- Joined: May 2001
- Post Count: 3,319
Re: The new enemy of the HD Formats is Noise Reduction!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
Except that you appear to be serious about not buying transfers you consider bad. So I still don't see the relevance.
M.
|
I'm absolutely serious about not buying poor transfers.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ed St. Clair
No "plan of action"; just my tried & true: "DON"T BUY IT"!!! ;-)
|
The 1st part of the sentence acknowledges my not having a plan.
The 2nd part of the sentence acknowledges my goofy (hence, the "wink") way to deal w/it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
The reason we're going back and forth, I suspect, is that our respective approaches to this kind of issue are very different, both rhetorically and otherwise.
M.
|
Hopefully our hearts, if not our minds, are in the same place!
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,817
Re: The new enemy of the HD Formats is Noise Reduction!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
That's exactly what the mastering engineers should be doing at the studio... comparing the digital projection of their master against the projected 35mm print. That's the whole idea of "transparency" with HD media... to match that director-approved experience in artistic intent.
It's not as hard as you think with some titles. Most folks who've seen 70mm projections of Ben-Hur or LOA, for instance, can tell you that they saw a crystal-clear image that astounded the viewer with an overload of detail and color depth. It's not hard, even years later, to determine that the DVDs of both of these titles in no-way reflect that experience.
Even some 35mm experiences are easy to remember. I remember seeing an indepdent film 'Kilometer zero' at a film festival and being "wowwed" by the brilliant/saturated colors and crystal-clear print... it was breathtaking. The DVD is muted, soft, and grainy. I looked nothing like the print, and the years between those two experiences didn't make it any harder to determine.
|
Your memory of it and your ability to recall specific color pallets, grain structure or other details of a film print are not exactly the same thing. You are NOT going to remember that kind of detail with any accuracy.
If I were to color correct a shot on Monday, then try to come back on Wednesday and try and match that shot, there is no way that I could do it with out directly referencing the original corrected shot. Believe me I've tried it. The human brain just doesn't have that kind of recall. Not to mention the fact that the eye adjusts for color, meaning that something that looked white to me on Monday, may not look white on wed because of other factors in the shot that effect the eye.
Also the theater you saw the film in may or may not have had a new lamp in the projector. The lamps do change color over their life span, even if the required 16 foot-lamberts are maintained on the screen. The color may or may not be accurate. Then there is the fact that rapidly manufactured release prints are not always accurate to the answer print. You could see the same film in 5 different theaters in one day and never see the same colors twice.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
- Joined: July 2003
- Location: Lacombe, AB
- Post Count: 2,564
Re: The new enemy of the HD Formats is Noise Reduction!
Doug, keep in mind that the 35mm print that David was referring to was an independent film. It probably looked as good as he described it because a limited number of prints were made, hardly the same thing as a massive 5-6,000 print run of the average Hollywood blockbuster. With smaller print runs, the prints are usually fewer generations away from the ONeg, and are therefore more likely to conform to the answer print. I recall in my days as a projectionist having to run as many as 5 prints of the same film, and even in that small sample, none of them looked identical. The best looking print I ever saw (and keep in mind that outside of IMAX, I've never seen anything projected in 70mm; hoping to correct that around Easter with a trip to Seattle to see LoA) was Bubba Ho-Tep, again because of an extremely limited print run.
These same limitations work inversely when it comes to video transfers. Limited resources usually mean that you can't get the best colourists/telecine suites, so you're stuck with what comes out. As RAH has indicated in various threads, it takes an awful lot of work to get video (even HD) to look like film, and a "straight" transfer is not going to yield that, as you well know, based on your experience.
Did I mention I love playing Devil's Advocate?
\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,817
Re: The new enemy of the HD Formats is Noise Reduction!
I was lucky enough to see Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm on a 65 foot screen in its 1989 release after the restoration. I distinctly remember being able to read the time on Peter O'Toole's watch in the scene at the start of the film where he is working on the map in the "dark nasty little room". I was most impressed.
Beyond that I doubt I could remember any meaningful details about the look of the film other than particular lighting choices or camera angles that struck me as interesting.
Sometimes a limited run can work against a film too because they may not be able to afford the better labs. There are so many things that can effect the presentation. By the way I do was a projectionist at one time.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
- Joined: December 1969
- Post Count: 4,195
Re: The new enemy of the HD Formats is Noise Reduction!
It depends. Some films I don't remember the theatrical presentation all that well. Others stand out and make an impression. I very much remember saying to myself when I saw EYES WIDE SHUT theatrically "people are going to lambaste this when it comes out on DVD for being terribly grainy." So I remember it's supposed to have a lot of grain, which the HD DVD reduces substantially but at least doesn't wholly eliminate.
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,817
Re: The new enemy of the HD Formats is Noise Reduction!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark Zimmer
It depends. Some films I don't remember the theatrical presentation all that well. Others stand out and make an impression. I very much remember saying to myself when I saw EYES WIDE SHUT theatrically "people are going to lambaste this when it comes out on DVD for being terribly grainy." So I remember it's supposed to have a lot of grain, which the HD DVD reduces substantially but at least doesn't wholly eliminate.
|
Well and again this brings up the question, did they really reduce the grain for the HD DVD, or is the grain just less obvious when its not on a 40 foot screen?
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
- Joined: July 2003
- Location: Lacombe, AB
- Post Count: 2,564
Re: The new enemy of the HD Formats is Noise Reduction!
Another question it raises is how much grain was added as a result of release prints being several generations away from the ONeg?
\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
- Joined: December 1969
- Post Count: 4,195
Re: The new enemy of the HD Formats is Noise Reduction!
All good questions, and unfortunately few of them are answerable from our vantage point.
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,817
Re: The new enemy of the HD Formats is Noise Reduction!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Which raises another valid question: What's the "master signal" that the HD medium ought to reflect... the negative or the print made from it? Some director's might feel that the final negative is their "artistic work" and that the dupe prints are 2nd generation removed from it. Others might view the final prints themselves as the final work... and they might take the visual changes (such as additional grain and color-timing differences) into account while working on the negative so that the print represents their intended look.
It should never be blindly assumed that one answer is always the right one.
|
Generally the answer print is regarded as the final approved version. Although many directors are involved in the the telecine and do things differently there than they did with the answer print. So in that case both versions are correct.
But if we are talking about an older film, even if the director and the DP are still alive, the answer print is generally considered to be the primary source of information about the look of the film. Again memories of the way they look, even the memory of the director, are just not that good. If the answer print is not in good shape that I would imagine that a fair amount of guess work would be involved.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,817
Re: The new enemy of the HD Formats is Noise Reduction!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner
A negative is never a final master because it's a negative (inverted). The camera negative is the source with the most information but it's not a finished master because every negative must be color and contrast corrected into a positive so you can actually watch it with a non inverted picture. Camera negative projected directly is not only the 'negative' of the intended image, it's also quite odd looking (usually very flat and with color balance problems from edit to edit).
|
Also color negative film has an orange contrast mask over it, which is why when you hold a negative up to the light, it looks orange. The orange mask is compensated for when the positive is printed.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,817
Re: The new enemy of the HD Formats is Noise Reduction!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Well "duh" about the fact that the "negative" is... well... a negative.
I think what I meant was that often the negative is used as the final analog-domain-source. Colors and luminance can be inverted digitally after scanning. That's the flip of a switch, but it doesn't change the point that often the negative element is scanned and used directly, and is the "source" by which one maintains fidelity in terms of film-grain etc. (and color too, once its inverted). |
I'm not sure that the camera negative is used very often. Rather the internegative is used that has all of the color timing information from the interpositive. Once the answer print is approved the camera negative is generally stored away literally in a salt mine.
The only time the camera negative (which has no timing information) would be use is if the internegitive or the interpositive is in such bad shape that they are no longer printable. In that case the timing information would have to be recreated based on the lab notes.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,817
Re: The new enemy of the HD Formats is Noise Reduction!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner
Depends on the film. The new films with DI use the camera negative so if the HD is from the DI the HD is from the original negative. For catalogue titles it's more usual to use the IP to save time/money and not risk damage to the best master element. If the film needs restoration from film elements anything goes. Whatever is still around and can be used is used, best quality elements first, others as required.
|
Yes but once a DI is made, all the color timing information is included in it and the camera negative is never touched again. And in theory the DI will never be damaged, scratched or fade, so there should never be a need to go back to the camera negative, unless there is some idea that more image detail can be brought out of it in the future.
And yes in a restoration the camera neg would be looked at as a possible source. Thats why I said that they would only goto the ON if there was a problem with the internegative that made it unprintable.
Also another factor, just because we know what printer light settings were used when the answer print was made, doesn't mean that a modern film stock will react the same way. Adjustments may be needed to get it to match the look of the answer print on a modern film stock. Even then it may not be possible to exactly match the look of the AP.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,817
Re: The new enemy of the HD Formats is Noise Reduction!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Doug,
I think we're talking about the same thing but from two different angles. When I say that the source could be the "negative", my only point is that the digital scan could be based off of elements that are pre-interpositive/pre-print in generation... and that the "negative" color/luminance information could be converted in the digital domain after scanning so you don't need to rely on analog media to handle that part of the process.
That broad concept still allows room for the more detailed explaination you've provided of the various ways that a "negative" can be delivered...with and without color-timing information, for example. Excellent points.
Excellent points again. And certaily germane to the taks of ensuring that the final appearance of the digital master resembles that of the intended look of the original projected film-print.
|
Yes David and of course today with most films using digital color timing, the DI becomes the source of all future copies of the film, be they on film or in some digital form. The interpositive and internegative will become a thing of the past as all prints are made from the DI via a film recorder. That is until film prints vanish all together.
However I imagine that all of those films from about 2000 on that used a 2k intermediary (O Brother, Where Art Thou? being the first) might be in for an upgrade to 4k. That is if they are thinking of a theatrical re release. Probably not however as home video has pretty much killed off the re release.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
-
Douglas Monce
- Douglas Monce
-
- offline
- Joined: November 2006
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Post Count: 3,817
Re: The new enemy of the HD Formats is Noise Reduction!
Yes....and apparently 8K is on the way, both for the DI and there are 8K cameras in development.
Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
- Joined: December 1969
- Post Count: 4,195
Re: The new enemy of the HD Formats is Noise Reduction!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JeremyErwin
which is unfortunate, since I've read that Kubrick's cinematographic style in Eyes Wide Shut was unusual--natural lighting, for one. Would be nice to go back to an accurate rendition of the original film and study it.
|
This is probably why we didn't get an HD version of BARRY LYNDON---which uses the same technique except to the extreme of candlelight. I'm guessing the technology just isn't there yet to render this properly on home video without wiping out everything with DNR.
