John Lowry working on restorations of Bond films, Star Wars, etc.: article (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

There is nothing wrong with digital restoration.

The quality of any digital work must be based upon the scanning mechanism, which involves not only image quality but image registration from frame to frame.

It would be most enlightening to view some of LDI's 4k digital output on film, and properly compared to an original analogue image.

RAH

 

[ElevSkyMovie]

Link for the unregistered NY Times readers.

 

[rich_d]

My takeaway is that progress is being made, not that some sort of end-state has been reached.

Some points:

I have limited faith in any archival efforts. How many films have been lost or damaged through studio blunders, accidents (fire etc.) or war? For example, as the Bond films were mentioned, it is my understanding that the original recordings for the Dr. No score are 'missing' (I think Goldfinger as well but I'm not sure). For anyone that has heard the "restored" audio cd that was released for Thunderball and others Bond films, that is a shame (not to mention what that means for the film itself).

To me, successful archiving is more about process then technology i.e. are the archival processes in place to successfully preserve a film?

The article also stated that engineers are already working on prototypes of DVDs and monitors that can handle 4,000 lines of resolution - so called "ultra-HDTV." My point being that if some suspect that DVDs are just a blip on the radar as we march towards HDTV and new HD-DVDs, they now might wonder whether HDTV is even a smaller blip as we move to an even better mouse trap. For consumers, perception is more important than reality and if the perception through word-of-mouth becomes that better stuff is coming - the average consumer will take a pass on HDTV and HD-DVD.

 

[Reagan]

At the very least, I'm excited that MGM is doing something better than what currently exists as the DVD masters for the Bond movies.

-Reagan

 

[Joshua Clinard]

I wasn't referring to storing a digital copy of a film on an analog medium like digital tape. Digital tape is still an analog medium, right? Remember that George Lucas shot Star Wars Episode II with a digital camera, but he released it on film. I was referring to storing a digital copy of the film on a digital medium, such as DVD or hard disks.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

There's nothing that inherently makes tape analog. The key is, is the content registered as 1's and 0's or not?

 

[Joshua Clinard]

Well even if it's not analog, it's still magnetic media, rather than digital media. And magnetic media is suceptible to interference and degredation, whereas digital media is not.

 

[Dave F]

Digital media can be stored optically or magnetically, and in some cases, can be _more_ susceptible to degredation.

-Dave

 

[Tim Glover]

Interesting article. Thanks for the link.

 

[Damin J Toell]

No. "Digital" and "analog" have nothing at all to do with the type of medium involved. "Digital" data is stored as 1s and 0s (or ons and offs, etc.). "Analog" data is stored as variable quantities (e.g., a waveform). Tape isn't inherently analog in any way. Digital tape isn't an analog medium, it is a digital one; digital analog tape would be something of an oxymoron. Tape can be digital (e.g., D-VHS, DAT), just as optical discs can be analog (e.g., the original laserdisc format, which was entirely analog in both audio and video).

"Digital media" is as suspectible to interference and degradation as "analog media." This depends on the type of media itself, not the nature of the data stored thereon.

DJ

 

[Joe_Pinney]

Speaking of film restoration, Mr. Harris, any idea of which source print for the video transfer of the upcoming Around the World in 80 Days was used? Was it the 70mm 30 fps Todd-AO print? http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto9.htm

And was a genuine photochemical restoration done, or was it a digital restoration using Warner Bros. proprietary Ultra Resolution software? I realize you may not have privileged information, I was just wondering if you'd heard anything from others in the restoration field who knew.

 

[Ted Todorov]

This discussion brings up a very interesting point: what is the best way to store digital data/audio/video?

My approach: Keep it stored on hard drives.

I would copy the older smaller hard drive onto a larger new hard drive (and onto a new computer if necessary) every couple of years. (This approach in no way replaces backups, which have to be done regularly, using duplexed hard drives or raid as well as removable optical media and tapes.)

The above approach has two advantages:

1) It insures that current computer equipment/software can still read the data.

2) It ensures that the data won't be lost because of tape or optical media failing due to old age.

Comments?

Ted

 

[Brian Kidd]

Hard drives are mechanical devices that are also succeptible to malfunction. The great thing about film is that the technology is so simple and yet so durable. People hundreds of years from now could look at a reel of film and with a little know-how could make it work. Not so with formats such as dvd and videotape. I think that the point Mr. Harris and others is making is that we have yet to find a true replacement for film. That's not to say that we won't; we're just not there yet.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Robert Harris probably knows more on the film than I (he once offered to restore it for Warners), but here's some stuff I researched:

- Warner had the 30fps 65mm negative repaired of lacquer coating on one reel.
- A new 65mm interpositive was created from the 30fps 65mm negative via wetgate (to remove scratching)
- Both the 24fps and 30fps negatives are in Warner's hands.

However, it's now rumored that the DVD is of the 24fps version and from a mix of 35mm and 65mm.

Two reels are supposedly from 35mm... which makes me wonder if they're the first and last (prologue and the credits).

 

[Juan.B]

I believe that the key to preserving is proper archiving. I don't see how any company can expect to preserve audio or video without really planning and implementing throrough archiving policies and procedures. As has been learned, you just can't place any media in a storage facility, no matter how precisely environmental factors are controlled and expect it to last forever.

That being said, I would think that digital sources would be much more useful for long-term preservation. As part of creating an archive process you would have to learn the limits and limitations of your media. You would need to keep abreast of new archiving technologies as they become available. Most important, you would need to develop a transfer cycle to move the digital data from one medium to another when required (i.e. current medium is approaching a point where degeneration may begin, technology/format obsolesence, or new technology offers vast improvements in capacities, etc). This is where I think a digital source would be more useful as there would be no degradation of the source as it is transferred from one media to another.

To do this would certainly require additional investments by the companies that are currently the caretakers of the intellectual property, an investment they are probably not willing to make to do it right.

I am no expert in any of these fields; these are just my opinions and ideas.

 

[DeeF]

I see the computer as film restoration's best tool, and Lowry is on the right track. Why not digitize all films, restore them using computer tools, and then print right back to film? Nothing is lost, and everything is gained. If somehow our ability to read the digital file becomes lost, we still have the film.

But, a question, to those in the know: although 4K sounds like ample resolution for older films like Gone With The Wind, would it be enough for large-format negatives, Todd-AO, Panavision, etc.?

Someone mentioned The Sound of Music, but I'm not sure Lowry's current process would work well for this movie, and others like it. The negatives for these movies are huge in comparison.

Additionally, it would seem wise (in some cases) to return to the source materials rather than scanning a print, in order to get the best possible digital copy. One thing always bothers me on Cinemascope DVDs -- the fades. Since these would have been made from copies at least 1 generation down, they always look less quality. It would be nice to return to the first generation negative and remake the fade.

The DVD of Giant is a good example of bad looking fades.

 

[David Coleman]

I'd also be interested in knowing what resolution would be required to scan a large format negative?

 

[RobertR]

I thought I had read that digital is still considerably inferior to film in terms of color resolution. Eight bits each for red, green, and blue is rather small. It should be more like 12 bits each. Or am I mistaken in this?

 

[Jay Pennington]

While it's great to hear they're using 4k now, it still doesn't approach the resolution of film. There is SO much information in a 35mm frame that can be extracted photographically if need be--once it's digitized a ceiling is placed on that potential, and anything beyond that is lost.

 

[Gary Palmer]

"But, a question, to those in the know: although 4K sounds like ample resolution for older films like Gone With The Wind, would it be enough for large-format negatives, Todd-AO, Panavision, etc.?"

A pertinent question, and one which sprang immediately to MY mind when I first heard of this technology. Here's a news item from the Imagica website in Japan which may go some way to answering the question, though the technology is still evolving (on a daily basis, it seems!):

"February 5, 2004...IMAGICA Corp., Tokyo, Japan, the leader in digital film scanners, announced today a 10K CCD option, which is the highest resolution in today’s market, to the newest film scanner in its product line, the IMAGER XE –ADVANCED.

"The IMAGER XE –ADVANCED scans 4096 pixels across a 35mm Academy frame and provides cineon format with full RGB color space (14bit A/D). The IMAGER XE – ADVANCED scans 2 seconds per frame for 2K down sampling and 4 seconds per frame for 4K original sampling with a new 5K- camera system. With the 10K CCD option, the scanning speed is 12 seconds per frame at 4K for 8K x 3K down sampling and 24 seconds per frame at 4K for 8k x 6k down sampling.

"Mr. Makoto Tsukada, Director of the Engineering Solutions Division at IMAGICA, says, “As for the scanning with 8K, its importance can be seen clearly in the case of 4K down sampling from 8K. The differences are apparent with 8K to 4K down sampling compared with 6K to 4K down sampling. Based on the Nyquist frequency theorem, if you would like to represent 4K precisely, it is necessary to scan originally beyond 8K. As for sampling of 8K to 4K in comparison with 6K to 4K sampling, this reproduces more faithfully the information on the original being recorded on the film, and its quality is going to be equivalent to 65mm 5p.”

"The IMAGER XE –ADVANCED will be formally launched at NAB2004, and the 10K CCD option will be introduced in July, 2004.

"IMAGICA scanners have been used on such films as The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Dr. Seuss' The Cat in the Hat, Intolerable Cruelty, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Badboys II, Charlie's Angels 2, Lord of the Rings: Two Towers, Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, Men in Black 2, I Spy, We Were Soldiers, Spiderman, Stuart Little 2, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Cats & Dogs, Enemy at the Gates, The Planet of the Apes, Scary Movie 2, Cast Away, and many others."

10K, huh? Does THAT qualify for extracting all the information inherent in a 35/65mm film print, I wonder?...

EDIT: Reading a little more, I've learned the Imager-EX Advanced is currently unable to scan 65mm film, only 35mm and 16mm, but this state of affairs surely won't last forever.

Link to story: http://www.ise.imagica.co.jp/MTE/archives/000025.html