The Difficulty of Restoration and Preservation in 2K/4K (1 Viewer)

[bruceames]

If a 4k scan will capture all the information then the only difficulty in preservation I see is in the cost of the scan. Once the film has been scanned in 4k (or a higher resolution if necessary), then that film should be preserved forever in digital form, and any restoration work can be done without any time pressure brought about by deterioration.

 

[Alan Tully]

But that's not the point. Why go back at all to the old print or negative once it's all digitized? A scan will look better in 10 years then a negative that's aged 10 more years.

Ooo, I don't think so. If you'd scanned a movie ten years ago, what would it be, a 1K - 2K scan? And that would be your lot if you'd thrown away the negs, which if stored properly would be fine. And they still haven't worked out the long term storage of digital. The idea these days is you keep the film 'till it's dust in your hands.

 

[Dr Griffin]

http://www.digital-intermediate.co.uk/resolution/resolutionsize.htm

 

[bruceames]

Ooo, I don't think so. If you'd scanned a movie ten years ago, what would it be, a 1K - 2K scan? And that would be your lot if you'd thrown away the negs, which if stored properly would be fine. And they still haven't worked out the long term storage of digital. The idea these days is you keep the film 'till it's dust in your hands.

I meant scanning a film in 4k now and then seeing what will provide source material in 10 years time. Of course a 1-2 scan isn't capturing nearly all the material so the negative will be a much better source.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I meant scanning a film in 4k now and then seeing what will provide source material in 10 years time. Of course a 1-2 scan isn't capturing nearly all the material so the negative will be a much better source.

Technology is always improving and better scanners will be developed so i don't think it's that simple, 4K scans won't capture all the detail on every film and it's a something that would be looked upon on a case by case basis, i'd like to see all the film studio's of the world unite and put funds into a preservation pot, those funds to be used for restoration of films which are reaching critical mass and almost beyond saving. They could probably use that to offset some of their taxes so it's a win- win situation for all.

 

[Rob_Ray]

Digital is not a long-term preservation medium, because it requires something that can decode all those zeroes and ones and that something keeps evolving. Film is analog and as long as it holds up can be read by simply shining a light through it. You never want to throw away an analog source. With proper care, an 1890s cylinder disc will be readable in some fashion long after all CD copies made from it become coasters.

 

[Alan Tully]

I meant scanning a film in 4k now and then seeing what will provide source material in 10 years time. Of course a 1-2 scan isn't capturing nearly all the material so the negative will be a much better source.

I don't know if they've started doing it yet, but there's talk of the best & safest way to store these digital scans is to make b/w separation masters of them on 35mm...back to film! My niece has taken thousands of digital pictures of her son over the years (he's 9 now), I told her to sort out the best ones & have good non-fade prints made, put them in a book & seal it, & that's a guarantee he'll have some pictures to show his kids.

 

[Vic Pardo]

Digital is not a long-term preservation medium, because it requires something that can decode all those zeroes and ones and that something keeps evolving. Film is analog and as long as it holds up can be read by simply shining a light through it. You never want to throw away an analog source. With proper care, an 1890s cylinder disc will be readable in some fashion long after all CD copies made from it become coasters.

Centuries from now (or maybe less), our descendants, survivors of some future apocalypse seeking to restore a stable society, will be digging through the rubble of our cities to try to figure out what kind of civilization we had. They'll find memory cards, computer disks, CDs, DVDs, videotape, hard drives, etc. and not know what the hell they are. They'll find photographs of the 20th century preserved on durable photographic paper and be able to SEE what we were like. They'll find 35mm film prints and hold them up to the light and figure out what they were for and look at the sprockets on one side and the squiggly lines on the other and figure out how to reverse engineer a projector to move the film past a light and read the soundtrack. So they'll be able to figure out a lot of the 20th century. But the 21st century (and after) will be a complete blank to them.

 

[Worth]

In The Godfather doc, Mr. Harris said that 35mm is around 4-5K. If I remember correctly. I guess no one knows for sure?

I don't think there's an absolute consensus. I recently read an interview with an Australian cinematographer who felt that the minimum standard for scanning 35mm should be 12K.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Centuries from now (or maybe less), our descendants, survivors of some future apocalypse seeking to restore a stable society, will be digging through the rubble of our cities to try to figure out what kind of civilization we had. They'll find memory cards, computer disks, CDs, DVDs, videotape, hard drives, etc. and not know what the hell they are. They'll find photographs of the 20th century preserved on durable photographic paper and be able to SEE what we were like.

Nah, that's just not going to happen, the apes will have taken over by then and they will only be interested in stuffing their faces with bananas, nuts, forest leaves, a little bit of meat and collecting Charlton Heston memorabilia.