poita

It looks like a fair bit of colour information is missing from Reel1 in those shots. Are these straight out of the scanner or have they been corrected?

Like David Bowman re-entering the Discovery.

_,,,^..^,,,_ said:

poita said:

Are the scenes with the agent entering the helicopter pilot green on the DVD/BD?

Here you are; top BD, bottom DVD:

Thanks, I'll dig through the old archives and see if I have the shot. That is the exact scene, thanks!

Can you tell me how many minutes in that scene appears?

I think he meant $490 still to raise, not that $490 had already been pledged.

Well, you could always upgrade to Linux or OSX and run Davinci there as well ;^)

I have the print on hold for two weeks, then it goes to the next buyer in line.

So if there is interest, please donate to have this print saved, otherwise it is unfortunately going to go to a known 'cutter'.

Are the scenes with the agent entering the helicopter pilot green on the DVD/BD?

I worked on that shot and might still have the files so could take a look and see if they match the home releases.

Chewtobacca said:

poita said:do you want to see every last jot of detail that was on the neg, or on the IP or do you want to see what the director intended to be on the screen in the cinema.

By this, do you mean things such as detail in dark areas being intentionally lost/crushed?

I know it sounds odd, but yes.

Yes, detail is often intentionally lost or crushed, dark areas may be made darker still, 'crushing' the blacks to intentionally create mood or contrast. Light areas may be burned out to give an ethereal feel. A scene may be made darker, or noisier to hide the fact that it is mostly a matte painting or an effect that wouldn't quite pass the scrutiny of a well lit shot.

An area may be darkened or lightened to attract the eye to a particular area of the screen etc. etc.

That is the colourist's job, to work with the director to adjust the image from the negative to capture the desired emotion of each scene. On the set, the DoP will usually try to capture as wide a dynamic range as they can, so that the options are there in the edit/colourist sessions later.

Also, makeup was applied, matte paintings were done, set colours chosen with the generational loss in mind. So Leia had the makeup-gun set to 'whore' as they knew the generational loss would mute the colours and look natural on the final print. On the neg though it would look overdone.

Restoring film is never straightforward, especially if coming off a negative, the scan will not look anything like the prints of the day. It is best if you have access to the artisans that worked on the film, or their production notes, as you effectively have to re-grade and re-grain the film to match their intended imagery, usually using a good quality print as a reference if there is one.

I do find it interesting to see what may have been hiding in the shadows, it is fun working with a neg as you get to literally see the film in a different light. But it won't be the film the director 'made'.

When we used to grade films, they were graded to take projection into account, so what was displayed in the cinema would be as close to the director's vision as possible.

So this does mean that when you scan a print, you have to know the properties of the particular film stock *and* speak to the colourists to find out whether they graded for Xenon, Carbon arc etc.

A 'straight out of the scanner' image looks nothing like the director's original intention. Neither does the negative, or the IP viewed with a different light-source than what it was intended to be shown with.

So film archiving is tricky, do you want to see every last jot of detail that was on the neg, or on the IP or do you want to see what the director intended to be on the screen in the cinema. Nearly everyone feels differently/has a different answer to that question, and none of them are incorrect.

As an archivist, I capture the neg or IP or print with the widest gamut possible so that those decisions can always be made later.

Turisu said:

Well, I'll be damned. I just did a quick side-by-side comparison and the greens in that 35mm footage look a lot closer to the deep greens of the BD than the more yellowish greens of the DVD.

Although neither is exactly right. The reds look much more pronounced in the 35mm; The Oracle's lipstick is bright and vibrant whereas it's much more desaturated in both the BD and DVD.

Would be great to have this as a colour reference if nothing else.

Unfortunately the colours on that youtube clip don't really tell you anything.

Try this experiment. Run the BD or the DVD through a digital projector, then get a video camera and tape it from the screen. The colours will be nothing like the source image.

Well, it would have to be purchased, so it would depend a *lot* on how much interest there is.

They are 120MB per frame, I am just finishing off the Super8 and 16mm scans I have to get through, then will post some 35mm frames, probably early next month.

Blackmagic's free Davinci Resolve Lite software now supports UHD, which means you can correct footage at resolutions suitable for the new '4K' televisions. (i.e. 2160P 3840 pixels wide by 2160 tall)

You can download it for Windows here:

http://software.blackmagicdesign.com/DaVinciResolve/Lite/DaVinci_Resolve_Lite_10.0_Windows.zip

Linux and OSX here:

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/support

This is pretty much the industry leading colour correction software, and the previous restriction of 1080P has been upped to Ultra HD, so it is pretty amazing.

The only differences from the full commercial package are very small, like support for only 1 CUDA card for rendering instead of multiple CUDA cards.

It is well worth considering if you are looking at doing colour correction of projects. When I used to use it, our setup was over a hundred grand! It boggles my mind that you can now do that on a PC and with the software being free.

Disney IB Technicolor prints tend to be extremely high resolution and excellent quality prints. The closest thing to a negative you will find.

$500 is only 50 people donating $10 each. That seems like a good deal to preserve a piece of animation history.

I have been offered a print of The Matrix on 35mm

Is there any interest in having it preserved? Or is the Bluray a good representation of the theatrical release?

Joel said:

As a former post-production person, I am picturing a workflow after manually cleaning the film:
1) scanning 
2) digital cleanup
3) color correction
4) audio sync
5) make a video master

If I were the project manager, I'd have 12 people each take 10 minutes of one film, do digital cleanup (with predetermined rules from team -1) for a couple of weeks, then send it all back for final color correction. Is this not feasible? Too much chaos introduced? 

That is assuming you have 12 people of equal experience, that can all do film restoration work, and that have the hardware capable of handling the job.

It is hard enough to find 2 people that have the time, software, experience and hardware :)

It also assumes that the 'master' person has over 100TB of HDDs to handle the scans, a backup copy of them and the works in progress.

I have no idea how many are on their team or what their skill level is or how much hardware and software they own, but it is a big job however you slice it.

Expectation levels are quite high too, so quality-creep might be playing its part.

Depend on the print, a great neg I would attempt to scan at 10K, however most prints resolve more than 2K but less than 4K. So 35mm theatrical prints I would be scanning at 4K, 16mm prints @ 2.5K.

Physically cleaned, or touched up in software?

And as for the risk of Disney coming after him, well, that is his risk to take.

And if anyone thinks this forum is 'quiet' and not followed by Disney and before that by Lucasfilm, I can tell you first-hand that you are rather mistaken. I have two letters that proves that these forums are closely monitored :)

Also, the disc would technically belong to Avid, not Disney, and the use of the sequences on the disc would also belong to Avid as 'promotional material'.

It is highly unlikely Avid would give a hoot.

digitalfreaknyc said:

 

m_s0 said:

The disclaimer in the video made me think that THIS is the "real deal". If it's not then great.

Exactly. The person who bought it never alluded to there being a different release. He said that the YouTube was good enough and that it didn't recompress.

 

Okay, we get it, he pissed you off. He may have even been rude.

But really, he didn't have to release a single thing, could have kept it completely to himself.

I think it is sometimes forgotten here that no-one 'owes' anyone anything, if someone wants to buy a rare movie or disc and video themselves eating it, that is their pergogative.

Anyone here could have ponied up the $700 themselves if they thought it was important enough.

It has been stated multiple times here that a high quality capture will be made, that it is not easy to do due to the state of the disc, and that it will be shared for *free* when it is done. I think that is a pretty good deal that someone spent $700+ of their own cash and is going to share it with everyone for nothing. All one has to do is wait.

Yes, I am a volunteer firefighter with the RFS. In fact we are all volunteers, I fought alongisde a 17 yr old who was in the middle of his HSC (Like the SAT in the US or GSCE/A Levels in the UK). He had completed a 2 hour math exam that morning, did a 17 hour shift fighting th Blue Mountains fires, had a sleep and went off to his Physics exam, then was back at the front as soon as it was done.

When I hear people complaining about the 'youth' of today, I would like them to have a go at what some of these young blokes have been doing, unpaid, for the last month or so.

I just have to say that being pestered constantly for downloads, other formats etc. etc. when you have spent a ton of your own time and money to make something available *for free* to people can get more than frustrating.

No one has to release anything, in fact they take a risk doing so. I appreciate it when anyone releases anything at all.

Done and done. Let's see if I get a reply.

I've had three people so far storyboard it, and each was radically different :)

I have no doubt that you remember it, researchers have shown people to have amazingly detailed memories that quite literally couldn't be true.

Storyboard the sequence out for me, I'd be interested to hear if it feels as clear when you sit down to do it.

Of course, it is possible that it may have been in the film, but I am 99.9999% sure now it was never there. So many sources have turned up, and it hasn't been in any of them, and it just doesn't fit.