Question about color restoration (1 Viewer)

[BrianSiano]

Mr. Harris, I just read your interview with Theo Gluck about _Sleeping Beauty_, and it prompted a question I've been meaning to ask for a while.

In the various documentaries about film restorations, there's usually a discussion of how the colors in the available negatives are compared with those in a dye-transfer print of the film (at least, when such prints exist). And by most accounts I've read, a dye-transfer print offers tremendous color stability, richness, and control, and they're a good means of archiving color films. And from what I can tell, they're perhaps a single generation removed from the original negative.

My question's going to sound pretty ignorant, but: is there a reason why the dye transfer prints aren't used as a primary source for digital copies? I can _imagine_ several reasons why this isn't done, but I'd like to know for certain.

Thank you,
Brian Siano
(waiting for _Lawrence_ on Blu-Ray before taking the plunge into HDTV, and here's hoping they bring you in on _Barry Lyndon_.)

 

[Joe Cain]

Mr. Harris,

Your interview with Theo Gluck is a great read. My question is unrelated to color restoration, but it seemed unnecessary to start a new thread.

On the commentary track, Messrs. Lassetter, Deja and Maltin briefly discuss Super Technirama...and they've left me confused. John Lassetter says



I'm not inclined to question Mr. Lassetter's expertise, but I was under the impression that Super Technirama in its horizontal configuration was an exceedingly rare method of presentation; if Sleeping Beauty were known to receive such an exhibition, wouldn't the intended 2.55:1 AR have been discovered before now?

And would a horizontal 8-perf Super Technirama print be able to realize 2.55:1? Again, I'm not in a position to doubt John Lassetter, and it seems logical to me: the horizontal print would allow for printing the image further out to the sides of the frame, occupying space that would normally be dedicated to optical audio. Besides, if 2.55:1 were intended, surely the studio would have assumed such presentation would be practical for both 35mm and 70mm prints. I'm only asking for confirmation because of the paucity of information available on horizontal Super Technirama.

 

[Alan Tully]

I think they would use a dye-transfer print for transfer only as a last resort. These prints are made for projection, if you use them for transfering, there won't be enough detail in the dark area's, & you'd get a "plugged up" look. Of course the TV companies used to use these prints for broadcast, but the picture was transfered much flatter then. I would be interested to hear Mr. Harris take on this.

 

[BCGHR2]

Remember that Super Technirama 70 was a presentation method and that the film originated on 35mm film. As Gluck points out - they scanned the negative so they could use all of the photographed picture area. The prints in the cinemas would have been truncated to be compatible with 35mm CinemaScope. But Disney - by scanning the negative - doesn't have those restrictions. They probably would have had been compromised if they had used a color IP which had been the methods in the past. But the original Technirama SE negative gave them the opportunity to see everything that had been photographed.

 

[Robert Harris]

Dye transfer prints are both high contrast as well as soft as far as actual resolution. They do not make a good starting point, although they can be turned to in case of emergency.

By waiting for LoA on BD, you're missing out on some terrific releases.

 

[Robert Harris]

The Technirama format was created by Technicolor, and remains to this day one of the best in terms of quality. By exposing a double wide (8 perf) frame, the image quality was unsurpassed. The 50% anamorphosis enabled either a print down to 35mm scope or a blow-up to 70mm. 35s were generally at 2.35, while 70s were set to 2.21.

Sleeping Beauty in 2.55 has, AFAIK, never been seen before in its fully exposed format.

RAH