Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

A few words about...™ The Red Shoes -- in Blu-ray

A Few Words About

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#21 of 65 BethHarrison

BethHarrison

    Second Unit

  • 435 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 07 2007

Posted July 05 2010 - 11:34 PM



Originally Posted by Andy_G 

Out of curiosity, just how much better are modern stocks at resolving fine detail than those from the 40s, 50s, and 60s? Is it even possible to conduct a test that would say? Can Super-35 today match VistaVision from the 50s?

I've kind of wondered about this regarding early Super 35 films, say those made in the mid-1980s to mid-1990s. Before digital intermediates, early Super 35 films were all converted to widescreen by extracting the widescreen portion of the image using an optical printer.  It is quite possible that the best way to transfer Super 35 films to Blu-ray (or rather, a new 4K master) would be to go back to the negative in order to avoid the optical printing step. Of course that would mean having to time the entire film again, but at least there should be easily available prints.



#22 of 65 Worth

Worth

    Screenwriter

  • 1,062 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 17 2009

Posted July 06 2010 - 01:42 AM



Originally Posted by marsnkc 

I just read Matt's review of Red Shoes. I have a question that, since it's not a thread, I have to ask here.


He refers to the aspect ratio as 1.33:1. I keep seeing this number being referred to as the 'Academy' ratio. Isn't the old Academy ratio actually 1.37:1 while 1.33:1 was the old TV ratio (prior to 16:9) established for overscan purposes? If so, are these older Academy ratio movies now transferred to video in their full 1.37:1 number (or were they always), and is that what we're getting on our current sets? In short, when I get The Red Shoes, will I be seeing it in 1.37:1?


You're talking about a handful of pixels on either side. It's even less significant than the difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1. Even the best theatres in the world, with the most dedicated projectionists, will have far greater variances than that.


Sealed with a curse as sharp as a knife. Doomed is your soul and damned is your life.

#23 of 65 Mike Frezon

Mike Frezon

    Studio Mogul

  • 28,823 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 09 2001
  • LocationRensselaer, NY

Posted July 06 2010 - 01:52 AM



Originally Posted by marsnkc 

I just read Matt's review of Red Shoes. I have a question that, since it's not a thread, I have to ask here.



DVD review thread is HERE.


There's Jessie the yodeling cowgirl. Bullseye, he's Woody's horse. Pete the old prospector. And, Woody, the man himself.Of course, it's time for Woody's RoundUp. He's the very best! He's the rootinest, tootinest cowboy in the wild, wild west!


HTF Rules | HTF Mission Statement | Father of the Bride

Dieting with my Dog & Heart to Heart/Hand in Paw by Peggy Frezon


#24 of 65 Russell G

Russell G

    Fake Shemp

  • 9,648 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 20 2002
  • Real Name:Russell
  • LocationDeadmonton

Posted July 06 2010 - 08:11 AM

I have this on a blind bought pre-order with Black Narcissus.  I've not seen either film, but I've heard too many good things about both of them that I thought I'd give it a shot.  I can't wait for them to arrive!


My wallet cries me to sleep!
 
This post kills threads!


#25 of 65 Matt Hough

Matt Hough

    Executive Producer

  • 10,696 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 2006
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted July 06 2010 - 08:54 AM



Originally Posted by marsnkc 

I just read Matt's review of Red Shoes. I have a question that, since it's not a thread, I have to ask here.


He refers to the aspect ratio as 1.33:1. I keep seeing this number being referred to as the 'Academy' ratio. Isn't the old Academy ratio actually 1.37:1 while 1.33:1 was the old TV ratio (prior to 16:9) established for overscan purposes? If so, are these older Academy ratio movies now transferred to video in their full 1.37:1 number (or were they always), and is that what we're getting on our current sets? In short, when I get The Red Shoes, will I be seeing it in 1.37:1?


I was using the listed aspect ratio on the Criterion liner notes in giving the specs for the release.



#26 of 65 Andy_G

Andy_G

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 212 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 29 2000

Posted July 06 2010 - 09:58 AM



Originally Posted by BethHarrison 



I've kind of wondered about this regarding early Super 35 films, say those made in the mid-1980s to mid-1990s. Before digital intermediates, early Super 35 films were all converted to widescreen by extracting the widescreen portion of the image using an optical printer.  It is quite possible that the best way to transfer Super 35 films to Blu-ray (or rather, a new 4K master) would be to go back to the negative in order to avoid the optical printing step. Of course that would mean having to time the entire film again, but at least there should be easily available prints.


I would guess that the optical printing went until at least the early part of the 2000s, if not after. In any case, I expect that almost all such films would have a properly timed interpositive without an optical step, if only for the creation of 4x3 masters for video. But if you're going to do a 4k scan, I would think that you'd want to go back to the OCN anyway. Isn't this roughly what happened with Godfather part 3?



#27 of 65 Stephen_J_H

Stephen_J_H

    All Things Film Junkie

  • 3,873 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2003
  • Real Name:Stephen J. Hill
  • LocationNorth of the 49th

Posted July 06 2010 - 10:27 AM




Originally Posted by Andy_G 




I would guess that the optical printing went until at least the early part of the 2000s, if not after. In any case, I expect that almost all such films would have a properly timed interpositive without an optical step, if only for the creation of 4x3 masters for video. But if you're going to do a 4k scan, I would think that you'd want to go back to the OCN anyway. Isn't this roughly what happened with Godfather part 3?





Originally Posted by BethHarrison 



I've kind of wondered about this regarding early Super 35 films, say those made in the mid-1980s to mid-1990s. Before digital intermediates, early Super 35 films were all converted to widescreen by extracting the widescreen portion of the image using an optical printer.  It is quite possible that the best way to transfer Super 35 films to Blu-ray (or rather, a new 4K master) would be to go back to the negative in order to avoid the optical printing step. Of course that would mean having to time the entire film again, but at least there should be easily available prints.



Let's not forget that the earliest Super 35 films were actually Tushinsky Superscope (the "super" in Super 35); one wonders what those films would end up looking like now if it were possible to go back to the OCN and digitally harvest the 2:1 extraction from the frame. My guess would be similar to Techniscope films of somewhat later vintage. As for those from the 80s and 90s, I personally would love to see The Abyss and True Lies handled this way. Does anyone know how the latest transfer of T2 was handled?


"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

#28 of 65 Vincent_P

Vincent_P

    Screenwriter

  • 1,696 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 13 2003

Posted July 06 2010 - 10:35 AM

In the pre-Digital Intermediate age, the Super35-to-anamorphic optical conversion occurred in the InterPositive-to-InterNegative printing stage, so the color-timed IP was contact-printed from the negative and still in the original Super-35 format.  Said IPs were traditionally then used for the video transfers.


Vincent



#29 of 65 marsnkc

marsnkc

    Second Unit

  • 425 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 22 2006

Posted July 06 2010 - 11:50 AM

Thanks all for your responses to the Academy ratio question. I wasn't being anal about the negligible difference, have just always been curious. All that 'stuff' fascinates me. Didn't know 'til recently that 'M's aspect ratio is 1.19:1, the silent film ratio minus the space taken up by that new-fangled sound thing......./img/vbsmilies/htf/drool.gif



#30 of 65 marsnkc

marsnkc

    Second Unit

  • 425 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 22 2006

Posted July 06 2010 - 12:33 PM

Mike F. will kill me for going off topic again, but I have a question about the aspect ratio of a movie that I am anal about. When I finally saw the restored Lawrence in 65mm at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood in 1994 (circumstances prevented me from seeing it in '89), the first thing I noticed - and it bothered me no end because I want every centimetre of it - was more of St. Paul's Cathedral than on my Criterion laserdisc (ergo, more of everything else than on the disc).

I've never seen the discrepancy mentioned anywhere and have always wondered if the transfer was a compromise for the sake of more picture and better resolution on our comparatively pathetic boxes. (As Lean, tongue in cheek, said at the premiere of the restored epic, 'The box is all right, but.........')



#31 of 65 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,323 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted July 06 2010 - 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marsnkc 

Mike F. will kill me for going off topic again, but I have a question about the aspect ratio of a movie that I am anal about. When I finally saw the restored Lawrence in 65mm at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood in 1994 (circumstances prevented me from seeing it in '89), the first thing I noticed - and it bothered me no end because I want every centimetre of it - was more of St. Paul's Cathedral than on my Criterion laserdisc (ergo, more of everything else than on the disc).

I've never seen the discrepancy mentioned anywhere and have always wondered if the transfer was a compromise for the sake of more picture and better resolution on our comparatively pathetic boxes. (As Lean, tongue in cheek, said at the premiere of the restored epic, 'The box is all right, but.........')


That would be because the film element used for the Criterion laserdisc was a rejected 35mm print, and not by Criterion's wishes.


"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#32 of 65 Harrison Shinn

Harrison Shinn

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 74 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 08 2000

Posted July 07 2010 - 07:21 PM

I can't wait for this and BLACK NARCISSUS.  In fact, I'm anxious for all of Powell & Pressburger's films on BD.


bright white coming alive
jumping off on the aerial

#33 of 65 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,323 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted July 07 2010 - 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H 

Let's not forget that the earliest Super 35 films were actually Tushinsky Superscope (the "super" in Super 35); one wonders what those films would end up looking like now if it were possible to go back to the OCN and digitally harvest the 2:1 extraction from the frame. My guess would be similar to Techniscope films of somewhat later vintage. As for those from the 80s and 90s, I personally would love to see The Abyss and True Lies handled this way. Does anyone know how the latest transfer of T2 was handled?


I don't believe that there was anything "super" about the Tushinsky process.


They took normally exposed spherical negatives and adapted them to a 2:1 anamorphic.  The earliest of which I'm aware are the '60s Hitchcock films printed in dye transfer, which took advantage of the track area for image.  I'm quite certain there were others.


One of the early S35 blow-ups that stands out in my mind was John Alcott, BSC's work on Greystoke - The Legend of Tarzan. Magnificent.  Imdb lists this as Super-Techniscope 3-perf, which sounds wrong.


RAH


"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#34 of 65 Andy_G

Andy_G

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 212 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 29 2000

Posted July 08 2010 - 12:14 AM

So The Birds was shot FA? Interesting. That means that going back to the OCN should deliver some extra sharpness.


#35 of 65 Stephen_J_H

Stephen_J_H

    All Things Film Junkie

  • 3,873 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2003
  • Real Name:Stephen J. Hill
  • LocationNorth of the 49th

Posted July 08 2010 - 01:39 PM



Originally Posted by Robert Harris 

Quote:


I don't believe that there was anything "super" about the Tushinsky process.



RAH

I was merely pointing out the connection between the two filming methods. There definitely wasn't anything super about Superscope; I was just wondering aloud if any added resolution could possibly be harvested from the OCNs of Superscope films. The real trick, of course, would be finding them. We know that the OCN for Invasion of the Body Snatchers is probably gone.


"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

#36 of 65 Vincent_P

Vincent_P

    Screenwriter

  • 1,696 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 13 2003

Posted July 08 2010 - 01:47 PM



Originally Posted by Andy_G 

So The Birds was shot FA? Interesting. That means that going back to the OCN should deliver some extra sharpness.


I thought THE BIRDS was VistaVision.  There's a pretty good looking 720P High-Def download version available for rental on the PS3 network.


Vincent



#37 of 65 Andy_G

Andy_G

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 212 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 29 2000

Posted July 08 2010 - 01:52 PM

As far as I know NxNW was Hitch's last VistaVision movie. I always understood The Birds to have been shot flat on standard 35mm.


#38 of 65 Jack Theakston

Jack Theakston

    Supporting Actor

  • 848 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2003

Posted July 08 2010 - 08:05 PM

My understanding is that THE BIRDS was a full-aperture pix neg, reduced to Academy spec by Technicolor.  This practice went back to the pre-widescreen era, when Fox and Universal were doing the same to combat softness in dye-transfer prints during the period where screens started to get bigger.


-J. Theakston

#39 of 65 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,323 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted July 08 2010 - 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H 

I was merely pointing out the connection between the two filming methods. There definitely wasn't anything super about Superscope; I was just wondering aloud if any added resolution could possibly be harvested from the OCNs of Superscope films. The real trick, of course, would be finding them. We know that the OCN for Invasion of the Body Snatchers is probably gone.


Why would one suppose that?


"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#40 of 65 Andy_G

Andy_G

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 212 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 29 2000

Posted July 09 2010 - 01:27 AM

If my math is right, shooting FA for 1.85 gets you north of 55 extra mm^2 negative area, roughly a 23% increase. It's not VistaVision, but assuming your optical step isn't bad (or that you can use a DI), it's useful. It also has the added benefit of preventing any release prints from being printed off the OCN.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: A Few Words About

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users