Godfather Blu-ray Confirmed - Page 6

Jesse Blacklow · 09-17-2008, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

The restoration project surrounding the Godfather films has been ongoing since the fall of 2006, with data files color corrected by early July 2007. Additional cleanup work was performed into November of last year, at which time the overall HD transfers were initially approved.

In Spring 2008, Mr. Willis made his final tweaks and corrections, all of which are represented.

While I have no problem answering specific questions in regard to the restorations on film or video, I am obviously not about to review my own work, nor that of the restoration team.

At this point I can tell you that I have received final product and find it representative of the 4k data files and all digital files thereafter derived.

The entire team at Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Entertainment, MPI (Warner Digital), Pro-Tek and POP Sound worked extremely diligently to create a product representative of the wishes of the filmmakers, further confirmed by the original approved dye transfer print of The Godfather as well as representative surviving prints of The Godfather Part II.

Our goal in creating the restorations was to replicate as closely as possible the intent and look of the films when originally released within the limitations of modern motion picture emulsions as well as home video digital technology. That intent has likewise been the basis of the new Blu-ray software, for which the film image was considered inviolable. NO digital noise reduction and No grain reduction whatsoever have been used in the production of this software.

The films, as represented on Blu-ray, are as close as technologically possible to viewing The Godfather(s) on newly restored 35mm prints.

RAH

Thanks for what must be a difficult post to make, RAH.

Sadly, I don't think that will stop some people from arguing with you...

Vincent_P · 09-17-2008, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed St. Clair

If the source is in such bad shape it has to be restored, what is used for a reference, memory?...

You missed have missed this part of Robert's post:

"The entire team at Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Entertainment, MPI (Warner Digital), Pro-Tek and POP Sound worked extremely diligently to create a product representative of the wishes of the filmmakers, further confirmed by the original approved dye transfer print of The Godfather as well as representative surviving prints of The Godfather Part II."

Vincent

Ed St. Clair · 09-17-2008, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent_P

You missed have missed this part of Robert's post:

"The entire team at Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Entertainment, MPI (Warner Digital), Pro-Tek and POP Sound worked extremely diligently to create a product representative of the wishes of the filmmakers, further confirmed by the original approved dye transfer print of The Godfather as well as representative surviving prints of The Godfather Part II."

Vincent

No. Using "representative surviving prints" that are in need of restoration would not be "representative" of the original intent (IMO; hence my post).
I do agree it is a great blessing to have the dye transfer print of "TG: Part I".
W/techinicolor they kept resources that would give them a reference. Is that the same as a dye transfer for one strip?
Thanks for your reply & trying too clear this up for me!

Vincent_P · 09-17-2008, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed St. Clair

No. Using "representative surviving prints" that are in need of restoration would not be "representative" of the original intent (IMO; hence my post).

YES THEY ARE- and why? Because I.B. Technicolor prints don't fade!

The negative is what needs to be restored- if you have good-quality vintage I.B. Technicolor "representaive prints" of the films in order to judge the correct color timing when doing a digital restoration of those negatives, then there is no "guessing" or "going from memory" when it comes to how these films should look.

Remember, I.B. Technicolor prints don't fade. The color stays the same, even if the prints themselves suffer physical damage or whatever. If you have some "representative" I.B. Technicolor prints (and remember, both THE GODFATHER and THE GODFATHER PART II were printed in I.B. Technicolor) of the films in question, then it is not a matter of "memory" in figuring out how they should look. You do all the needed digital restoration work at 4K resolution, then you look at the vintage I.B. Technicolor prints you have and color time the 4K restored image to match the color and contrast values, etc., on that print.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed St. Clair

I do agree it is a great blessing to have the dye transfer print of "TG: Part I". W/techinicolor they kept resources that would give them a reference. Is that the same as a dye transfer for one strip?
Thanks for your reply & trying too clear this up for me!

I think you're confused about cinematography and printed processes.

After the mid-1950s, ALL movies were filmed "one strip". Some of those movies were then printed using the I.B. Technicolor, 3-strip process. The "one-strip" negatives would be optically split into the three color bands which would then be used to make the prints. Both THE GODFATHER and THE GODFATHER PART II were filmed and printed this way, and since I.B. Technicolor doesn't fade, if you have vintage "representative prints" that the cinematographer approves as a guideline, then you have a damn good idea of what a film is supposed to look like, which is the case with the new GODFATHER BDs.

I hope this helps.

Vincent

Reagan · 09-18-2008, 09:33 AM

All I can say is that I'm looking forward to watching Emulsional Rescue (great title by the way).

-R

Robert Harris · 09-18-2008, 10:07 AM

A beautifully thought out and written piece by Blu-ray.com's Martin Liebman...

Blu-ray.com - The Godfather Collection: The Coppola Restoration (Blu-ray) - Blu-ray Review

Mike Williams · 09-18-2008, 10:42 AM

Mr. Harris, the fact you deem these BDs representative of the final product is exactly what I was wanting to hear. Thank you so much for breaking your silence. No need for you to review your work. I've heard much praise in a number of reviews now that are doing that for you quite favorably, and look forward to viewing it for myself in a few days.

Travis Brashear · 09-18-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

A beautifully thought out and written piece by Blu-ray.com's Martin Liebman...

Blu-ray.com - The Godfather Collection: The Coppola Restoration (Blu-ray) - Blu-ray Review

From said review, "One scene, where Michael is at the hospital wondering where the police protection has disappeared to, did exhibit a number of white speckles over the image."; there is a screenshot at DVDBeaver from elsewhere in the film that suffers from this flaw, as well. An established DVDEmpire reviewer says these speckles actually pop up to varying degrees throughout the entire first film. Mr. Harris, can you provide insight into why these weren't cleaned up digitally?

Britton · 09-18-2008, 11:48 AM

Well, I got my shipping confirmation from Tower.com. Yay!

Robert Harris · 09-18-2008, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Brashear

From said review, "One scene, where Michael is at the hospital wondering where the police protection has disappeared to, did exhibit a number of white speckles over the image."; there is a screenshot at DVDBeaver from elsewhere in the film that suffers from this flaw, as well. An established DVDEmpire reviewer says these speckles actually pop up to varying degrees throughout the entire first film. Mr. Harris, can you provide insight into why these weren't cleaned up digitally?

Very simple. These were cleaned up digitally through hundreds and hundreds of hours. The problem is that with a dirty film, you remove all of the major defects, followed by dirt of a certain size, followed by dirt of a slightly smaller size. As each layer is removed the next smaller layer appears.

If I had to ponder a guess, I would say that 95% of all dirt and detritus has been removed. Add to the budget another $100,000 to get to 96%, and yet $100,000 more to get to 96.5%.

You can never reach 100%, especially in 35mm, as with the first run of the negative through printers, new dirt is being embedded in the printing element.

In film, this is called "sparkle," or minus density, and is a naturally occurring part of the cinema experience.