The Difficulty of Restoration and Preservation in 2K/4K (1 Viewer)

[FoxyMulder]

Perhaps I can add a bit of perspective to this.

I work in the film industry and, years ago as something of a beginner to postproduction, I was involved in test and development for a colour grading system, as part of which I helped build two colour grading systems and install them at a studio you'd have heard of in Los Angeles. The new gear was intended for use in their remastering section. On the day we were there, they were putting together a cinerama movie, using the grading gear to remove the visible evidence of the join lines. The three 35mm scans formed an image more than 6K wide and of course, it looked absolutely spectacular as an uncompressed DPX sequence. I don't remember what the film was, unfortunately, other than that it was a western.

How The West Was Won, it's a very nice blu ray.

 

[Worth]

Quick basic HD question: if a release says it's a HD transfer, does that automatically denote 2k or is it in fact actually 1080? I see a lot of releases that simply say HD without 2k being mentioned. Does a release need to specifically state 2k to mean 2k, or do some studios just not care about putting that detail on the info?

It depends. For new films, it's almost always 2K. For older titles, if it's a newer transfer, more than likely 2K, but many older transfers were done at 1080p, or even 1080i.

 

[Ed Lachmann]

It depends. For new films, it's almost always 2K. For older titles, if it's a newer transfer, more than likely 2K, but many older transfers were done at 1080p, or even 1080i.

Is this the problem with Universal's SPARTACUS, that it might be an old scan from the "HD vs BD" days they tried (unsuccessfully) to spruce up?

 

[Paul_Warren]

It's just $20K for a 4K film scan, much less for a 2K film scan, the additional money comes from any work needed after the scan.

That $60k figure I used was from a few years ago so if its much cheaper now & they STILL refuse to rescan or create new HD masters for popular catalog titles if at all that's way worse & an even bigger insult to the consumer than Fox/Lucasfilm botching Star Wars & Paramount doing little to nothing on Star Trek movies just add another $1 or $2 per unit sale to cover it simple maths surely or drop all the extras just give a barebones HD transfer.

As others have said scanning @ 4K is an insurance policy the longer the studios wait the more chance film will require even more expensive restoration work or be lost forever. This is so sad in a way so many classic movies which could & probably would have driven stronger BD catalog sales yet shortsighted studio accountants refuse to fund whats needed to make it happen

 

[bgart13]

Ok, so basically only assume it's 2k or whatever if it specifically states it as such.

 

[cafink]

35mm - 4k or higher. 65mm - 8k, which is equal to 4.RAH

"8k is equal to 4"? I don't understand what this means.

 

[Hfuy]

Nothing you can buy on blu-ray (or netflix, or whatever) actually is 2K. The resolution isn't supported by the format or the most common display technology. Effectively all distribution is 1920x1080.

Whether the postproduction was done at 2K or 1920 wide is largely irrelevant. If it was done at 4K you might argue there could conceivably be a noise or aliasing benefit, but I suspect the benefits would be entirely buried by the compression in any case.

As to 4K, as other people have said the cost is not really in the scanning, it's in whatever work is done thereafter. Scanning is not incredibly cheap, but it's not outrageously expensive either.

In many situations, scanning 35mm camera originals at 4K will simply image the grains more precisely, and there's an argument as to whether it's worthwhile. Sitting more than inches from the screen you're likely to struggle to tell the difference. For the sake of archive you might reasonably argue that it's a good idea to scan it to a format that makes sure you've got every last bit of it, but that just opens up the worm-filled can of digital archiving...

HF

 

[moovtune]

"8k is equal to 4"? I don't understand what this means.

I believe he means an 8K scan is necessary to achieve an accurate capture of the larger 65mm resolution - as a 4K scan can capture the resolution of the 35mm film size. A 4K scan of a 65mm source is not enough to get all the resolution possible.

 

[lukejosephchung]

I believe he means an 8K scan is necessary to achieve an accurate capture of the larger 65mm resolution - as a 4K scan can capture the resolution of the 35mm film size. A 4K scan of a 65mm source is not enough to get all the resolution possible.

Cases in point..."Lawrence Of Arabia" & "Ben-Hur" received archival 8k scans for their recent 50th Anniversary restoration projects before all subsequent work was done...

 

[Robert Harris]

"8k is equal to 4"? I don't understand what this means.

Sorry. Twice as wide, same basic resolution.RAH

 

[RolandL]

Sorry. Twice as wide, same basic resolution.RAH

35mm negative .868" x .735" - Might be a little different now. This came from the Widescreenmuseum for CinemaScope. Super 35 is .980" x .735 (full silent aperture).
65mm negative 2.072" x .906"

 

[bgart13]

Hfuy, I know that -- I was referring to the scans that are done and how the companies advertise their products.

 

[bruceames]

I have a Film Preservation 101 question: If a 35 mm film is scanned at 4k, effectively capturing nearly all the available resolution, does that mean that future scans on this will no longer be necessary since it's all on digital? (assuming all the desired restoration has been done as well).

Also, I hear complaints on using an old "master". What's the difference between the master and the scan, does the master degrade over time? Would a 4k scan mean a 4k digital master and thus never needing a new master because it's "old? It's gets weary rebuying movies all the time because they remastered it, or it's HD, etc. Where does the improvement train stop: at 4k?
Thanks in advance.

 

[Worth]

Newer transfers scan the entire film frame by frame, often directly from the original camera negative. Once that's done, other work, such as digital clean-up, colour correction etc. is performed. All of that work combined creates a new master.

The problem with many older masters is that they weren't done frame by frame, which could introduce bobbing and weaving, common with projected film. The scanning equipment also wasn't as good as it is now, often adding unwanted noise into the picture. It also wasn't capable of capturing as much resolution, and the source of the scans were frequently far removed from the negative, such as a release print.

Is 4K the end? Who knows. I've talked with a few cinematographers who believe that 35mm film is capable of resolving somewhere between 3-4K of visual information, so a 4K scan should be capable of capturing everything that's in the frame. But a few others argue that a much higher resolution is preferable. I think it's pretty safe to say that even with blu-ray, we've reached a point of diminishing returns.

 

[Jari K]

"I've talked with a few cinematographers who believe that 35mm film is capable of resolving somewhere between 3-4K of visual information, so a 4K scan should be capable of capturing everything that's in the frame."In The Godfather doc, Mr. Harris said that 35mm is around 4-5K. If I remember correctly. I guess no one knows for sure?

 

[bruceames]

So if a 4K scan captures everything that's in the frame, and each frame is scanned, then preservation of the "can" is no longer necessary because it's all digitalized now? (much like converting old photos). I've often wondered why can't they just digitalize everything so they don't have keep going back to the original negatives (or existing prints), that keep looking worse from decay over time.

 

[Jari K]

"much like converting old photos"Do you throw away old photos once they're scanned? I don't.

 

[bruceames]

"much like converting old photos"Do you throw away old photos once they're scanned? I don't.

Why should you, photos barely take up any room, so there's never a decision that needs to be made in that regard.

But that's not the point. Why go back at all to the old print or negative once it's all digitized? A scan will look better in 10 years then a negative that's aged 10 more years.

 

[Jari K]

But are they really throwing away negatives that are in decent condition?

 

[FoxyMulder]

You have to scan higher to capture all the detail and some cinematographer believe a 6K scan is necessary to capture all the detail in 35mm film, i think it depends on each individual production and the age of the elements, it's not a clear and cut thing.