Did it get taken down? I came back to download it, and it doesn’t look like it is up on the wayback machine. You could probably fit it on a free Google Drive account.
Looking forward to this. Stills look great.
Any updates?
I’m still planning on finishing this project at some point; just been very busy with work the last couple years. I’ve learned a lot more about Topaz in that time, though, so I’ll apply it to this. Also have some new tools in Resolve that will help (and better grain).
Great to hear an update. We totally understand that these things take forever (and forever is 1000x better than never).
Any updates on the scan? Been a couple months. No rush, just wondering.
Just donated! Looking forward to seeing it.
I don’t think it is done yet (OP hasn’t messaged me yet at least). And you should contact them directly!
Thanks, just got it!
Don’t see it in Google Drive “shared with me” either. When you get a chance, you can share it with rwzmjl@gmail.com.
Hmm, I didn’t get it either, also checked spam folder. What’s the subject line?
Sent as an email or link posted here?
Have you seen the Russian 4K rip? Higher quality than the blu-ray or Netflix versions, might want to check it out if you’re ever gearing up for a 2.0 release or anything.
There’s a 4K restoration coming out soon. Played in theaters in NYC I think last year. There’s a couple 4K releases outside of the US already, and I think Criterion will likely release it in the US within the year. I’m pretty sure these stills are the 4K: https://www.janusfilms.com/films/1301
So the color timing of the 4K could be closer to the print, or if not, then you might want to adapt your grade to that scan once it becomes accessible. The Curzon release in November will probably be the easiest to grab.
DM’d you about donating but didn’t get a response.
little-endian said:
How does that measurement preserve any meaning whatsoever if one defines the noise as being part of the image as well in technical terms (not artistic ones)? In the same way, any higher noise floors of photo cameras could retrospectively redefined as their noise being intended art.
I promise you every DP you would ever talk to would say that both the grain from film stock and the noise from a digital sensor are an intentional part of the look. On a professional non-documentary production, ISO (or gain in post) is picked for aesthetics. If that weren’t the case, cine cameras would have a permanently fixed ISO wherever the dynamic range is maximized.
little-endian said:
Neither am I sure whether I would deprecate film stock as an option for new productions, on the other hand, again from a technical point of view, film is pretty flawed when used for analog information (which virtually always is the case except maybe AC3 and SDDS back in the days for audio) and at least some of the preference towards it shows quite some similarity to the preference for vinyl records which against all audiophile claims aren’t better, but worse than any halfway decent PCM recording.
You are confusing delivery formats and acquisition formats. Vinyl is a delivery format. Film is both a delivery (positive film) and acquisition format (mainly negative film). We are talking about the acquisition format here. Even as record collector myself, I’ll admit that CD/flac replicates the master version of an album more accurately than a vinyl record; of course it does. That doesn’t have anything to do with an artist’s intent. These records you’re referring to were most likely recorded on multitrack tape which is similar to film–any artifacts that arise from recording to this format are absolutely the intent of the sound engineer.
How big is it? Have you made the final h265/h264 output? If you haven’t yet, you could Reselio me the ProRes file — I have a computer pretty much dedicated to running Handbrake all the time (would do h265, tuned for grain, slow speed).
If you’ve got the output file already, I’ve got some space on Google Drive, but I can’t leave it there forever. A lot of people just get the cheapest WeTransfer accounts and support the link for a month or two.
Hope this single sentence quotation isn’t too long for you:
“My core argument however and also how that discussion started, only was that noise isn’t part of the image by classical definition (independent on whether one wants to preserve it or not), but an artefact [sic].”
Are brush strokes in a painting not a “part of an image” according to this imaginary “classical definition”? Film isn’t just a means of capturing what is in front of you. The celluloid itself is the art piece.
You may say you are on the side of preserving supposed “artifacts,” but this faulty reasoning is what leads to James Cameron/Peter Jackson’s ridiculous DNR (people somehow ignored it, but The Beatles: Get Back was scrubbed to hell) or film stock being deprecated as an option for new productions (for instance, the studio forcing seasoned master DP Ed Lachman to shoot digitally on Dark Waters even though they had the budget for 35mm).
TL;DR:
Should we preserve old movies as closely to their original presentation? YES, absolutely!
Should we continue to make movies the same way despite better techniques being available today? NO, if it’s only for the nostalgia and unwillingness to adjust for the technically better.I think there is still quite some misunderstanding. Taking the risk to essentially repeat myself:
Very much disagree with this sentiment, as a DP myself who shoots film (s16 for the most part).
With what sentiment exactly?
And it’s not noise (which is a digital artifact); it’s grain.
Noise isn’t (only) a “digital” artifact per se as you can have that in the analog realm as well (actually only there, as quantisation noise from numbers manifests only there during the D/A stage), and in fact plenty of it. “Grain” is just a term used in conjunction with film - grain is a variant of noise.
You are also forgetting that filmmakers had plenty of low grain options available to them if they wanted it, pre-digital-revolution.
Throwing artistic decisions together with my purely technical (call it puristic) argument, is missing the point I was trying to make.
And is it the right philosophy when it comes to preservation to scrub supposed artifacts that stem from limitations of the production?
As I stated, it should be left as it is.
No person seriously in favor of film preservation (i.e. not Lucas or Cameron) would opt for that.
Exactly.
Obviously this has nothing to do with shooting a new production. Shoot noiseless footage with an Alexa LF at 60fps if you want; that is no issue (though you might nauseate some audience members).
That is finally halfway picking up the point I was trying to make. I probably would do that with as little grain/noise/whatever as possible as this is what techncially is preferable (and I tend to adjust the aesthetics to that, granted), but at the same time, I would archive everything else with as little post-processing as possible, shall it be as noisy as it wants to be.
In other, concrete words based on an example: the re-releases of Aliens, especially the UHD BD, suck and I way prefer the grainy, halfway unaltered old Blu-ray versions. However, is all that noise technically desirable? No, the same way the noise and crackles on a vinyl record aren’t. Even if one prefers the look or sound, it could artificially be added afterwards while having the advantage of still possessing an original with a higher SNR. Should grain be filtered which - for whatever reason - has already been part of the original recording? No, not at all, as history shows that it isn’t possible without sacrificing part of the original information (and change the artistic intend from that time if you want which I disapprove as well).
Hence in the case of “The Mask”: of course, no filtering please, “let it grain”.
@blakninja: I’m also looking forward a lot to see your release soon.
The sentiment I was disagreeing with was “I read that argument often lately, but the word ‘intended’ is a crucial premise here as in many cases, it isn’t really but rather a side-effect of technical limitations … So while I can understand the sentiment for artistic reasons and preservation, technically, noise isn’t part of the original image which one tried to capture.” This is plainly false. Talk to any DP who works with film. I recommend you read the thousands of threads on the subject on cinematography.com, might learn something about authorial intent.
“Should we continue to make movies the same way despite better techniques being available today?” This question also demonstrates a lack of understanding when it comes to moviemaking as an art form – did painters give up oil paints in favor of pastels? “Better techniques” or “better technologies” is a misnomer.
Looks great. Are you going to do any color in post? Could probably use some subtraction of yellow (I know my way around Resolve if need be). Also I’m in for a donation.
Are you planning on cutting it with the 35mm scan, or will the 16mm be as it is? Down for a dono either way!
I’m in for a donation
I’d be interested in seeing it when you’re finished!
You only had it up for less than a day… would have loved to have donated and seen the scan. I always support scanners’ wishes, but this is kind of extreme; not really in the spirit of preservation IMO. You can always continue to take donations and put them toward the next project, btw (that’s what most people have done in the past).
rwzmjl said: […]believe it or not, that’s an intended part of the image![…]
I read that argument often lately, but the word “intended” is a crucial premise here as in many cases, it isn’t really but rather a side-effect of technical limitations (which includes our visual system introducing retinal noise as well). Same goes for the stone age low rate of 24 fps only, causing tremendous amounts of temporal aliasing and making a subjectively stutter-free reconstruction difficult.
So while I can understand the sentiment for artistic reasons and preservation, technically, noise isn’t part of the original image which one tried to capture. Noise also limits — or rather defines — measurements such as the SNR.
I’m also entirely up to “preserve” it in terms of not filtering it out, as not only it isn’t possible to do so without losing information from the actual image anyway, but also because it may fit a certain desired look. However, so do noise and crackles on vinyl records which may be preferred emotionally, but shouldn’t be rationally.
One technical advantage of noise in the source shall not go unmentioned though: (self)dithering, enabling a theoretically smooth reconstruction of an unlimited number of shades (and not just 50 of grey) without ugly banding. However, dithering can be artificially added later during the A/D conversion as well in an mathematically optimised way even so even that is a rather far fetched argument.
Very much disagree with this sentiment, as a DP myself who shoots film (s16 for the most part). And it’s not noise (which is a digital artifact); it’s grain.
You are also forgetting that filmmakers had plenty of low grain options available to them if they wanted it, pre-digital-revolution. Especially in 1994. 50D of course, but even more so, the option of shooting Vista Vision or 65mm. In the case of the filmmakers desiring a grainless image but they couldn’t achieve it, that is because of budget limitations (either from the stock they could afford or the amount of light they needed). And is it the right philosophy when it comes to preservation to scrub supposed artifacts that stem from limitations of the production? That would mean redoing vfx, painting out wires, rerecording ADR, etc. No person seriously in favor of film preservation (i.e. not Lucas or Cameron) would opt for that.
Obviously this has nothing to do with shooting a new production. Shoot noiseless footage with an Alexa LF at 60fps if you want; that is no issue (though you might nauseate some audience members).