Robert Harris on The Bits - 7/1/02 column - OFFICIAL THREAD (1 Viewer)

[Jianping]

Great article, Robert, Thank you.

I notice that at imdb.com Pollyanna and other movies you mentioned are all note as Technicolor. So what's the biggest difference between the old technicolor and eastman color, besides the film stock they used?

 

[Robert Harris]

There is no difference between the two besides the film
stock which they use.

RAH

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Interesting article, but where's the Vinegar Syndrome discussion mentioned in the title? Actually, that ought to be an article in and of itself, discussing the chemical properties of film stocks and their various and sundry manners of decomposition and what hastens it and what slows it (but cannot prevent it).

 

[Andy_MT]

hi Robert
great article. thanks for educating us mere mortals
just as a side issue, have you participated in any dvd audio commentaries other than "my fair lady" ? - one of my favourites by the way
many thanks :star:
Andy

 

[Moe Dickstein]

RAH and James Katz did the Vertigo commentary (with others)

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Robert is also one of the chorus of voices on the Criterion Spartacus commentary on the laserdisc & DVD. He's shown up in featurettes on the My Fair Lady laserdisc box set, Rear Window DVD, Vertigo laserdisc & DVD, and the Criterion Spartacus DVD.
He was also a ghostly presence appearing occasionally only as a pronoun in some of the interviews on the Lawrence of Arabia deluxe limited edition DVD.:rolleyes
Regards,

 

[Andy_MT]

Moe/Ken
thanks guys
Andy

 

[Juan.B]

Hello Robert,
I was thrilled to to see you will be writing a column for The Bits. I was wondering if from time to time you could keep us posted on your current activities. I read some time ago that you were trying to secure financing to restore The Alamo. Were you successful and are you currently working on it? What types of of problems have you encountered so far.
Thanks for all the work you have done to preserve our film legacy and educate the public on the need for film preservation.

 

[Jianping]

There is no difference between the two besides the film

Then why imdb list some films as color(technicolor), and some as color(eastmancolor), or color(deluxe). Is this denoting different labs that did the printing job?

 

[Robert Harris]

Both The Alamo and Mad World are stalled at this point with a lack of financial support.

We have been hopeful that the necessary $665,000 to save The Alamo might come from an entity in the Texas community, but this has not as yet come to pass.

Mad World can only move forward if and when MGM finds a financial rationale for doing so.

Both of these films look to be unsalvageable by the middle of next year.

Re: Technicolor -- it is both a dye transfer, negative taking process and a laboratory which prints in both dye tranfer and Eastmancolor/Fujicolor/Agfacolor, as do deluxe and CFI (owned by Technicolor).

A general rule of thumb, which is sometimes dangerous is that if a credit reads simply "Technicolor" or "in Technicolor" that the film in question has either been photographed in three strip black and white and printed in dye transfer or that it may have been photograhed in Eastmancolor and printed in dye transfer.

Generally if a credit reads "prints by Technicolor" it would lead one to believe that the prints are in Eastmancolor.

RAH

 

[oscar_merkx]

Mr Harris
Again you have given us a fantastic article to read and learn from. It was a joy to read about preserving especially older movies and brought tears to my eyes how complacent these studios have become about their vintage movies that they show no respect to this. Having said this, I also know how difficult it is to secure finance for restoring these movies.
Ever since you stared this column over at the Bits, I have purchased titles you mentioned like John Ford's She wore a yellow ribbon, plus last week I purchased John Ford's silent classic from 1925 called The Iron Horse.
(http://www.bfi.org.uk/bookvid/videos...rse/index.html)
This restored version was prepared by Kevin Brownlow's Photoplay Productions for Channel Four Silents, and features a new score composed and conducted by John Lanchbery, performed by the City of Prague Philharmonic.
Brilliant and next I will be purchasing Pollyanna.
Oscar

 

[David Lambert]

I would suggest that if you'd like to see more instructive material of this type that you let Disney know about it. They're finally doing truly great work on DVD.

RAH

I agree that when Disney does it right, they totally nail it. The Vault Disney titles are very representative of that.

However, do you stand by this statement when it comes to the many Disney DVDs being released - most of them recently - in a non-OAR fashion? Like: Snow Dogs, Max Keeble's Big Move, Air Bud, Air Bud: Golden Receiver, George of the Jungle, Muppet Treasure Island, Muppet Christmas Carol, Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey, White Fang, The Journey of Natty Gann, and Blackbeard's Ghost.


Please consider this as you compose your next (AR-related) article for The Bits. We value your opinion on this matter.

 

[Brian E]

The Journey of Natty Gann, and Blackbeard's Ghost

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Hello Mr. Harris,
Good to see you write detailed articles about film
technology and home cinema issues.
I have two questions for you.
You write:
Digital technology: It's not nirvana, it's not perfect,
it's not for every purpose.
Well, I'm sure you are right for the time being.
But from a theoretical standpoint I see no reason why digital can't do anything traditional or newly developed lab work can do, and more, in the same or better quality.
So why is digital limited these days, not considering the cost issue? Is it a problem of the right kind of scanners that extract the information needed and can't do now? Is
it a software problem? Digital restoration is making quick
progress these days, is it not? How long will digital
remain unable to do all you would like it to do? (Have you
seen the digitally restored "Metropolis"?).
My second question concerns DVDs. Since you recommend
a couple of DVDs in your article and speak about the art
of cinematography as demonstrated on good DVDs I wonder
what you think of HD transfers for home consumption,
especially the D-Theater system now for sale that gives
consumers near master tape 1080i HD quality at their
fingertips. I have pretty much stopped buying DVDs of
films where I can reasonably expect to get my hands on
a HD version in the next couple of years. As nice as DVDs
are and as much as I'm eager to compile a collection of
key films for home cinema usage I have come to the
conclusion that I don't want to buy everything twice and
the version I want is definitely the HD version. DVD can
not really emulate 35mm film. HD can to a very large degree.
The films I have in both versions look so much superior
in HD that it's not attractive any more to spend 1000s of
dollars for DVDs that are technically (but not
commercially) obsolete.
What's your take on this?
cheers
Michel Hafner

 

[Robert Harris]

Re: the query concerning "non-OAR" versions of films on home video...

My general feeling is that properly "purposed" modified versions of films - be they modified via time compression, cuts, modified or extended footage, or a differing aspect ratio from which originally photograhed - have a rightful place and availability next to the filmmaker's intended version.

Having said that, I must also place it in context.

I don't really want to see those versions.

What we must realize - and we have no real right to argue otherwise - is that all of these films are entertainment products, created by corporations which are in the business of supplying entertainment as a means of making money, keeping their stockholders happy, and staying in business.

Therefore, that any of these films might appear on network television or home video in modified versions should not affect us as long as...

and here's the kicker...

they are available to us in versions which represent the intent of the filmmakers.

From the list provided, a cursory look leads one to believe that the majority of these titles were shot full frame and possibly projected at a wider ratio -- ie, the top and bottoms of their frames were cropped in projection.

If a film is made available as an "open matte" full frame product, in order to make it more appealing to a certain area of the buying public, I have no great problem with it. One can zoom up to fill a 16:9 screen and effectively create the theatrical version, as with some of the Kubrick releases.

And I have no problem viewly them in this manner.

However, from a quick rundown of this list, I do see Journey of Natty Gann - a delightful little film - which according to one source was shot in anamorphic Panavision...

If this is true -- and I cannot confirm it at this time -- I would prefer NOT to view this film as offered.

As with any other anamorphic film, which cannot simply be offered in an "open matte" situation, I believe that it should be offered in its OAR version.

If the owner can bring in additional income serving another portion of the public which wishes to fill their screen and have no black lines, it is not only their right, but their obligation to their stockholders to do so.

Again...

as long as the film is also made available in its proper aspect ratio.

Last point.

For my own viewing pleasure, I would prefer that nothing be changed, even things that are, for all intents and purposes, unmeasureable.

As an example, consider the original Star Wars laser discs. The production cost of a disc was about $6-8 for a single side.

When Star Wars was offered as a single disc at a running time of 121 minutes, it could not possibly have fit in its entirety.

These discs were time compressed to keep down production costs. Did anyone notice? Probably not. Did it change the film from its original version. Certainly.

RAH

 

[Robert Harris]

Its good to see Michel Hafner logging in here.

From everything that I've seen, digital production is a viable alternative to traditionally "filmed" entertainment, however at a lower resolution.

It cannot yet yield an image of 35mm quality, especially at its 1.8k resolution.

Therefore, even though a film like Clones can bring in hundreds of millions of dollars, it is not up to film quality, and certainly not when presented on film as opposed to original digital presentation.

Digital theatres are not yet ready as a mass environment, and certainly not in the lower rez hardware and software examples.

Digital technology for use in film restoration and preservation is also not a perfect mode. It is one of a number of tools which we have at our disposal.

A potentially wonderful tool, but again, not nirvana.

A digital restoration as used via Metropolis can only work if the extant elements are of a low enough standard that there is simply nothing else left on the film that can be resolved. I would think that while this restoration will look superb on DVD when it arrives next year, we are pushing the limits of 2k with certain shots.

The important factor with this restoration is that everything has been backed up on 35mm film, so that the restoration in 2k will never be a dead end.

Again, while 2k may work if we don't have higher resolution film elements ie, original negative or fine grain master (lavender), it is a very "iffy" situation, and subject to testing to see if it works in place of 4k, if higher rez film elements are available.

Re: the new D theater hidef VHS.

I hate to be the naysayer here, but as good as it can look, one must balance the negatives of any tape-based system as opposed to the simplicity, size, weight, and resistance to damage we have on our side in an optical ROM based system such as DVD.

I would surmise that after 100 plays in a home environment, that beautiful image which we may see via a HiDef VHS product is going to be getting awfully problematic as opposed to DVD - HiDef or otherwise.

As technology advances, and as we look toward a point in the near future when a higher resolution DVD format will be available, I must believe that when software and hardware come into play, that the hardware will have the backward ability to play our current DVDs.

The success of the current DVD format is based upon price point. If players were still in the thousand dollar area, we would not be seeing a North American player base of 35 MILLION UNITS.

Also, do take into consideration that you and I and many of those who frequent HTF are far from the norm in home entertainement users.

Our current DVD technology and the high end equipment via which it can be viewed has created a situation in which I don't even have to think about whether I want to drag out a hundreds pounds of 35mm print, thread it through projectors and then be in a position of running back and forth to do focus and changeovers, rather than view a clean line-doubled image on a 110" screen, on a cleaner version than most any print available.

We have our discussions and problems of attempting to get studios to release OAR versions of films not because the readers of HTF have large, sometimes 16:9 monitors, capable of reproducing a HiDef image with the correct input, but rather, because the other 95%+ of those who view films via home video don't.

Creating the potential of true HiDef VHS, while being a potentially wonderful thing, is not something that is going to have the capability of even being mentioned in the same ballpark as current or near-future DVD, ROM-based technology, the software of which can be reproduced for under $1.50/unit and sold as with many of the MGM titles, at under $10 via on-line stores.

While I will not and should attempt to suggest what your buying habits should be, my outlook is that DVDs are inexpensive enough that when the higher rez software is available, I will replace my current library on a title by title basis, as the quality, importance of the film and -- a great measure for me -- how often it comes off the shelf is concerned.

Life is too short to not purchase a well-produced DVD simply because we know that "x" years from now, it will be re-issued in what will hopefully be a better, clearner, sharper, whatever... version.

And as far as the ultimate quality of home theatre is concerned, we really should all be running our favorite films in $1,000+ 35mm prints. Its better than Hidef.

Somehow, I doubt that 35 million sets of 35mm projectors will be sold to the home environment in the next four years.
Again, good to see you on HTF.

RAH

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Hello Mr. Harris,
Some comments.

#From everything that I've seen, digital production is a #viable alternative to traditionally "filmed"
#entertainment, however at a lower resolution.
#it cannot yet yield an image of 35mm quality, especially at #its 1.8k resolution.

You are spoilt in this regard, I guess. You work with
35mm negatives and you know how prints look made from
these negatives. The rest of the world usually sees 4th+
generation material, often high speed prints with
poor color, contrast and sharpness. But even good prints
made from duplicate negatives have a MTF that's below
a digitally projected HD version upto 1080*1920. Above
there is not much going on.
The loss of resolution is quite shocking. In your home
using a top 9 inch CRT with a D-Theater source you
get a MTF that's at least as good as a normal 35mm print.
In addition color and contrast are better IMHO and the
black level, oh la la. I have never seen blacks like this
in a any cinema. I prefer watching good HD on my projector
to normal 35mm prints.

#Digital theatres are not yet ready as a mass environment, #and certainly not in the lower rez hardware and software #examples

I agree that the current 1280*1024 standard is insufficient
as a permanent standard. 3k*4K digitally projected on the
other hand will rival any print made from 35mm negatives.
I hope this is what we are aiming for.

#digital restoration as used via Metropolis can only work if #the extant elements are of a low
#enough standard that there is simply nothing else left on #the film that can be resolved. I would think
#that while this restoration will look superb on DVD when it #arrives next year, we are pushing the
#limits of 2k with certain shots.

I don't think that negatives from the 20s have much useful
information beyond 2K. But the scan should be 4:3 and not
16:9 with black borders.

#I would surmise that after 100 plays in a home environment, #that beautiful image which we may see
#via a HiDef VHS product is going to be getting awfully #problematic as opposed to DVD - HiDef or otherwise.

Maybe. But which film are you going to watch 100 times till
HD-DVD comes available? None. Parts of some, maybe.
It's a question of whether you want to wait some years
for HD-DVD with unknown bit rate or enjoy HD now at

 

[Robert Harris]

Re: Michel Hafner's comments:

I must agree that if one is viewing some of the 35mm output shipped by our major labs, that the HiDef experience can look better.

Some of these prints, whipping through printing and processng at some 5,000 feet per minute, make the concept of paying to view these murky images unpleasant.

When the prints are properly produced, however, with a good clean interpositive (from which the video master would be produced) and a equally well-produced dupe, that beautiful 35mm prints can be made, which surpass the high definition viewing experience.

All of our major labs have the capability to do this.

A well-produced 70mm print derived from a dupe negative is so far beyond the resolving power of digital and HiDef that there is no contest.

Re: digital restoration and 2k...

Much of what is being discussed is "blue skies" and is totally dependent upon the filmed element, literally on a shot by shot basis. With some of the early negs and masters from the 20s through 40s, much is found in nuance -- in that literal nitrate "sparkle" and detail, a small amount of which will not be seen in a 1.8k record out which must then be duped.

Much of the problem of 2k (1.8) digital work, is not so much with a print which might be struck directly via digital technology, but rather, as has been tested and proven by Pacific Title / Mirage, that even the production of a positive duplicating element via 2k (a fine grain) which will then be used to create a dupe neg and the resultant full-range print, that there is a much higher degree of image degradation with situations in which a digital stage is involved than in multiple generations of pure filmed elements. You should not be seeing the same amount of degradation via a 4k scan and record.

RAH

 

[MatthewA]

Mad World can only move forward if and when MGM finds a financial rationale for doing so.

Both of these films look to be unsalvageable by the middle of next year.

I think that's financial rationale enough for doing it.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Hi Mr. Harris,

#Much of what is being discussed is "blue skies" and is #totally dependent upon the filmed element,
#literally on a shot by shot basis. With some of the early #negs and masters from the 20s through 40s,
#much is found in nuance -- in that literal nitrate #"sparkle" and detail, a small amount of which will
#not be seen in a 1.8k record out which must then be duped.
#Much of the problem of 2k (1.8) digital work, is not so #much with a print which might be struck
#directly via digital technology, but rather, as has been #tested and proven by Pacific Title / Mirage,
#that even the production of a positive duplicating element #via 2k (a fine grain) which will then be
#used to create a dupe neg and the resultant full-range #print, that there is a much higher degree of
#image degradation with situations in which a digital stage #is involved than in multiple generations
#of pure filmed elements. You should not be seeing the same #amount of degradation via a 4k scan and record.

I would say that the problem is not the 2K or 4K but the
bits per sample. If you produce an optimised 8 bit 2K
version and project it digitally it already looks good.
If you produce a 2k 10 bit version and project it digitally
or make an optimal print directly from it it looks very
good. If you use 12 bits and 4K it becomes pretty much
indistinguishable from a 35mm print from the camera negative.
If you go digital you should stay digital till the end.
Going back and forth does not promote quality.
Yes, making a 10 bit master and transfer it several times
again in the anlogue domain is a bad idea. Analogue transfer
steps are never good. The fewer the better.
The whole digital cinema approach is still in its infancy.
The potential is huge, but current implementations are
lacking.
We have not yet seen how good Episode 2 actually looks. The
prints are not optimal. The digital projection lacks 33%
resolution and the black level is not very good. The
D-Theater version of this will outperform prints and TI
projections on a good CRT projector. That's a troubling
idea, isn't it?
Have you seen the prints of "Panic Room"? Made from a
2K digital master. They have scanline artifacts! And the
end credits look horrible. Badly done digital is not
acceptable.
MH