Scott Calvert
Supporting Actor
- Joined
- Nov 2, 1998
- Messages
- 885
Interview with Michael Daruty of Universal over at www.aintitcoolnews.com. Here's an exerpt:
BG: What was the process you went through to reach the point where you decided to go with the original negative?
MD: We researched all of the elements, so we looked at all the existing elements from the original negative to the inner positive [EDIT: "inner positive"? Heh] to the negative prints, everything, and during that evaluation process we were looking to determine what would give us the best quality, the best resolution, and also how much work we would have to do on the element.
We did choose the original camera negative because it is the highest quality, even though the camera negative was in fair to poor condition due to its use over the years. It had multiple running scratches, moderate to heavy dirt, some film and perf damage and an overall grainy appearance [EDIT: So what?], but it did give us the highest resolution based on our testing because we knew that we could use some tools to be able to correct those problems.
BG: Right.
MD: It started with conducting a liquid or wet gate scan. So we conducted the liquid gate scanning which filled a lot of the running scratches, so then when we scanned it to 4k, which is the environment that we scanned the negative to and worked in. We were able to correct a lot of the scratches that were in it just by the wet gate process. And then with all of our digital tools and skilled technicians, we were able to correct all of the other problems with our dirt removal systems and our editing and systems that fix damage, and then we had some great processing to try and manage some of the grain [EDIT: Typical megacorp - managing something that doesn't need it].
BG: So it was certainly a meticulous process.
MD: Yeah, it is, it took us months to work on this and then we brought Mr. Spielberg in at certain points of it, got his opinion on how the colour grading was going, how the digital restoration and the grain management was, took a few notes from him, brought him back in after we made some corrections, and he was very pleased with the outcome.
BG: In June of last year actually, Steven spoke to [Quint] and that's when I believe he first mentioned that JAWS was being worked on for a Blu-ray release.
MD: We were getting ready to start at that time, yeah.
BG: How closely involved was he?
MD: Well, Steven understands the importance of this film to him as well as to the studio, so everything was pulled out, there was nothing left unturned in making sure this title looked as best as it could.
BG: I think it's great that you were able to get Steven on board. I mean, obviously, no one can argue with his vision, but I think one of the problems that exists with remasters – generally – is that often the crew member brought in as a consultant while the film is being worked on may have had a different vision to the director. Using a film I saw last year as an example, where the cinematographer was brought in, the colour palette had dramatically changed much to the chagrin of fans and all because that person had always thought it should be that way. So, it's great that Steven was able to come in and share his feedback with you.
MD: Steven's very supportive about making himself available to go through the process. Our intention is always to match to the original look of the [film] and the film-makers' vision, so as long as we stay along those lines we're usually pretty close to what he's looking for.
BG: What were his views on the amount of grain? Audiences are always hard to please where classics are concerned. Some like it, some don't.
MD: It always is, but you need grain; film has inherent grain in it. When we're dealing with high resolution content like that and an original negative that has some grain in it, it's a fine line on managing that [EDIT: Why?], and I think we've managed that fairly well in the look of the [film]. He was very happy with it.
