A Few Words About A few words about...™ Singin' in the Rain -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Doctorossi]

Ultra Resolution in 2001 meant a 1080i image, which was the upper limit of HDTV home screens then...Ultra Resolution in 2012 means 4k resolution or a 2160p image!!!

Actually, it means neither. It means that Warner created the image by scanning separation masters and then digitally manipulating them, individually, to correct for differential shrinkage, warping, etc. before combining them, in the digital realm- this, as opposed to the conventional photo-optical process of combining them with an optical printer multipack, using only analog tools (if any) to correct for variance in picture geometry due to independent aging/storage circumstances.

 

[marknyc]

Yes, that's what I was referring to. Was that used for the 2001 DVD of SITR and why is this release not branded as such?

 

[Doctorossi]

Was that used for the 2001 DVD of SITR and why is this release not branded as such?

Yes, it was. If memory serves, it was their first effort completed with the process and, to the extent that they ever really highlight the process, in a branding sense, they hadn't really gotten that marketing point out of the gate yet.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by marknyc /t/322127/a-few-words-about-singin-in-the-rain-in-blu-ray/90#post_3948593
Yes, that's what I was referring to. Was that used for the 2001 DVD of SITR and why is this release not branded as such?

I think Warner Bros first ever ultra resolution effort was Singin' In The Rain in late 2002. So i don't think that 2001 DVD is covered.

Here is an article i found from August 2002 to back this up.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-91423055.html

 

[marknyc]

Sorry, I meant the 2002 DVD. There was a ton of branding about UR for "The Wizard of Oz" but I don't see it mentioned in the promos for the SITR Blu-ray - am I missing it?

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by marknyc /t/322127/a-few-words-about-singin-in-the-rain-in-blu-ray/90#post_3948603
Sorry, I meant the 2002 DVD. There was a ton of branding about UR for "The Wizard of Oz" but I don't see it mentioned in the promos for the SITR Blu-ray - am I missing it?

I imagine the 2002 DVD was one which utilized that ultra resolution process if it was released late 2002, but the film scan back in 2002 was probably 2K and i would add that film scanning technology has improved a lot since then and i wouldn't doubt they have refined the ultra resolution process and improved on it a little since those days too.

 

[Doctorossi]

the film scan back in 2002 was probably 2K

It was actually 1080i. They had to start over from (relative) scratch for the Blu-ray.

 

[Mark-P]

Sorry, I meant the 2002 DVD. There was a ton of branding about UR for "The Wizard of Oz" but I don't see it mentioned in the promos for the SITR Blu-ray - am I missing it?

Of the 9 movies that have received the Ultra-Resolution process (including The Searchers, which was UR from the separation masters) only one actually used the word "Ultra-Resolution" on the packaging, and that was An American in Paris.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi /t/322127/a-few-words-about-singin-in-the-rain-in-blu-ray/90#post_3948591
Actually, it means neither. It means that Warner created the image by scanning separation masters and then digitally manipulating them, individually, to correct for differential shrinkage, warping, etc. before combining them, in the digital realm- this, as opposed to the conventional photo-optical process of combining them with an optical printer multipack, using only analog tools (if any) to correct for variance in picture geometry due to independent aging/storage circumstances.

While your comment is correct, in reality, these are not "sep masters," as there is nothing to sep.

They're merely fine grains.

 

[NY2LA]

Of the 9 movies that have received the Ultra-Resolution process (including The Searchers, which was UR from the separation masters) only one actually used the word "Ultra-Resolution" on the packaging, and that was An American in Paris.

I wonder if generic technology has leapfrogged their original "proprietary" process to the point where they don't feel they can brand it... which of course wouldn't stop Disney, with their Disney DVDs, Disney Digital 3D and Disney Blue Ray, as if they invented all that. I hear the Disney parks are developing a Disney Doo-Doo-Seat - exclusive Mickey shaped toilet seat with dual cup (or TP) holders on the sides...

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by NY2LA /t/322127/a-few-words-about-singin-in-the-rain-in-blu-ray/90#post_3948632
I wonder if generic technology has leapfrogged their original "proprietary" process to the point where they don't feel they can brand it... which of course wouldn't stop Disney, with their Disney DVDs, Disney Digital 3D and Disney Blue Ray, as if they invented all that. I hear the Disney parks are developing a Disney Doo-Doo-Seat - exclusive Mickey shaped toilet seat with dual cup (or TP) holders on the sides...

No. The technology has matured.

RAH

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey /t/322127/a-few-words-about-singin-in-the-rain-in-blu-ray/90#post_3948532
Since the HD can be reused many times, the cost per event is only around $48 using your numbers plus some small amortized amount for the harddisk. They could even send the data by satellite but rather than "live" so the stream speed is limited by instant bandwidth, they could record to their projector internal disk over many more hours.

But the event is listed for one day only two shows that day on hundreds of screens. The hard drive goes back and is erased for use in the future of other titles for if not reused the cost of the hard drive can just get close to a thousand. No need to store hundreds of hard drives for a movie that will not be used again anytime soon. So all that cost is allocated for the one event. That is one of the economical reasons for going digital, no need to store inventory.

Being sent over satellite, it is stored on a NCM library system in the theatre for the event and not live. The only real cost is the satellite time, while sending hard discs involves actual physical media for each theatre.

I am sure Warner Classics has four or five of the hard drives on hand.

 

[Doctorossi]

While your comment is correct, in reality, these are not "sep masters," as there is nothing to sep.
They're merely fine grains.

What would Warner be re-combining with the Ultra-Resolution process, if not separation masters? Wouldn't a "fine grain" just be an IN printmaster (ie. a single full-color strip)?

 

[NY2LA]

No.  The technology has matured.
RAH

Meaning they can still claim to be the only ones with the capacity to get "ultra resolution" from three YCMs in a digital realm? Not only Technicolor movies have YCMs done on them, so one wonders where the lines are drawn, and why WOULDN'T they slap the UR brand on it if they had done it again?

 

[Doctorossi]

Meaning they can still claim to be the only ones with the capacity to get "ultra resolution" from three YCMs in a digital realm? Not only Technicolor movies have YCMs done on them, so one wonders where the lines are drawn, and why WOULDN'T they slap the UR brand on it if they had done it again?

To my understanding, The Ultra-Resolution Process is Warner's brand name for not just the scanning and re-combination of YCMs, but the application in that process of their own proprietary software for massaging that re-combination. Now, it's entirely possible (probable?) that other studios and/or facilities have software that performs equivalent functions with similar results, but their software is not Warner's proprietary software and that (for whatever its worth) is what makes "The Ultra-Resolution Process" Warner's exclusive domain.

 

[marknyc]

I don't understand. WHV touted Ultra Resolution for "The Wizard of Oz" like crazy - there's even an entire documentary on the process on the Blu-ray. But I don't see it mentioned at all in the press materials for this release of SITR. Or did I miss it somewhere? We're sure UR was used for this release, right?

 

[NY2LA]

To my understanding, The Ultra-Resolution Process is Warner's brand name for not just the scanning and re-combination of YCMs, but the application in that process of their own proprietary software for massaging that re-combination. Now, it's entirely possible (probable?) that other studios and/or facilities have software that performs equivalent functions with similar results, but their software is not Warner's proprietary software and that (for whatever its worth) is what makes "The Ultra-Resolution Process" Warner's exclusive domain.

Yeah that's how I understood it. HOWEVER - from the huge changes in their packaging (which we used to really like) to their current affinity for trying to make every vintage release look contemporary, there seem to be new folks in charge. Maybe THAT'S why we're not seeing or hearing much about Ultra Resolution. Calling Ned Price!!!

 

[marknyc]

I would sure like to see the words "Ultra Resolution" on this Blu-ray before I buy it.

 

[NY2LA]

I would sure like to see the words "Ultra Resolution" on this Blu-ray before I buy it.

While it would be nice to see that term on the packaging, I really don't think it means much that it's not there. Clearly the folks in marketing now at Warner are not as tech savvy or interested as the previous team. I placed my order based on the effusive words from the naturally critical Mr. Harris... and from the understanding that if I kept the previous 2 disc Special Edition and just bought the single disc release I wouldn't miss any of the video content in the new big box. And tomorrow when the Target and Bestbuy circulars come out we'll see if there are any other editions to consider.

 

[Robert Harris]

What would Warner be re-combining with the Ultra-Resolution process, if not separation masters? Wouldn't a "fine grain" just be an IN printmaster (ie. a single full-color strip)?

The black & white negatives of Three-strip Technicolor productions were protected by black & white fine grains. These fine grains can be composited in the same way as the negatives from which they were produced. But there is no color involved in the process. Black & white negs, corresponding fine grains, andn no separation of anything.
None of these elements are on color stock. Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Singin' in the Rain. All black & white productions.
And yes, I have no doubt that the elements were composited via UR.
RAH