Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Κανονισμός Λειτουργίας
Σωματείο AVClub
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Εικόνα
Προβολείς
Γενική Συζητηση
αναλυση στον κινηματογράφο: μύθοι και πραγματικότητα
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GeonX" data-source="post: 1160" data-attributes="member: 13"><p>The mastering stage of classics such as these (as opposed to newly produced films) usually begins with the inspection and density tests (and the minting of an "answer print", i.e. a test print of the negative element) of the film elements available in the film vaults. Big studios such as Warner Bros, Sony Pictures and Fox have their various 35mm, 17,5mm (magnetic sound only) and 65mm Negs "stashed away" deep underground in a salt mine where the temperature and the humidity level is constant and the degradation process is as slow as nature can provide. After viewing the materials, the best elements are used for restoration; and from the restoration negative usually a new Interpositive and a new Internegative is made for archival use and transfers. </p><p></p><p>Depending on the purpose of the planned release (DVD, HD broadcast / Disc(s), Digital Cinema, Digital Intermediate to film) the transfers/scans are made (ideally with color corrections during the scan/transfer stage) onto Harddisc/data storage tape (such as D6 @ 4:2:2/10bits) in either HD, 2K or even 4K (Columbia is working on 6K for LOA) - but mostly transfers are made in High Definition using HDCAMSR (up to 770 Mbits/s @ 4:4:4 in 10bits) or, especially in the U.S., the lower grade HD-D5 (235 Mbits/s @ 4:2:2/10bits) as a platform. In many cases, the trouble is already beginning with the transfer. Here, the choice of how much of the frame should be transferred is both grounds for a philosophical debate as well as an easy, if not sneaky, way of saving costs in post production. </p><p>The former reflects the issue of how much was really visible to audiences on the theatrical screen. That is, indeed, debatable. Regarding the latter that argumentis, however, nothing more than a fig leaf. For the complicated cleanup process, zooming in into the frame also means that splices and light emanating from the edge of the frame as well as any number of other damage (fading etc) on the edges can simply be "eliminated" without even attempting to lay a hand on it in the digital cleaning and restoration process. To make it short: it make the work a lot faster, easier and cheaper.</p><p>Ergo: "Deleting" the outer parts of the frame can save a lot of money. But, in the long run, it may turn out to be far more costly, if clients (licensees) reject the master. This is clearly a gamble.</p><p>It is a fact that the detailed reconstruction and restoration of damaged frames does cost money; and the policy of issuing DVDs at $10.99 a piece with HD masters and extras included does not help, either. Even today, many post houses work on a basis where the next, aligning frame is used for painting. This causes static grain; which is why the 4th or even 5th frames before or after the damaged frame(s) should be used, instead.</p><p></p><p>Correcting and restoring damages is getting much more difficult the bigger the size of the master gets. In the realm of NTSC or PAL the resolution of the image, and therefore that of the damages is rather minor; thus, removing them is not as problematic. Wires (also called tramlines) and even deep scratches can be removed relatively easily with the proper tools. But, in the HD or even 2K plus realm, the story becomes a different one altogether. Even the best software cannot perfectly perform such operations at this size on its own; they have to be done by hand - making it enormously - if not prohibitively, expensive. But even with very little damage or just small debris or dust in the picture frame - many studios don't even bother to attempt a proper clean up. Universal did not lay a hand on its newly transferred TV shows; WB transferred "ER" in safe light (70%) instead of best light (100%), transferred very soft and skipped the cleanup stage altogether. Columbia, Paramount, MGM - the list could go on for quite a while. And the older the movie gets the bigger the problem.</p><p></p><p>Many classics out there have problems especially on the other portions of the frame, and marketing executives do have a point when they argue that most classics would not see the light of DVD day if everything was done to perfection in the HD or even 2K realm. There are examples, but, the majority will not show the entire frame. This, however, is not or should not be a license to ruin the composition of the image. In many cases, the AR and the zoomed-in image selected for these transfers, especially of classic films is arbitrary and all too often affects the original composition severely. "Ben-Hur" is perhaps the most obvious case; although many have argued that projecting a super wide picture such as this on a small TV screen would mean detail would suffer significantly if the proper AR and image were chosen.</p><p>But, times (and most importantly, technology) have changed. In 2001, when Warner Bros issued the first DVD version of BEN-HUR the AR was about correct - 2.70 :1 - but the frame information lost on the sides, top and bottom was very substantial (see the comparison here). Ironically, it was the 1994 CAV LD (which had a lower resolution and less detail because of its analogue FBAS properties), that was mastered much more accurately using both an almost correct AR and almost the entire frame information. The new, 2005 4-Disc edition is a big improvement; the new master is (for the first time) based on a restored 65mm element scan, which contains actually slightly more of the image a 70mm projection would allow. But there are a number of negatives. For one: the incorrect color timing, at least on the DVD encoded master (DLT). At the 4K level (the most likely size this film was scanned) the result may be good, but the color correction of the Standard Definition DVD master is not entirely convincing. In many shots (not all) colors, especially reds, look overly saturated and accentuated - but most importantly seem inaccurate in registration. Reddish tones are overly pronounced and have little detail, brownish tones are far less defined; instead, shadow detail in finer textures such as sand or rock faces is more reddish. Also, greenish tones are a bit overly saturated. Yet, oddly the image looks bleached as if the gamma level was tampered with. </p><p><img src="http://www.dvdscan.com/ben_hur_1.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p>Comparison shot of Ben-Hur (left: 2005 edition, right: 2001 edition). Aside from the color corrections, both masters significantly lack detail & sharpness. The level of data reduction in this encoding is very evident; the soft letterbox is a "dead giveaway".</p><p>To put it simply: The various shades do not register in the way Technicolor Negative elements or positive elements of that period would, even after the reduction in size by means of digital compression; and overall, the SD master creates the impression of an image where no color really seems to fit. The word "simple" may just about hit the nail on its head.</p><p><img src="http://www.dvdscan.com/ben-hur70mm_comp.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p>Above: A screenshot of the 70mm image of Ben-Hur. The yellow rectangle shows the confines of the 2001 DVD edition, the blue that of the 1995 </p><p>Laserdisc CAV edition. The red rectangle represents the correct size and AR of the frame's image that would be projected on a theatrical screen. </p><p>Note the accuracy of the 2005 edition compared to that, represented by the green border.</p><p><img src="http://www.dvdscan.com/ben_hur_comp_2001_4.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p><img src="http://www.dvdscan.com/ben_hur_comp_2005_4.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p><img src="http://www.dvdscan.com/ben_hur_comp_2001_1.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p><img src="http://www.dvdscan.com/ben_hur_comp_2005_1.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GeonX, post: 1160, member: 13"] The mastering stage of classics such as these (as opposed to newly produced films) usually begins with the inspection and density tests (and the minting of an "answer print", i.e. a test print of the negative element) of the film elements available in the film vaults. Big studios such as Warner Bros, Sony Pictures and Fox have their various 35mm, 17,5mm (magnetic sound only) and 65mm Negs "stashed away" deep underground in a salt mine where the temperature and the humidity level is constant and the degradation process is as slow as nature can provide. After viewing the materials, the best elements are used for restoration; and from the restoration negative usually a new Interpositive and a new Internegative is made for archival use and transfers. Depending on the purpose of the planned release (DVD, HD broadcast / Disc(s), Digital Cinema, Digital Intermediate to film) the transfers/scans are made (ideally with color corrections during the scan/transfer stage) onto Harddisc/data storage tape (such as D6 @ 4:2:2/10bits) in either HD, 2K or even 4K (Columbia is working on 6K for LOA) - but mostly transfers are made in High Definition using HDCAMSR (up to 770 Mbits/s @ 4:4:4 in 10bits) or, especially in the U.S., the lower grade HD-D5 (235 Mbits/s @ 4:2:2/10bits) as a platform. In many cases, the trouble is already beginning with the transfer. Here, the choice of how much of the frame should be transferred is both grounds for a philosophical debate as well as an easy, if not sneaky, way of saving costs in post production. The former reflects the issue of how much was really visible to audiences on the theatrical screen. That is, indeed, debatable. Regarding the latter that argumentis, however, nothing more than a fig leaf. For the complicated cleanup process, zooming in into the frame also means that splices and light emanating from the edge of the frame as well as any number of other damage (fading etc) on the edges can simply be "eliminated" without even attempting to lay a hand on it in the digital cleaning and restoration process. To make it short: it make the work a lot faster, easier and cheaper. Ergo: "Deleting" the outer parts of the frame can save a lot of money. But, in the long run, it may turn out to be far more costly, if clients (licensees) reject the master. This is clearly a gamble. It is a fact that the detailed reconstruction and restoration of damaged frames does cost money; and the policy of issuing DVDs at $10.99 a piece with HD masters and extras included does not help, either. Even today, many post houses work on a basis where the next, aligning frame is used for painting. This causes static grain; which is why the 4th or even 5th frames before or after the damaged frame(s) should be used, instead. Correcting and restoring damages is getting much more difficult the bigger the size of the master gets. In the realm of NTSC or PAL the resolution of the image, and therefore that of the damages is rather minor; thus, removing them is not as problematic. Wires (also called tramlines) and even deep scratches can be removed relatively easily with the proper tools. But, in the HD or even 2K plus realm, the story becomes a different one altogether. Even the best software cannot perfectly perform such operations at this size on its own; they have to be done by hand - making it enormously - if not prohibitively, expensive. But even with very little damage or just small debris or dust in the picture frame - many studios don't even bother to attempt a proper clean up. Universal did not lay a hand on its newly transferred TV shows; WB transferred "ER" in safe light (70%) instead of best light (100%), transferred very soft and skipped the cleanup stage altogether. Columbia, Paramount, MGM - the list could go on for quite a while. And the older the movie gets the bigger the problem. Many classics out there have problems especially on the other portions of the frame, and marketing executives do have a point when they argue that most classics would not see the light of DVD day if everything was done to perfection in the HD or even 2K realm. There are examples, but, the majority will not show the entire frame. This, however, is not or should not be a license to ruin the composition of the image. In many cases, the AR and the zoomed-in image selected for these transfers, especially of classic films is arbitrary and all too often affects the original composition severely. "Ben-Hur" is perhaps the most obvious case; although many have argued that projecting a super wide picture such as this on a small TV screen would mean detail would suffer significantly if the proper AR and image were chosen. But, times (and most importantly, technology) have changed. In 2001, when Warner Bros issued the first DVD version of BEN-HUR the AR was about correct - 2.70 :1 - but the frame information lost on the sides, top and bottom was very substantial (see the comparison here). Ironically, it was the 1994 CAV LD (which had a lower resolution and less detail because of its analogue FBAS properties), that was mastered much more accurately using both an almost correct AR and almost the entire frame information. The new, 2005 4-Disc edition is a big improvement; the new master is (for the first time) based on a restored 65mm element scan, which contains actually slightly more of the image a 70mm projection would allow. But there are a number of negatives. For one: the incorrect color timing, at least on the DVD encoded master (DLT). At the 4K level (the most likely size this film was scanned) the result may be good, but the color correction of the Standard Definition DVD master is not entirely convincing. In many shots (not all) colors, especially reds, look overly saturated and accentuated - but most importantly seem inaccurate in registration. Reddish tones are overly pronounced and have little detail, brownish tones are far less defined; instead, shadow detail in finer textures such as sand or rock faces is more reddish. Also, greenish tones are a bit overly saturated. Yet, oddly the image looks bleached as if the gamma level was tampered with. [IMG]http://www.dvdscan.com/ben_hur_1.jpg[/IMG] Comparison shot of Ben-Hur (left: 2005 edition, right: 2001 edition). Aside from the color corrections, both masters significantly lack detail & sharpness. The level of data reduction in this encoding is very evident; the soft letterbox is a "dead giveaway". To put it simply: The various shades do not register in the way Technicolor Negative elements or positive elements of that period would, even after the reduction in size by means of digital compression; and overall, the SD master creates the impression of an image where no color really seems to fit. The word "simple" may just about hit the nail on its head. [IMG]http://www.dvdscan.com/ben-hur70mm_comp.jpg[/IMG] Above: A screenshot of the 70mm image of Ben-Hur. The yellow rectangle shows the confines of the 2001 DVD edition, the blue that of the 1995 Laserdisc CAV edition. The red rectangle represents the correct size and AR of the frame's image that would be projected on a theatrical screen. Note the accuracy of the 2005 edition compared to that, represented by the green border. [IMG]http://www.dvdscan.com/ben_hur_comp_2001_4.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.dvdscan.com/ben_hur_comp_2005_4.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.dvdscan.com/ben_hur_comp_2001_1.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.dvdscan.com/ben_hur_comp_2005_1.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Εικόνα
Προβολείς
Γενική Συζητηση
αναλυση στον κινηματογράφο: μύθοι και πραγματικότητα
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…