Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs

I guess they still want their Boxset to sell. Most people only want the 1st and 2nd one anyways, and I guess this prevents them from avoiding the 100 dollar (CAD) boxset.

The reason the slo-mo kiss in Rear Window was restored digitally was because it wasn't possible to restore it photomechanically.

Proper photomechanical film restoration is very, very, very expensive and takes a very, very, very long time to accomplish. Therefore, I can see why Lowry is being utilised more frequently now. I don't see anything wrong with what they do. Their results, for the most part, are amazing.

The elements for certain films are in such a bad state that they simply couldn't be restored photomechanically on film. And some films that were restored photomechanically still have lots of scratches and blemishes and that's where Lowry (and many other companies I might add) come in, because the standards are so high for DVD - a film might well have been restored on film, but it may not be that clean, and the only way to achieve cleanliness is through digital refurbishment.

If a film element is scanned to files and digitally refurbished at 2K, 3K or higher and output to 35mm again, then I don't see that as an inferior form of restoration - provided it is done right and the films looks at close as possible to look of the movie originally. This is the future. In 20 years, no films will be restored photomechanically. Moviemaking will be a 100% digital medium eventually.

Nothing lasts forever.


Gordy

So back to Godfather, the original subject

I bought the boxset on release day, and I've watched it through a few times since. The weekend of the release, we had a Godfather marathon and watched all 3 back-to-back-to-back. Good times, good times. Anyway, I've been generally pleased with the PQ (picture quality) of the DVDs. However, even on my puny 32" TV I can tell that it's not reference material, but nothing poked me in the eye as being terrible. To all of you saying that the transfer is horrendous: could you point me to a few scenes that you find particularly bad and tell me why? I'd like to see for myself what all the commotion is about. I know this isn't a popular thing to say around here, but I love the movies so much that even if I could spot a few imperfections I wouldn't be bothered. I'm not a videophile just for the sake of achieving ultimate video quality, but rather a movie fan who enjoys movies first and appreciates PQ at the same time.

I know this is somewhat off of the subject, but did Lucas photomechanically restore Star Wars SE (1997) and Indy?

Yes, it will be interesting journey.

Photography is one of my hobbies, and I am finding it difficult to make the transition to digital photography. It has progressed tremendously, but I still don't feel that it is as good as film. But its getting there (and many would argue that it is there)...and is definitely the format of the future.

This is my first post, so be kind. The way I see this whole digital restoration thing is this way......

Say you have a scene from Jurassic Park. Alan Grant and the kids are running from a dinosaur. Obviously there is no real dinosaur in the frame. So ILM scans the footage into their computer, digitally adds the dinosaur, and scans it back out to film. Now there is a dinosaur in Jurassic Park.

Now, say you have a scene from the Godfather with a scratch on it. Lowry Digital scans that scene into a computer. They digitally remove the scratch, and scan the footage back out to film.

Now, the scratch was not removed photochemically, so you COULD argue that the "real" Godfather film still has a scratch on it. Of course, by that logic, you could say that Jurassic Park (or any other film with CG effects) doesn't "really" exist on film either.

I'll use a couple more examples. For films like "O Brother, Where Art Thou" and the Lord of the Rings trilogy, literally every single frame of film was scanned into a computer to be digitally color graded to create a specific look for the films. A print of these films directly from the original negative would look absolutely nothing like what the filmmakers intended. Does this mean then that Lord of the Rings and O Brother do not really exist on film? By the logic of this discussion, any time film is digitized, altered, and scanned back out to film, it is not "really" film any more. If it is, then it shouldn't matter what kind of changes are made, whether it's CGI effects, color correction, or scratch and dirt removal.

Stephen,

Nice first post. Welcome aboard!

The full article is available at Yahoo!.

BS.

If this were true, they would have given consumers the choice the FIRST time around and not made everyone buy the dreadful part III in order to get the first two movies. Look at what Fox is doing with Alien - that's how it should be done. Paramount should learn a thing or two from Fox.

Bah, part III isn't that bad. I think it's quite good in fact. You're still right about the packaging of course They should have been offered separately from the beginning.

The Paramount title that is even worse was the Indiana Jones trilogy. Temple of Doom is horrid. Of course, I'm a completist and wouldn't be able to live the first and third without the one in the middle, but that's my own problem.

Still, Temple of Doom puts both Godfather III and Star Trek V to shame when it comes to terrible sequels, IMHO.

What John said! (especially regarding the quality of Godfather III and Temple of Doom being horrid)

I read about the restoration of "Star Wars" in the book "Industrial Light and Magic: Into the Digital Realm". I don't have the text in front of me so I have to rely on memory.

Three-fourths of "Star Wars" negative went threw a chemical bath to clean it, then wet gate printed to get rid of scratches and the remaining dirt.

One-fourth of the movies negative was to damaged to do that too, so the footage was replaced in one of three ways. One involved replacing the footage from an interpositive made of "Star Wars" in 1985 for the video release. Another was used if the damaged footage was an effects shot. ILM dug out the original plates of those shots and sent them to Pacific Title, who recombined the plates with an optical printer (I guess ILM couldn't do this themselves because they had gotten rid of all of there optical printers.) The third involved ILM scanning the footage in and correcting it in the digital realm.

So to answer your question Dave, lets say approxatly 5/6 of "Star Wars" was restored photochemcially and 1/6 digitally (and this only done if the footage couldn't be photochemically restored for some reason). Of course, this dosen't take into account all of the new CGI that Lucas added.

Incidently, the audio restoration involved Ben Burtt digging out all the original audio tapes of "Star Wars" and remixing them digitally at Skywalker Sound. (I remembering hearing that in a video promotional feature on the Special Editions at the time).

Thanks, Kevin. Great explanation!

I just want to add four quick items here:

1) I'm impressed by the intensity of expression in many of the posts here. The true passion people have in this forum never fails to amaze me.

2) People who didn't buy the original Godfather set haven't had the joy I have in watching it on DVD over the past 2 years. If they re-release it again, I'll still have that time with what is arguable 2 of the greatest films ever.

3) Quality of picture and sound go only so far. The technophiles can enjoy T3 all they want. I cannot get past the meaninglessness of the entire endeavor. As long as I can see Brando, Pacino and DeNiro act in widescreen, I'm pleased as punch.

4) I will NOT give any kudos to Godfather III. I'm still not sure it isn't some sort of parody of the series. I would like all studios to consider single releases of box set material (see Back to the Future, Indiana Jones, etc.). Of course, this is a pipe dream. I have Indy and the Godfather sets, but would have only bought Godfather I and II and Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Yes, well it's a good thing I just rented the collection. Hell, improvements never hurt anyone. (aslong as they ARE improvements)

Here here.

Re: Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs

Several years later, this thread makes an interesting read.

For the record, it makes no difference whether one uses digital or analogue tools in restoring a film. One or the other, or a combination of both.

When one takes on a restoration project, the single overriding object is to do no harm to the ORIGINAL ELEMENTS.

In many cases, original elements, be they OCN or protection dupes are missing vital things... such as sprocket holes, portions of frames or color.

The challenge then, is not to somehow restore the sprocket holes or the color on the actual original, but rather to create a new working element to be used for all future needs, which can replicate and take the place of the unusable and damaged original.

The kiss from Rear Window has been mentioned here. The problem was that the shot was originally a dupe cut into the working OCN. It had been step printed to slow down the action, and it was severely faded.

The OCN, from which the final shot had been produced, no longer existed.

In order to create a new working element, dye layers from different elements were re-printed to recreate a shot with viable color, and then scanned, digitally cleaned to remove layers of dirt and damage, and then recorded out BACK TO FILM. While this process was achieved via a combination of analogue and digital, today we would work solely in the digital domain for a superior final product.

Digital is more expensive than analogue, but gives us better results.

Both are simply tools we use toward the creation of new working film elements.

The other point that should be made re: earlier discussions, is that there are restorations and then "restorations." There are some who believe that if you have a viable, non-faded, printable original negative, and you clean it so that the next print produced is cleaner than the previous, you have, in some way "restored" it.

This is simply marketing bunk.

The other major difference must take into account true film restoration - again whether via digital or analogue means is of no import - as opposed to digital clean-ups, which abound for home video.

The breaking point here is two-fold.

1. Whether the process was performed at full film resolution -- in most cases 2k is not considered film resolution unless for a modern DI for which the INTENT OF THE FILMMAKERS is a final 2k record. Most original OCNs, going back more than 70 years have far more than 2k information to be harvested from them.

2. Whether the process yields a final film recorded out at FULL RESOLUTION.

Again, it doesn't matter how you get to the final point, as long as the original damaged elements are re-vaulted in a state that has added no further damage.

The bottom line here is that an original camera negative exists only as an object from which to harvest an image.

RAH

Re: Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs

Well, the newly remastered (restored 2007 according to the BBFC) versions of the trilogy are scheduled to go on sale in U.K. in June according to at least one etailer; I expect R1 releases around the same time.

Re: Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs

.

Re: Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs

Thanks, RAH. I've always found your comments very helpful in understanding the work that goes into restoration. Your commentary on My Fair Lady is one of my favourites for that very reason, particularly your comments on the restoration of the opening titles.

Re: Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs

just found this thread via this http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...ther-4k-2.html

I would def upgrade to Blu Ray if this came to pass.

A certain UK Mobile phone operator is giving away free Playstation3 with a Finnish Mobile Phone.

Thanks

Re: Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs

My thoughts on the restored THE GODFATHER:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...ml#post3340586

Vincent

Re: Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs

Vincent; quite made my day! Thanks for that excellent post.

Re: Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs

Yes indeed John

Awesome

Re: Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs

The R2 version of the restoration has just been announced for 2 June. Hopefully the R1 will be announced soon.

Re: Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs

New Bonus Material

• Godfather World (10:56)
• The Masterpiece That Almost Wasn't (29:42)
• When The Shooting Stopped (14:16)
• Emulsional Rescue - Revealing the Godfather (19:03)
• The Godfather on the Red Carpet (4:02)
• Four Short Films on The Godfather: GF vs. GF Part II (2:15); Cannoli (1:37); Riffing on the Riffing (1:38); Clemenza (1:55)
• Hidden Easter Egg: Cosa Nostra & Coppola

Re: Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs

At least you know what the box art looks like; there's no BBFC certification on show, so the likliehood is that is what R1 will be getting.

Re: Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs

American Cinematographer: Post Focus:

American Cinematographer Image Viewer

The Godfather I, II, II restored to 4K new DVDs in September

Here is a great article on the restoration of The Godfather trilogy to 4K digital, by a team lead by RAH.

The article says that new DVD versions are due in September, and if Paramount know what they are doing, surely Blu-ray as well. IMO, a Blu-ray boxed set of these films could be the first Blu-ray killer application.

There's some quite astonishing before and after shots:



The left image is a scan straight off the negative, the right image is the same shot that has been digitally graded.



The article says that the negative of this shot was improperly printed when the film was originally made. Technicolor tried to fix it photochemically at the time, but now the shot was corrected digitally. To me there is a lot more detail in the second shot, but without tampering with Willis' underexposed photography.

This looks like another tremendous application of digital technologies to preserve a great series of films indefinitely. Obviously this set of films will forever have huge earning potential for Paramount, but it is great to see that 4K digital technologies made the restoration possible. In fact, the article states that a major problem is that current print stocks aren't suitable for accurately presenting the look of the film. So maybe this is another case where the digital master should now be considered the film's negative.

EDIT: Sorry! I didn't see the old thread that was just resurrected after I made this post.

Re: Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs

Was the additional scenes used in the chronological-order GODFATHER SAGA also restored? Seems to me they are accepted by Mr. Coppola for public showing and therefore legitimate to restore.

Mr. Harris?