El Cid - a classic title in HD digital (in theater) 01/28/08 (1 Viewer)

[Michel_Hafner]

I have never seen a 35mm print even remotely approaching the MTF of a 4K digital projector. There is not enough HF detail on the negative and the one printing step reduces that even more. Full res 4K looks much more like 70mm than 35mm.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

This has really become clear to me lately.

I watched the three Resident Evil films on Blu-ray the other day (sigh, what fun). I noticed that the first film was pretty "dull" by 1080p standards: ok looking but lacking all fine detail. Then the second film was better, and then the third film done just last year was crystal-clear and sharp as a tack.

I started to wonder why the first film looked so lacking in detail compared to the last given that 35mm film processing has been refined for many years and so I couldn't imagine it was the "film source" that was dictating the soft picture of the first film.

Sony has also confirmed with me that do not apply additional HF roll-off filtering to aid in compression: they preserve as much inherent entropy/grain/detail as they can and use very generous bitrates with their AVC encodes. So I'm pretty confident that it's not the BD authoring that's to blame.

Then it hit me: I wasn't seeing a progression of *film* clarity from the first film to the third, I was seeing a progression in *DI* clarity.

Sony, like all studios, is using the digital intermediate as the source for their HD masters since it's the same "master" that was used for the 35mm theatrical release prints as well. However, HD telecine technology has improved over the last few years and the DI from the first film probably rolled off considerable detail when the negatives were originally scanned (several years ago). However, the digital scan for the negatives of the latest film, done just last year, looks stunningly clear given advances in telecine (and if the scanning itself wasn't to blame, it's probably subsequent DSP that was applied to the DI in preparation for theatrical prints... like color timing and other processes, maybe even grain-reduction that was performed by the director to affect the look of the release prints).

Also it hit me how many of the 'stunning' live-action 35mm films on BD (like Seven Years in Tibet) represent films that were produced for the theater before the practice of mastering to DI became common place, and so those films probably only had film-masters which were used for state-of-the-art HD telecines for the blu-ray release, versus other films coming shortly after 2000 that were probably using (inferior quality) DI.

Since so much director-approved work is done at the DI stage (like color timing) there are many films that probably can't really be re-scanned from scratch from film negatives without a lot of work to "recreate" the intended master. Kind of like a music mix with fantasic-fidelity analog session stems but that was mixed on inferior early-1980s digital mixing boards and mastered at 16/44.1... but since all the "effects" and EQ were performed at that stage the inferior 16/44.1 "master" is the best representation of the final work you can realistically acheive... unless you hired the same mixing artists to come back and try to reproduce the same effort all over again using 24/96 mixing software.

Sadly I think a lot of great films produced early in the "DI" period of film will never acheive the state-of-the-art 1080p image quality that their film-negatives deserve.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

The only way we'll get any improvement on DI based films is to go back and redo the DI from the OCN, using the current DI as a reference for colour grading, etc. Depending on cost, that's unlikely to happen.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Exactly.

It hadn't hit me until two night ago with the R.E. trilogy that the inferior look of many recent films on HDM is actually because of fidelity limitations hard-coded in the DI master itself (not the film source or subsequent authoring/compresson).

 

[Douglas Monce]

I think you mean DuMont the television network, not DuPont the chemical company.

DuMont was was the world's first commercial television network and was a partner of Paramount Pictures. However by 1958 the network shut down and what was left was bought and the name changed to Metromedia in 1960.

I don't know if the remnants of this company still exist or if they still have some rights to the Bronston films or not.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Also remember that at the height of 65mm production, many 70mm release prints were made as a direct contact print of the original negative, which seems kind of crazy to me. however that means that most 70mm release prints were much closer to to the original negative than typical 35mm release prints.

I agree with you completely that we aren't seeing anything like the full potential of 35mm film in your local theater. However I still stand by the estimate of roughly 2k of resolution from a release print that is 3 or 4 generations out. John Lowry's estimates were that the original negative in 35mm would could be captured more or less in all its detail at around 4k, hence all of Lowry's scans are done at 4k now.

I wouldn't disagree at all with your estimates of the need for at least an 8k scan for 70mm, if the purpose is to project in a theater, or to record out back to film.

When I was a projectionist really the only thing we could do about gate weave was to make sure that the projector was clean and the movements were all properly aligned. The condition of the print really had more effect on gate weave. I was able to start to notice minor gate weave after having a brand new release print for only a week.


Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Exactly. To me one of the biggest shames is the Lord of the Rings movies. They could be utterly spectacular, but they are limited by 2k scans done as far back as 2001. Although Fellowship only has some segments done as 2k DI, the other two films are entirely 2k DI.

Doug

 

[john a hunter]

DuPont he says and DuPont he means.Pierre Du Pont was Bronston's main financial backer and later his nemesis from 1964 to Bronston's death in 1994 over the monies he lost or said he did.

I've just been reading the Mel Martin book "The Magnificent Showman" which provides an overview of the Bronston career. While superfiicial and hardly definitive, it's the only book on this fasinating era.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Ah okay. When he referred to a partner of Paramount I thought he had to be talking about Dumont.

Thanks for the info.

doug

 

[OliverK]

There also is very good extra documentary about Samuel Bronston on the new El Cid DVD.
I have the book, too and I was a bit disappointed about how little information was actually in it but I think it is as good as it gets at the moment.

The strange thing is that on the DVD there are two people who are introduced as Bronston biographers and one of them obviuosly hasn't yet penned a book, hope he will come out with something more definitive.

Back to the DuPont topic: The documentary on the disc emphasizes that the DuPont who backed Bronston was kind of treated as an outcast and lost his position in the DuPont family after the Bronston disaster and from then on made it his goal to destroy all hopes of Bronston to ever again produce a major film. While Bronston went on to poduce a few more none was comparable in scope to his 6 prior productions which got bigger and bigger leading up to Fall of the Roman Empire. Circus World was already rather cheap if only by Bronston's standards, mainly because his production company started to be short of money.

 

[zettler]

First post but you have to start somewhere and some time!

Has anyone heard anything more about the powers that be releasing a Blu-Ray version of El Cid?

I was just about to pull the trigger on a copy from Deep Discount and saw this thread. I have both a Toshiba HD-DVD and a Blu Ray so I am set to go and really would love to see this movie in as best a format as I can but could be patient a little longer IF there was one on the horizon. I just hate to spend more for additional copies that I have to...

PS I remember seeing this on TV MANY years ago too!

 

[Robert Harris]

Why would anyone wish to see a Blu-ray of El Cid. The available information was not enough to be handled in standard definition.

What would you use to fill in all the holes in the image.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

RAH,

can you clarify? I saw a digital projection which was problematic because of the off-center projector setup (resulting in half of the image being out of focus...)... but for the side that *was* in focus it looked noticably "better than SD".

Can you shed some light on the film transfer?

 

[Robert Harris]

The off-center look that you noted was not merely in projection. That anomaly is very much in certain units of the film as transferred or reduction printed.

In the case of El Cid, the old maxim still rings true.

"Garbage in, garbage out."

 

[zettler]

Sorry but I am not as versed as many here and was simply following earlier posts in this very thread that indicated a desire and possibility that this film could/would come out in HD and hopefully be a better viewing experience. And as HD DVD is dead and Blu Ray is it for the forseeable future it was a natural progression of my desire and interest.

You see I enjoyed the film when it came out (I am 54) and appreciate a good viewing experience, otherwise I wouldn't be here, but I also hate buying the same movie three or more different ways and would rather get the most bang for my dollar.

And while I do not have the experience of many here (as it appears from the responses), I still deeply appreciate a good transfer (i.e., video and audio).

Again, sorry for the intrusion.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

zettler,

I think that RAH's comments were directed to the inferior restoration work and/or film-to-digital transfer for this film which, because of the lack of proper resolution, negate many of the benefits of a high-definition presentation (regardless of media).

Certainly that could be said for Warner's last film transfer for Ben-Hur which was so soft-focus that even in standard-def, it looked remarkably softer than the older DVD transfered from 35mm. (though Warner is aware of the problem and is providing a new state-of-the-art film transfer from the large format elements for the Blu-ray for that film). Let's hope El Cid is similarly revisited with a proper transfer.

 

[Robert Harris]

Thank you, David.

Precisely the point. There would be little gained by bringing this out in Blu-ray. One is best to stay with the SD.

 

[zettler]

Thank you both for your clarifications.

PS I just read about Mr. Harris and now have a better understanding of where you are comming from. Thank you again for your insight and keep up the good work on restoration. Maybe you can have someone look into restoring McClintock and The Quiet Man, two of my guilty pleasures...

 

[OliverK]

The DVD is indeed subpar and a big disappointment but judging by what Dave saw the DVD does look significantly worse than the master would have allowed for. So a Blu-Ray might bring the kind of improvement that will at least make El Cid watchable on bigger screens.

Of course I am all for an EXCELLENT Blu-Ray of El Cid but I am not sure how to get it without going back to the original elements, something that apparently is not planned as of now.
Short of a big studio taking over and the current owners making up their mind the only solution that immediately comes to my mind would be a Criterion Blu-Ray of El Cid. Criterion went back to the original 8-perf elements for The Leopard so they have a history of doing this even for DVDs, plus there already was an LD version of El Cid so it would be a good time for them to revisit it.

 

[Robert Harris]

McClintock is fine, and The Quiet Man was restored a number of years ago by Robert Gitt of UCLA Film & TV Archives.