Senior HTF Member
- Apr 4, 2005
- Real Name
- Joel Henderson
Also doesn't help that the 40s films don't have the visual information necessary to justify a 4k transfer.
Pardon? They were all shot on film, which means (assuming the film has been stored properly) that the piture can always be rescanned at ever-higher resolutions because film is continuous tone. It is the recent films shot digitally that will never look any better than they do at the digital camera's resolution, be it 2K, 4K or 8K. Anything beyond that will be interpolated. Something shot on film would just be rescanned.Also doesn't help that the 40s films don't have the visual information necessary to justify a 4k transfer.
Film may not have a fixed resolution, but there's little point in scanning 35mm at anything beyond 4K, as it holds somewhere between 3-4K of real image detail.Pardon? They were all shot on film, which means (assuming the film has been stored properly) that the piture can always be rescanned at ever-higher resolutions because film is continuous tone...
Hitchcock's film have probably less than 2 on average under all the processes and dupes. Remember he pushed the technology of his day to the breaking point and 1940s technology by today's standards was never meant to go that far.Film may not have a fixed resolution, but there's little point in scanning 35mm at anything beyond 4K, as it holds somewhere between 3-4K of real image detail.
And I can swear to the bra stuff. Not only was the last second cut away from Marion shrugging off her bra seared in my memory but even more seared in my memory was the round house gasp and chuckle by the entire audience at their own reaction to almost but not quite seeing Janet Leigh's bare breasts. It happened every time I saw the movie in the USA; Cincinnati, Ohio and Los Angeles, California area theaters from 1960 on its initial release and all through the early to mid-1960s when I saw it at least a half dozen times on re-releases and in revival theater presentations. I loved that big audience reaction, waited and looked forward to it in every screening. There is nothing about the edited scene as we have seen it in theaters since the early 1970s or on home video up until now that could possibly have caused that same 1960s audience reaction. No audience has been that innocent since the dawn of cinema.While I understand what the legion of decency wanted, this movie was seared into my brain when I saw it (and others who saw it who say exactly what I'm about to say): I can't swear to the bra stuff or even the blood on the hands stuff, but the multiple stabs of Arbogast were there - I remember when I saw the reissue and it was one stab thinking to myself, that isn't the way it was.
I submit the edited version of those three scenes is not what Hitchcock would ever have wanted to hit the theaters in 1960 because they don't accomplish nearly as much in terms of audience manipulation, logic and practicality as the unedited version.Peter,
That was fascinating to watch. Thank You.
There is no connection of that kind between 4K scanning and "noise reduction". Noise reduction or any form of grain management is related to esthetic goals or technical goals independent of 2K versus 4K versus 6K or higher scanning.If only for the single reason that 4K scanning and worklow of 35mm effectively removes the need for DVNR it’s best practise to use it. Anf then you have all that bitrate to record film grain. Grain is the oxygen and blood of film and without it film is mere plastic.
I would have to strongly disagree that using live music performance in a film screening turns cinema automatically into a "circus". I don't see why that should be the case if the music performance is not overwhelming the image visually or aurally in a way that was never intended by the film makers. Having experienced several such screenings my impressions were never negative (live piano music with classic silents, "Koyaanisqatsi" with the Philip Glass orchestra playing live, "Das Parfüm" with live orchestra and choir...).Anthony Mosfilm did a restoration of Ivan both parts a few years ago, and it was screened at Berlinale early 2018 but in a live concert version with live orch. My most loathed form of cinema as circus.
I think the average lay person would understand what I am saying. You are miscontruingbfor the sake of trashing my argument about 4K as a platform.There is no connection of that kind between 4K scanning and "noise reduction". Noise reduction or any form of grain management is related to esthetic goals or technical goals independent of 2K versus 4K versus 6K or higher scanning.
First of all, I must apologize for misstating who Hitchcock's personal assistant was during the filming of PSYCHO in my earlier post. She was Peggy Robertson, not Joan Harrison. Therefore, it is Peggy Robertson whose interview segments appear in the "Making of PSYCHO" documentary. She discusses the censorship issues in the movie at the 1:17 point in the documentary.... As to Janet Leigh's "slip" - yes, confusing in many ways. While you may be right, the other interpretation is "slip" meaning she slipped up and blinked at the end of the famous eye pull back shot - according to all, Alma caught it (no one else had, apparently), and he went in and put a cutaway to cover it.
Actually I'm not understanding your argument and I think it's a bad one for promoting 4K as a platform. There is no direct connection here. Maybe you just figured that since the amount of DNR has gone down since the DVD and early BD days there is a connection between 4K scanning and this. I don't see it. The felt "need" for DNR is first coming from technical limitations of compression on DVD and BD (wthether from 1080p telecines, 2K scans or 4K and higher scans). When the compression can't handle the grain/noise (because the encoder is not good enough or not used properly or the expense for a higher bit rate is unwelcome) then DNR is used as way out. And second DNR is used to imitate the look of clean digitally shot material or very fine grain film material when the source is quite grainy and thought to be met with disapproval and criticism from the intended target audience of a home video release. There is a direct connection between DNR and awareness of the proper look and texture of film and the technical availability of a delivery system for home cinema to render it accurately which high end BD and now UHD BD provide. Maybe that was your argument (which does not depend on scanning resolution)?I think the average lay person would understand what I am saying. You are miscontruingbfor the sake of trashing my argument about 4K as a platform.
Looks like a misunderstanding here. I was not talking about an edited TV presentation of a live music film screening but the screening itself as experienced by a member in the audience. Your text suggested the latter case, not the former. What you describe is indeed questionable and I would not be interested in watching this since it detracts from the enjoyment of the film and the added value of live music in a venue, providing a kind of Super Atmos system in real 3D, is negated by the retransmission over the TV channel and reproduction by TV hardware (which also goes for the image quality of the film itself).As to the concert presentaion of Ivan I suggest you find and watch a copy of the Arte TV broadcast of that event. More of the TV cameras’ time was spent on cutting to Close ups of the conductor and wide panning shots of the orchestra to the audience with the movie screen taking very much third place in the trifecta. The whole experience, here “produced” for TV was the most destructive and probably the worst ever example of this sort of “event” cinema I’ve ever seen.