Robert Harris on The Bits - 7/1/02 column - OFFICIAL THREAD (1 Viewer)

[Ken_McAlinden]

Badly done digital is not acceptable.

That gets to the crux of the issue. Who wants to supplant badly done 35mm with badly done digital? At least with 35mm, there is the possibility of better presentations if one goes back to early generation elements, but if digital image capture or restoration is done at resolutions and bit depths that are supposed to be competetive with current low standards for mass-produced 35mm prints and projections, then that's as good as it will get.

The reality is that standards for typical theatrical presentation are quite low, which makes not-so-hot digital projection look pretty good by comparison. In the world of filmmaking and film restoration, however, one hopes that the standards (digital and analog) remain much higher even if the work will eventually be "downconverted". This at least allows for the possibility of high-quality presentations with a little care and ability.

Regards,

 

[Juan.B]

Mr. Harris,

It's a shame that the restoration of The Alamo or Mad World has not started. Is there any good news? Are you actively working on any restorations at the moment?

Juan

 

[Rob Keil]

Mr. Harris-

Thanks for a terriffic article. I understand the restoration process so much better now. I saw your talk at the Castro theater in San Francisco when you were in the midst of restoring "Vertigo" and was really impressed, although I was a bit ignorant at the time on the process. The intervening years and this new article have really added to my understanding of the different basic restoration problems and solutions. Absolutely fascinating stuff.

What is your opinion of the outcome of the "Star Wars" restoration Lucasfilm and Pacific Title did in 1996? Do you think the damage to the negative was exclusively due to the use of Kodak CRI? I saw some "before and after" shots that looked really impressive but felt that overall the blacks had become too dark and therefore the shadows were lacking in detail, as well as a loss of tonal range in the whites. This was in the film as a whole and not limited to process shots where CRI was most likely used. I actually compared my laserdisc copies of both films and noticed the transfers are quite different. I have heard that the "Definitive Collection" Laserdisc set was mastered from an interpositive, and the "Special Edition" I assume, was mastered form the all-new restored negative. I also understand that "Empire" and "JedI" were shot on real 70mm as opposed to anamorphic 35mm, and had very few problems as compared to the original "Star Wars." I'd love to hear what your thoughts are on the results of this project.

Thanks again for the great article and for your continuing work in a field that is so important yet is so overlooked by the general public.

 

[Robert Harris]

Re: Rob Keil...

We had a great time in SF and the Castro is one of America's true showplaces, inclusive of its ghost in the balcony.

Most of the work on the Star Wars restoration was done at Pacific Title, while I would think that ILM had a hand in it also. The problems were caused by the CRI stock which had faded.

The Star Wars effects (and if someone from ILM or LucasFilm is tuned in here, please do add your comments) were originally shot on VistaVision 35/8perf and composited to 35/4 Panavision. I don't know if the original elements were still available to be re-composited.

CE3K had precisely the same problem, the only difference being that its effects were shot on 65mm.

As far as I know, Empire and Jedi were shot on 35 anamorphic Panavision. The effects probably also on VVLA. I'm not totally in tune with all of this information, so hopefully if I'm incorrect someone will make a correction. The later films most likely did not use CRI.

RAH

 

[Rob Keil]

Mr Harris:

Thanks for your quick response. I did enjoy that talk at the Castro and was really pleased to return to the same theater a year later and see Vertigo looking better than I thought possible. I had only seen the 1984-issue MCA laserdisc and a pretty bad print at the old Fox theater in San Francisco in the mid-80's. Seeing that film on a huge screen with such beautiful color was a completely different experience. It makes me really respect the cinematographers, directors, and film labs of the day to know that this is the quality of presentation they intended to deliver, despite the technical and budgetary hurdles that shooting such a large negative entailed.

Just to confirm some of your information, I do know you are right that the effects for Star Wars were shot 35mm/8 perf and composited to 35/4. And from what I have read and seen on the resoration, all or nearly all of the original elements were avaiable, and quite a bit of re-compositing was done digitally.

As far as the film stocks on "Empire" and "Jedi", I do remember hearing from some source loosely affiliated with Lucasfilm that these were 70mm. I know that 70mm prints were shown in the top-grade theaters, as the newspaper ads from this period actually note which theaters were showing them. I don't know much about the release print process, but does the fact that theaters were showing 70mm prints confirm the fact that the film was actually shot on 70mm? Or maybe these were shot on some smaller format and then blown up somehow? I don't know if this would make sense or if it is ever done but I suppose anything is possible.

So far you haven't actually given your opinion on the picture quality of the restoration job on "Star Wars" and I wondered if you would like to comment. But if that puts you in an uncomfortable position I understand, also.

Thanks again for sharing your knowledge on these issues.

-Rob

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I don't know much about the release print process, but does the fact that theaters were showing 70mm prints confirm the fact that the film was actually shot on 70mm? Or maybe these were shot on some smaller format and then blown up somehow? I don't know if this would make sense or if it is ever done but I suppose anything is possible.

Yes, the fact that there are 70mm prints does not mean that the film was photographed in 70mm (actually, 65mm negative). The "Original Trilogy" of Star Wars were all photographed in 35mm Panavision (live-action scenes) and then blown-up for select 70mm engagements. If they had been photographed in 65mm, they would have, most likely, carried a credit that said "Filmed in Super Panavision".

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Empire & Jedi 70mm prints were blow-ups. This is common. The 70mm blow-up prints usually came with multi-channel discrete stereo magnetic soundtracks and this was the only way to hear these types of mixes until the 35mm compatible digital formats showed up in the late 80s/early 90s. Conversely, the Vertigo restoration was actually the first wide use of digital sound (DTS) on a 70mm presentation.

Regards,

 

[Rob Keil]

Peter and Ken-

Thanks for clarifying this. I guess I've learned that real 70mm (65mm) film origination is truly a rare bird. This makes those beautiful VistaVision films of the late 1950s and early 1960s all the more unique.

Thanks again for the info
-Rob

 

[Joseph Goodman]

From what I've read, only the original negative to "Star Wars" was in that bad a shape... the principal photography had faded by about %10 overall, the CRI shots had faded completely, and the negative was worn and dirty from over-printing, on top of haphazard storage by Fox. A good deal of the SFX re-compositing was done with traditional optical printing, since it would've been too expensive to do all digitally, and also because the duping stock of choice in 1997, Kodak EXR Intermediate film (only recently superceded by Kodak's VISION Intermediate), was so good that the results were still vastly improved over the original opticals. I'm sure Mr. Harris can chime in on the virtues of Kodak EXR intermediate, since it allowed him to do so much of his projects without resorting to expensive digital work. "Empire" and "Jedi" had been stored by Lucasfilm, and were in much better shape, on top of the fact that Lucas was more satisfied with the technical side of those films than with "Star Wars", thus explaining the smaller amount of alteration to those two films.

 

[Robert Harris]

My only comment on the modern Eastman duping (interpositive / internegative) stocks, 5243 and 5244, is that they can, when properly handled, be used to create dupe priints which can look as good as a print derived from the original negative.
For information on Kodak color intermediate film go here:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/pr...lab/2244.shtml
My hat is continuously raised to Kodak for the quality of their motion picture film stocks.
While some of the older color stocks have fading problems, this was always a known and comes as no surprise.
The fact that some of the older negs will run through printers literally hundreds of times without cracking up is less a miracle and more superb product engineering.
RAH

 

[John Kanan]

I enjoyed reading Mr Harris' inaugural article and look forward to his future contributions. In particular, the article helped my understand some of the defects that film restoration seeks to reverse.
Readers who wish to learn more about film defects may wish to visit a site I stumbled upon recently: http://diamant.joanneum.at/ (follow the links at the bottom of the home page). The site provides a taxonomy of film defects and provides many examples. The site is produced by the Joanneum Institute in Austria that has been researching digital film restoration for almost a decade. A result of this research is the PC-based Diamant-Suite, a seemingly powerful (but under-marketed) tool for fixing a number of film defects at up to film resolutions.