Search results

I remembered poorly. I was refering to this article: DVD Review - David Fincher Fincher says that for the DVD they transfered the negative which was not printed with bleach bypass. They initially tried to transfer prints, and I.P.s made with the bleach bypass process, but he couldn't find a...

25 Tb for a film sounds like a bargain to me. I concede that ten years ago that much storage would cost about $4.7 million, so you'd never bother even trying to do it (film scanners back then sucked anyway, so it wasn't even feasible). But how much is 25 Tb of storage now? My estimate is...

My point was simply that some studio executives aren't going to say "well, we COULD backup our data, but you know gee isn't computer storage EXPENSIVE, so let's not bother about it!" The cost of computer storage is the least of their concerns. If The Searchers has a chance of making money on...

Of course! I'm not suggesting that digital will ever replace the original camera negative. But it offers many advantages for restoring films, and we must remember, companies don't make money out of old films until they get them into a digital video format. So having a digital copy of the film...

Hasn't the new 4K and 6K scanning techniques just resulted in an explosion in data storage and integrity companies? Companies like Deluxe have diversified to offer data storage and backup services, and of course there are dedicated companies like Iron Mountain who specialise in storing backups...

But there are things that can be done digitally that can't be done easily, or at all, photo-chemically. Which I guess is why Warner went the digital route for The Searchers. Surely if they could do the same for less money photo-chemically, then that is what they would've done? It seems to me...