A Few Words About A few words about...™ Dr. Zhivago -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Adam_S]

I think the cost issue was referring to the cost of data storage if they went out of house. by doing their scanning at 8k in house they can keep it affordable. Most places charge by the Gigabyte or Terrabye, I think, and scanning at 8k is a frame is a lot of data (iirc a 4k frame is 55MB give or take, so 8k would be 220MB/frame), so 165 min x 60 sec x 24 frames x 55MB is the minimum data or about 5 TB for a 4k scan (or 20TB for an 8k scan) for a single movie. If a place is charging you 500$/week for every 4TB of storage, that means it could quickly become $2500/week to store an 8k scan. you can see why most movies are scanned at 2k, which if it were Zhivago would be about 1.25TB for the entire movie. By doing it in house, WB can just buy $5000 worth of Hard Drives to add to their server farm for Zhivago's 8k scan and call it a day.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Ken_McAlinden

Truth be told, I actually prefer "Ryan's Daughter" to "Dr. Zhivago".

My first memory of seeing a movie, was seeing Ryan's Daughter from the back seat of a car in a DRIVE IN at 4 years old. I think I mostly remember it because it was the first time I saw a topless woman!

I have wondered my whole life what my parents were thinking taking 3 kids to see a 3 1/2 hour movie at a drive in!

Doug

 

[benbess]

Steve: I too would love to see Lawrence and Kwai. Both amazing films. I think we will eventually see both of them, since they are acclaimed films, hits, and each won the Academy award for Best picture iirc.

Lawrence, however, is going to be tough. The original version was cut significantly for wide release, and as was the practice that day for too many films, I think they just threw the "extra" parts of the negative away. It's just unbelievable. For the 1989 restoration they found some prints that were complete, and used those for mastering a new complete version of the film that was pretty much like the the long version from 1962. I remember, however, as I watched the film in 70mm at the big Newport in Orange County (nice theater) that the pq varied quite a bit. For things sourced from the original negative it was great, but for scenes sourced from these prints that were the only source for some scenes, it just wasn't as good. Perhaps these days some of it can be fixed, but no doubt it will be complicated and costly, and still I think the pq will be only so-so for some scenes.

Kwai, I think, might be in better shape. But I'm not sure...

Adam s: Thanks for that explanation. Makes more sense now. So...If for an old TV show they just scanned it at 2k (would that be good enough for blu?) it might be more cost effective. I wonder what Star Trek tos was scanned at...?

Douglas: That is funny! Maybe they couldn't get a babysitter that night? And probably they thought you and your siblings would just sleep through most of it?

I have a fond memory of seeing Chitty Chitty Bang Bang in a drive in at age 4. Not a great movie, but I wonder if it'll ever come to blu...

 

[Vincent_P]

You're wrong about LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Robert Harris was able to find the negative trims in reconstructing the original Roadshow version of the film. For some shots where the negative was heavily damaged, he went to the black-and-white separation masters and optically recombined them to create new INs for those shots, which were then cut into the negative in place of the damaged footage. I've seen the restored LAWRENCE in 70mm four times and the vast majority of it was absolutely stunning visually.

Vincent

 

[benbess]

Vincent: That's great to hear~! I only saw it once in 70mm, but as you say that vast majority of it was stunning visually--and in every other way. There were just a few scenes where the pq wasn't as good, but the overall experience was exceptional. I already knew and loved the film from watching it on tv, but the 70mm presentation was jaw dropping.

 

[Xylon]

I think my Laserdisc look 1,000,000 times better

 

[Doug Otte]

Originally Posted by benbess
For instance, Star Trek is the only TV show I know made before 1980 to make it to blu. I would like to see other shows too, but it doesn't seem likely. Star Trek, as we all know, has a fanatic fan base (that I'm part of) and so it makes sense there. But for other shows--classic Westerns, dramas and comedies, it doesn't look that likely...

Don't forget about The Prisoner! It looks even better than Star Trek, but unfortunately they chose to give us only a Dolby Digital soundtrack instead of lossless.

Doug

 

[Robert Harris]

Here's an interesting look inside from the Motion Picture Editors Guild:

https://www.editorsguild.com/FromTheGuild.cfm?FromTheGuildid=159

 

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Here's an interesting look inside from the Motion Picture Editors Guild:

https://www.editorsguild.com/FromTheGuild.cfm?FromTheGuildid=159

Excellent article. Thanks.

And thanks for this: "For color reference, they used Lean's personal print, a dye transfer by Technicolor in the UK, which was on deposit from restoration guru Robert Harris at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences."

!!

Can't wait to see this film almost like it was for the first time.

 

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Doug Otte





Don't forget about The Prisoner! It looks even better than Star Trek, but unfortunately they chose to give us only a Dolby Digital soundtrack instead of lossless.

Doug

Doug: Yes, I should take a look at the Prisoner. Haven't seen it for 20 years...

 

[24fpssean]

Very nice article, Robert. I didn't see that in the latest issue I received!

 

[Adam_S]

Here's an article linked on the bits about Library of Congress' restoration system. It's interesting hearing about their experiments with 2k and 4k and the problems of data transfer workflow. I can attest that transferring a lot of online/full resolution video data is a bitch because of how much space it takes up. Sounds like they preserve data to data tape rather than data disc (Harddrive).

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-library-of-congress-unlocks-the-ultimate-archive-system

Also comparing to the auteurs article linked above, it sounds like WB has solved one of the problems, in terms of using digital as a tool to stabilize and create a new film element in how they went with Zhivago from unstable original to 8k digital scan back out as a stable film image, even before restoration, as the best way to create a new stable film element.

I did get my numbers above mixed up, according to the article, a 4k scan is 128MB/frame not 55. iirc 2k is about 55MB/frame.

 

[Brian Husar]

Thanks Robert, I just bought this and this will have to be one of those we vote on for the HTF top 10 next year. Just goes to show that Warners, and Sony are the best for Blu Ray right now. Criterion is ..well Criterion...you always expect quality, Universal is now scary. Warner's did right by this release.

 

[Adam_S]

just wanted to point out that while most etailers have this at about 28.99, barnes and noble currently has it at 40% off for $22!


And if you're a AAA member you can get an additional 10% discount and there's a 15% coupon for AAA members, you can get Zhivago for 16.51 altogether.

 

[Paul_Scott]

I just followed your other post in the Bargains thread too Adam. While I paid $16.51 (+ tax), there are even better discounts out there through B&N.

Another B&N portal that will yield an even bigger discount and give you free express shipping to boot- with no minimum purchase, and you don't have to be a member to use the coupons. The link and coupon code are in the bargain thread.


Still happy with the $16.51 I paid (well, $18 total), but a bucks a buck for most people and every little bit helps.

 

I noticed that the opening credits differed slightly from the previous 2-disc edition. The credits for Metrocolor and Panavision are different. Also, there is some softness in the middle of the screen during the titles. Look at Omar Shariff's name. It is smudged. Is this a fault with the transfer?

 

[24fpssean]

I noticed that, too, especially during the digital cinema projection I saw a few months ago at Warners. I think it's a flaw built in during shooting the opening titles on the animation stand; not only is it out of focus in the same spot throughout most of the titles, but if you look closely you can see the title cells lifting up slightly, with a shadow underneath. At least, that's what it looked like projected on a giant theatre screen.


Another lens anomaly was removed towards the end of part I; the long shot of the train chugging along from left to right across the snow, there used to be what looked like a flaw in the lens or some smudge on the lens in the upper right that follows the train as the camera follows the train. That looks like it's been digitally removed.


There is also some odd shimmering in various parts of the image, which is absolutely perfect by the way. It's more like a flicker, almost as if the image were flickering out for one or two frames. Happens a lot in part II. I think it's digital restoration on severe negative damage; this negative was in god awful shape. Don't know if they used print frames to replace damaged negative frames, but there are a handful of flickers, or quavers in the image, which is otherwise stunning. Never liked Zhivago and now that I see it in all its detail, it works better for me.

 

[benbess]

Originally Posted by 24fpssean

I noticed that, too, especially during the digital cinema projection I saw a few months ago at Warners. I think it's a flaw built in during shooting the opening titles on the animation stand; not only is it out of focus in the same spot throughout most of the titles, but if you look closely you can see the title cells lifting up slightly, with a shadow underneath. At least, that's what it looked like projected on a giant theatre screen.


Another lens anomaly was removed towards the end of part I; the long shot of the train chugging along from left to right across the snow, there used to be what looked like a flaw in the lens or some smudge on the lens in the upper right that follows the train as the camera follows the train. That looks like it's been digitally removed.


There is also some odd shimmering in various parts of the image, which is absolutely perfect by the way. It's more like a flicker, almost as if the image were flickering out for one or two frames. Happens a lot in part II. I think it's digital restoration on severe negative damage; this negative was in god awful shape. Don't know if they used print frames to replace damaged negative frames, but there are a handful of flickers, or quavers in the image, which is otherwise stunning. Never liked Zhivago and now that I see it in all its detail, it works better for me.

Interesting. Just got my copy today. I imagine I'll see these things when I watch it.


Why didn't you like the film before? I was always quite impressed by it, even on vhs or broadcast. The intermission sure was planned dramatically, wasn't it?

 

The Intermission card pops up and scares me!

 

[24fpssean]

I never liked Zhivago because I was too young to like it. Now being in my forties, I understand it better. I still have reservations about it but am drawn back to it over and over. It's fascinating to watch. Lean himself felt that the novel was second rate but that it afforded some great visuals. He was right. But it seems to me that Zhivago is one of those famous twentieth century novels, like Howards End, that everyone says should be filmed, but when it is filmed, its shortcomings are broadly revealed.


Still, it is what it is, and what it is is pure Visual Poetry.