get if scanning at the lower 4096x2160 resolution, (or the much much lower 2K resolution)
It certainly isn't a competition, a lot of sharing of materials, knowledge and techniques goes on behind the scenes that people don't see here. Mike V, Harmy, Adywan, myself etc. all help each other out and none of us work completely in isolation. Work done by anyone benefits pretty much everyone.
To answer another question, if I can get the space, I am 90% confident that the restorations will be complete by mid next year.
I've been inundated with messages asking me about this, so I just want to let people know that I am currently scanning all three films.
I have more prints at the moment than I do HDDs to store them on, if anyone sees good deals on 5TB HDDs, please let me know, I need another 60TB just to be able to scan the films I have in the queue.
As posted in the other thread, this is how a scan looks at SD
and here is how it looks at about half resolution (i.e. 3983 x 1740).
http://i.imgur.com/WCqVvw8.jpg
The full resolution scans are @ 4096 x 3488
I'll post some of the requested scenes as soon as I can make/acquire some more disc space, should be able to put some more images up next month.
Hey Jordan, are you in Australia?
I do indeed have Jaws 3D on VHD and a VHD player here.
I imagine the Sensio is a much better quality version.
What is fun though is to overlay the X0/Laserdisc shot over the film scan, both of them at full resolution.
i.e. pixels in each being the same size.
Looks good.
It looks a little noisy, and the LD Decode shot looks a lot more alias-y on threepio's hand for example.
Probably should start a new thread for discussion though.
I have no idea if that is the right thing to do, I just wanted to write that.
Yeah, I hear ya, HDD space is the bane of my existence. I need about another 60TB at the moment. *sigh*
Insert it.
I didn't even think the identity of the members was particularly secret.
team_negative1 said:
Sorry about the wording on that. These clips come from the Grindhouse version, so they have been corrected once in some cases.
Different reels and different shots were taken from different sources, at this point only the last 2 reels have extensive color correction on them. The rest have been lightly altered.
Team Negative1
Damn, I thought you guys must have found a relatively unfaded new source.
Those comp shots really had a ton of baked in dirt, they are a big job.
Uncorrected? I thought the print was wayyy more faded than that.
Good news.
Hey, whereabouts in Australia are you?
RU.08 said:
Feallan said:
Wait. ~4K is only half res? :O4K is full res, I think what he means is that the vertical resolution has been roughly halved because the 35mm frame is anamorphic. The frame provided was at 3984x1791, full res would be the flat scan whatever it is - 3984x3350 or something like that.
If you want to see a full resolution file, then here is a (compressed) example.
TripleHBK said:
poita said:
Wouldn't happen for quite a while though, I have a huge Star Wars backlog.
Good things come to those that wait... or something. :D
Out of curiosity, how long does it take you to complete a scan of a full film?I think I read about it last year before AMPS jumped boards twice,but I can't remember now. Reading about your scanner acquisition was probably the most interesting post on all of AMPS.
About 6 months.
Tobar said:
Mavimao said:
Harmy had one, but I don't know how to search for it. In short, 35mm prints are copies of copies of copies. Each copy creates degreadation in the form of additional film grain. This grain eats up fine detail with each generation. The bluray, on the other hand, is directly from the film negative. So while its colors might be messed up, you can see the actors' pores, each individial hairs etc. The 35mm prints don't have all of this detail. Yes, there were meant to be shown on big screens, but they weren't meant to be pixel peeped.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
Now obviously Legacy is working with the combined information of a number of different scans stacked onto each other. But it still is all based on various later generation prints.
The blu-ray which is supposed to be based from the negative is just awful in comparison.
To answer that specifically, the comparison that Mike does in that video, of the detail visible in the door frame is really interesting, that detail level is not there in the LPP print for instance, but is there on the IB Tech prints. It shows how even the prints can hold certain details that are not on the BD.
In this case however, it isn't that they did a bad job, or that the detail wasn't on the neg, that detail is less than one pixel high @ 1080P, so to give the Bluray a break (although it has many, many issues) this detail would be basically impossible to portray at BD resolutions. You really need a 4K version to be able to see that level of detail. At 2K the horizontal 'stripes' are less than a pixel in width, so by necessity end up lost in the lack of resolution, especially once you add the compression of Bluray into the equation.
There are areas on the BD where these is detail lacking on the prints, and vice versa. I have been happy with stacking multiple prints to rescue some of that detail from the grain noise, but ultimately, some of that detail *was never meant to be seen*. Just because it is on the neg, doesn't mean it was intended to be in the final product. Grading is done specifically (at times) to hide detail that is on the OCN, so that you don't for instance, see a matte line, or to hide skin blemishes, or to draw your eye to a particular part of frame etc.
Feallan said:
poita said:
RU.08 said:
Poita, how's the 35mm version going?
Half Res: (3984x1791)
Wait. ~4K is only half res? :O
Yes, it is half the resolution that the raw scans are in.
Anyway, back to Super8, I will be revisiting it soon and seeing whether a re-scan is worthwhile.
Wouldn't happen for quite a while though, I have a huge Star Wars backlog.
I can acquire a 35mm print of Jaws 3D, it would in theory be possible to scan it, and make a 3D 1080P SBS from it.
RU.08 said:
Poita, how's the 35mm version going?
It is coming along. Each print scanned is around USD$1000 worth of HDDs alone, so it is a big undertaking.
SD: (720 wide)
http://i.imgur.com/HmC1rt6.jpg
Low Res: (1080P)
http://i.imgur.com/Bv7Qn5r.jpg
Half Res: (3984x1791)
http://i.imgur.com/WCqVvw8.jpg
(No colour correction other than setting Black point - updated first image)
I normally save out as 32bit TIFFs or DPX or straight to EXR Half, this was an experiment before I had the SSD RAID running, it was to potentially have less iops, but didn't work out.
I don't use BMP etc. as I am usually working in high bit depths with alpha channel.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
I'm curious, why are there duplicate frames? Wasn't it a frame-by-frame capture?
It was a bug in the system. It is a frame by frame capture, but I was experimenting with a new idea to have each frame save to an uncompressed .avi file instead of sequential files.
It seemed like a good idea, but I effed up the implementation, and ended up with a ton of duplicate frames.
This was really a test run during some upgrades of the 8mm setup, but then I became rather time poor and poorly, so sent that test cap off to Anctu for him to play with, as I didn't know how long it would take for me to come back to it again.
Looks good!