Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs - Page 7

Bill Burns · 11-18-2003, 06:57 PM

If a postcard faded, was scanned into a computer, restored, then rescanned to a postcard, yes, a postcard restoration has been accomplished. Surely you can see that? If a film fades/wears/deteriorates, is scanned into a computer, restored, and then rescanned to film, a film restoration has taken place.

Photochemical restoration and digital restoration both have the potential to create new elements. If they create new film elements, and those elements better represent the original film, then a film restoration has been accomplished. This is not a matter of opinion, Damin, so it isn't something we should continue arguing. If we disagree, we disagree, but the above is consistent with the work of film restorers the world over today, including Robert Harris, whose digital restoration work is very definitely film restoration when it creates an element in better keeping with the original film than surviving unrestored elements.

Both photochemical and digital begin with a film element. When the end product is another film element in better keeping with the film's original state, it isn't a mesh of 1's and 0's any more than it's a series of atoms or photosensitive particles. It's these things, sure, but no less film. And those 1's and 0's are not 1's and 0's on a film negative (unless you're watching certain scenes in The Matrix where numbers do, in fact, appear on the screen). Whether the image is photochemical or digital when it is worked on, once it is scanned to film it is, again, photochemical. There's nothing to physically differentiate a film element created optically from a film element created digtally, arguments about the quality of the specific work (apparent resolution/detail, color accuracy, etc.) notwithstanding.

Andy_G · 11-18-2003, 07:09 PM

Bill,

I generally agree with you on the notion of digital being a tool in bona fide film restoration.

I think, however, that you are too quick to assert that LDI is somehow above 1k cleanup. Just because Toyota launched the Lexus brand doesn't mean that it stopped making Corollas.

Damin J Toell · 11-18-2003, 07:12 PM

Quote:

This is not a matter of opinion, Damin, so it isn't something we should continue arguing.

Wow, I didn't realize I was discussing this with The Man Who Knows The Truth.

Since you know The Truth and I don't, I guess I'll exit the conversation by quoting someone else:

Quote:

LDI does not work in film restoration. There will be those who disagree with me on this point, but if one uses the correct meaning of terms, they do not restore film.

- Robert Harris, May 29, 2003

DJ

Bill Burns · 11-18-2003, 07:13 PM

You may be right, Andy. I'd be surprised if it's just a clean-up pass, but then I'm often surprised.

Damin -- I already quoted Harris earlier, regarding car detailing. But I thought we were discussing digital restoration, not the specific work of LDI. Mr. Harris does not classify his own digital work in that way -- I believe his criticism of LDI stemmed from the quality of their work as he'd viewed it to date, not the medium in which they work (digital). You'll note above where I say that simply scanning digital files to film is not enough -- they must create a film product in better keeping with the film as originally released? I don't want to put words in Mr. Harris' mouth, but from extensive discussions he and I and others have had here, I believe this is what he's saying. I always invite correction if I've misinterprited him or anyone, of course.

I'm one of those who disagrees with Mr. Harris on the issue of quality; I respect his opinion (he's seen their work projected; I haven't), and it should go without saying that I value it, and I'm sure he respects the effort to explore alternate opinions. That digital work can be film restoration is what I do not believe to be a matter of opinion; whether any particular digital effort gets us closer to a true representation of the original film than surviving elements allow, and would thus qualify as film restoration, is another issue, one which must be explored for each individual product.

Your sarcasm is duly noted ("the Man Who Knows the Truth" -- how'd you know what they voted me in my high school yearbook?

), and I have to get going as well, but I hope this discussion was of use to some.

Damin J Toell · 11-18-2003, 07:28 PM

Quote:

But I thought we were discussing digital restoration, not the specific work of LDI.

It certainly began as a discussion of LDI. The first statement of yours to which I replied was that "[LDI] do work in digital film restoration, as evidenced by their 2K work for Paramount on past titles." You replied to this by telling me that I was dismissing all of digital restoration, etc.

Quote:

Your sarcasm is duly noted ("the man who knows the Truth")

If only you, too, weren't being serious when you claimed that this wasn't a matter of opinion...

DJ

Bill Burns · 11-18-2003, 07:36 PM

Damin wrote:

Quote:

The original film elements remain in the same condition afterwards as they did before: unrestored. Just because it is possible to make film prints out of their digital work, it doesn't mean they have done film restoration (it's possible to make postcards out of their digital images, too, and this doesn't make them postcard restorers).

How could I possibly think you were dismissing digital work as something less than film restoration? I'm pretty sure it's right there in black and white, but I'll leave it to others to decide.

I wrote:

Quote:

That digital work can be film restoration is what I do not believe to be a matter of opinion; whether any particular digital effort gets us closer to a true representation of the original film than surviving elements allow, and would thus qualify as film restoration, is another issue, one which must be explored for each individual product.

I trust this is similarly clear.

Now, you can have the last word if you'd like, Damin, because I really do have to go, and this isn't productive. Misrepresent what I've said if you like -- I invite others to re-read all of our posts. Over and out.

Damin J Toell · 11-18-2003, 07:44 PM

Quote:

How could I possibly think you were dismissing digital work as something less than film restoration?

Thinking something is of lesser quality is not the same as dismissal, of course. If it wasn't clear for you the first time or second times, I will try saying it again: I have not dismissed digital restoration. A dismissal is a full rejection, and I've stated nothing remotely of the sort. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by contuining to repeat something I've already explained to you.

Quote:

I trust this is similarly clear.

It is clear that you believe your own opinion to be The Truth and that disagreeing with you is futile. It is also clear that, contrary to this claim, there are other opinions out there on the matter. Simply stating that your belief is the only one does not make it so.

Quote:

Now, you can have the last word if you'd like, Damin, because I really do have to go, and this isn't productive. Misrepresent what I've said if you like -- I invite others to re-read all of our posts. Over and out.

Are you implying that I've misrepresented anything you've said?

DJ

Rob Tomlin · 11-18-2003, 08:31 PM

Quote:

If a film is restored digitally and then rescanned to film elements, those new film elements are restored. Thus, a film element, and thus, a film restoration. The simple act of scanning digital files to film isn't enough, of course -- they must return the picture to something better aproximating its original state. If they do, and they're on film ... film restoration. Digitally accomplished.

I have to disagree.

You do not have a "restoration" of the original film elements. What you have are new elements that were derived from the original elements.

Quote:

If a film fades/wears/deteriorates, is scanned into a computer, restored, and then rescanned to film, a film restoration has taken place.

No, it hasn't. As stated by Damin, the original film elements are still in their original condition....non-restored!

If a highly qualified painter were to paint a copy of an invaluable painting that had aged poorly, resulting in some cracking and fading of color, and attempted to make it look as close as possible to what they thought it should look like originally, has the painting been "restored"?

I dont think so....

But you do have a new painting (or film) that may (or may not) be a fair representation of what the original looked like.

Quote:

I invite others to re-read all of our posts. Over and out.

I have. And I think you are wrong. I hope you handle that better than last time we had a disagreement! :p)

Patrick McCart · 11-18-2003, 08:50 PM

LDI's work is excellent, but most of it is simply video processing. North By Northwest still has a yellow-faded 8-perf VistaVision negative. Citizen Kane still has no restoration negative.

Sunset Blvd. and Roman Holiday were restored with not only the intention of having pristine video masters, but to have new 35mm negatives. There are no new restoration negatives for Citizen Kane or North By Northwest.

Andy_G · 11-18-2003, 09:05 PM

Rob,

How do you address Bill's point about the kiss sequence in Rear Window?

I think you are too quick to dismiss digital work.

When one does a photochemical restoration, the original elements are typically in just as poor a condition as pre restoration. Typically, a restored master positive serves as the primary element for the film. Would anyone argue that such a film has not been restored?