Robert Harris on The Bits - 11/15 Special column - OFFICIAL THREAD (1 Viewer)

[MatthewA]

Is it possible that the negative and fine grain masters could have ended up outside the US?

 

[PaulBigelow]

Hello,

What a great rescue. I guess the efforts to keep the
one thing on earth that didn't need to be lost resulted
in just that. I wonder how many of these films are
"lost" and how many may be stolen. Storage is, no doubt,
better today but such wasn't always the case.

On an audio note, I'm still upset about the Atlantic
Records tape "vault" fire. Hopefully film elements
aren't stored in wooden warehouses.

 

[oscar_merkx]

here is another article about the restoration
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../film_dvd_dc_1

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Some points concerning the (lack of) grain issue.
Grain per se is neither good nor bad. These days it's a
tool you can use or not use. A best quality print from a
modern well exposed original negative is practically grain
free. The reason you are still seeing a lot of grain in
release prints is usually grain build-up caused by several
generations of analogue copying, often high speed and with
inferior film stock to save money. These prints are not
representative of what the original photography looks like.
In some cases the grain in release prints is intentional
and intended by the director. In many cases it's not.
When you watch today's HD transfers and compare them to
the average 35mm print the first thing you often
notice is that the HD is much cleaner and has a lot less grain. What you see is how the interpositive (and sometimes
the camera negative) really looks like in that regard.
Grain can also be digitally simulated and added back to
imagery that has none (such as CGI material) to make it
blend in with live footage.
When it comes to restoring (old) films with digital
technology the goal should always be to restore the film
to its original look as intended by the film makers.
The amount of grain in an original release print made from
the camera negative is certainly a good indicator of what
that look is. If you are forced to use dupe negatives
and dupe interpositives you have more grain due to grain
build up. Reducing that grain to original release print
levels is appropriate and sound IF it does not leave
an objectionable trail of grain removal artifacts behind.
Removing the grain entirely does not provide an authentic
look if the negative itself has more grain than this, since
the film makers would have been unable to make such
release prints even with today's technology (not using
digital tools). Speculating they would have used such tools
or shot the film grain free on negative or with digital
cameras is unsound unless the film makers themselves
confirm it and supervise that kind of restoration.
On the other hand I find it amusing to hear claims that
film has always visible grain and if it does not it's
video and not film, bad, and to avoid. That's rubbish.
Film grain has been a constant part of the film look for a
long time due to technological reasons. Artists have used
the grain to good effect and it's crucial for the
look of many film. But after all it's a technological
artifact and in no way sacrosanct. If you have technology
that has a grain/noise level below the visibility threshold
and allows you to provide that kind of image to the end
consumer you have got a new world of artistic expression
just as valid as the old one. The old world is always part
of the possibilities of the new world, but not vice versa.
There are exciting times ahead for film makers and film
artists that will use these possibilities creatively and
have a degree of control over the look of their films upto
the end consumer that was simply not feasible before.
Michel Hafner

 

[Rob Tomlin]

After viewing this DVD via Netflix, I must say that I am very impressed with the restoration methods used here. The DVD looks fantastic!
I immediately went out and purchased this disc after being blown away by both the movie and the DVD quality.
:star: :star: :star: :star: