Superbit Lawrence of Arabia
Sydney Assbasket
Rounding out Columbia's September 9th lineup are three new Superbit titles, all
in anamorphic widescreen and Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 (and no extras, of
course): bare bones releases sans extras: Lawrence of Arabia (across two
discs), Leon: The Professional and Steven Spielberg's Hook. Retail is $26.95
each.
(I hope they reduce the edge enhancement)
I have six locks on my door all in a row. When I go out, I lock every
other one. I figure no matter how long somebody stands there picking
the locks, they are always locking three.
- Elayne Boosler
Remove "bination" to reply.
CP__J
>
> http://www.dvdfile.com/software/dvd-video/archive/2003/07_01.html
>
> Rounding out Columbia's September 9th lineup are three new Superbit titles, all
> in anamorphic widescreen and Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 (and no extras, of
> course): bare bones releases sans extras: Lawrence of Arabia (across two
> discs), Leon: The Professional and Steven Spielberg's Hook. Retail is $26.95
> each.
>
> (I hope they reduce the edge enhancement)
Unless the transfer is significantly improved (ie, redone and mastered
in HiDef [and perhaps also released in D-VHS]) this will not likely be a
major improvement.
I watched about 40 minutes of the DVD a few evenings ago. Re
directional dialog (discussed here a few days ago), what I noted was in
some instances it was very obvious (early scene with O'Toole, Rains and
Wolfit), while in others [especially once everyone had hit the desert]
the dialog seemed to be almost exclusively center-channel. My
impression/speculation is they used/retained directional audio for
dialog recorded on the larger sound stages (also maintaining the
acoustics), but kept the sound design more basic for scenes which were
post-dubbed. [I've also heard claims that the audio on the current DVD
is a few frames out-of-sync. However, for a movie with major chunks of
looped dialog this might be extremely difficult to judge.]
On a related matter, can mention that with my new setup the directional
dialog (including opening song) for "The Sound Of Music" works very well
-- smooth and subtle, not like the audio ping-pong around my living-room
TV.
C.
Dean Eaton
Superbit transfer. This should improve things tenfold.
Dean
"CP__J" <CP...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3F021C3E...@rogers.com...
Harry Chickpea
>In article <NicPa.93660$Io.80...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>dce...@earthlink.net says...
>> We thought we read somewhere that Robert Harris is supervising the new
>> Superbit transfer. This should improve things tenfold.
>>
>> Dean
>
>I'm not up to speed on this Superbit business. I take it that we're
>talking about a totally compatible DVD that is made at a substantially
>higher bit rate than normal.
>
>While I'm just about up to my ears in "Lawrence of Arabia" having seen it
>so many times in theatres and in the wide range of terrible to mediocre
>to semi-good video transfers, I would welcome an improved DVD, especially
>if Bob Harris is involved. I consider the DVDs issued so far as being
>totally unacceptable. The people responsible should really be ashamed of
>what they put out, and I mean that in all sincerity.
>
>Marty
Are you the same Marty Hart that said this?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.tech
Date: 2001-09-24 11:53:56 PST
"The most important thing is whether or not the
film is enjoyable in the format presented. If it doesn't suffer from
distracting corruption of the composition then it's acceptable to me.
"Lawrence of Arabia" and "Apocalypse Now" both on LD and DVD, are not
"accurate" transfers but they're well done and the films don't suffer as
a result. "
I'm having a difficult time understanding your conflicting comments of "well
done" and "totally unacceptable."
FWIW, the most distracting aspect I found to watching the DVD was the decision
not to correct the discoloration in the sky from the heat damaged negative.
That discoloration has popped me out of my "willing suspension of disbelief"
every single time I've seen the film or DVD.
fdu...@aol.com
>
> I'm not up to speed on this Superbit business. I take it that we're
> talking about a totally compatible DVD that is made at a substantially
> higher bit rate than normal.
>
Thats the idea but for the most part its pure hype and usually no better
and often worse than a real good standard DVD. They include DTS which
off course takes up more space than juts DD and leave out the often
useless extras. But I've seen many superbits that are lousy
technically. Its a good idea in concept but in reality its just another
way to get suckers, uhh, people to buy still another copy of a title
they have bought several times before. The same quality could as easily
been put on earlier titles in most cases. Or its an attempt to finally
correct past sins that could be put on a new DVD without the "superbit"
logo and extra cost.
Not to say all superbits are bad. Most are reasonably good. But the
concept is so removed from the reality that it has so far has been
nearly useless IMHO. Frank
Ed Ellers
"I'm not up to speed on this Superbit business. I take it that we're talking
about a totally compatible DVD that is made at a substantially higher bit
rate than normal."
Exactly right.
Morgan Montague
"Ed Ellers" <edel...@mis.net> wrote in message
news:kSpPa.27109$GL4.6770@rwcrnsc53...
Yeah. Basically redoing correctly what was screwed up the first time and
charging a premium for it.
Bob Morris
>Martin Hart <martinB...@widescreenBLOCKmuseum.com> wrote:
>Exactly right.
Not quite.
Bit rates on DVDs go up to 10 mbits/sec.
Toshiba and other players have bit rate meters.
It requires about 2 layers to do a 3 hour film at this rate.
Gladiator is a fine example of a three hour film in which the bit
rate is up about 9 mbits/sec for most scenes with action.
A two hour film *can* be done in one layer, and was in the
early days, but with often compromised results: mosquito noise
in blue skies most often being the clue that bit rate is too low.
The original Lawrence 2 DVD set had part one on disc one
and part 2 on disc 2 with more than an hour of extras on disc 2.
Both discs were two layers.
IMO, the original Lawrence 2 disc DVD was not signficantly
compromised by bit rate. The skies looked pretty good, and I
did not detect any artifacting.
In fact, the second one-disc set looked pretty fine even though the
bit rate was halved! (I sampled a few scenes.)
Why? Because Lawrence does not really have that much action.
Lots of people talking, moving slowly throught the desert.
Thus, IMO it is the new transfer that will really make the new set
a *must* to own! Sure, the bit rate will be kept high and in
an A/B with the old two-disc set the new might look better.
But the new transfer is the thing!
I've read reviews of superbit versions of many discs as compared with
the originals. In most cases the reviewer really has to hunt for
scenes with big differences between the original and the superbit.
And he has to be looking at a really big screen!
Bob Morris
Bob Morris
It's the Sony site that says newly remastered!
www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/catalog/catalogDetail_DVD043396015388.html
Format: DVD
Running Time: 227 Min.
Rated PG
SYNOPSIS
David Lean's splendid biography of the enigmatic T. E. Lawrence
paints a complex portrait of the desert-loving Englishman who
united Arab tribes in a battle against the Ottoman Turks during World War I.
DVD FEATURES
Newly Remastered
Digitally Mastered Audio and Anamorphic Video
Widescreen Presentation
Audio: English 5.1 (Dolby Digital), English DTS
LRM
Lincoln Spector
"Morgan Montague" <cine...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IKucndBkD6z...@comcast.com...
for it."
Lincoln
Michel Hafner
Who says new transfer? Remastered means most likely old transfer with
new color correction.
Sydney Assbasket
>talking
>> about a totally compatible DVD that is made at a substantially higher bit
>> rate than normal."
>>
>> Exactly right.
>>
>>
>
>Yeah. Basically redoing correctly what was screwed up the first time and
>charging a premium for it.
The problem I have with Superbit is that most of these titles were originally
single layered discs, usually with widescreen on one side and p/s on the other.
Give the same movie 2 layers and use newer authoring technology, of course the
picture is going to look better. Maybe these titles should have gotten 2
layers in the first place.
Remove "moc" to reply.
Lincoln Spector
originally
> single layered discs, usually with widescreen on one side and p/s on the
other.
> Give the same movie 2 layers and use newer authoring technology, of
course the
> picture is going to look better. Maybe these titles should have gotten 2
> layers in the first place.
another disc), I have to wonder: Would a single, mono DD track make a
noticeable difference on the image quality?
Lincoln
Bob Morris
Martin Schemitsch
[snip]
> Yes, I said that and I mean it. Unfortunately, "Lawrence of Arabia" looks
> like shit on a large display using progressive scan and component video.
By the way... ...since you belong to the group of people with the necessary
setup and taste, I want to ask you:
Is it just me/my eyes or do we have the same problem as above with the
Vertigo disc? I mean, the restoration looked and sounded great at the
movies [let's skip the brightness & foley discussion, will we ;-)], but the
DVD is a disappointment, especially when projected progressively. It looks
a bit on the ugly, soft side with the edge enhancement :-(
I own the Universal Region 2 DVD of the restored version with all the
extras...
Psycho, for instance, looks fine except a bit of grain, which in this case
looks more movie-like to me [can't possibly know about the prints during
the original release ;-)].
Rear Window, another restoration, looks fine and North by Northwest, as we
all know, looks stupendous [as I take it, this disc's MPEG2 master, Singin'
in the Rain and the upcoming Indiana Jones movies have all been done by the
same company, the name of which eludes me at the moment - great stuff!]!
So what's up with Vertigo? Will there be a remastered version supervised by
Robert A. Harris?
Martin
P.S.: At least there will come a time when HD-DVDs and stuff take off:
I _won't_ invest in a new projector setup, but many discs will look a lot
better downconverted to standard resolution than they do now, because they
will have to be remastered properly ;-) Hope is still alive...
Peter Mason
>
> Thus, IMO it is the new transfer that will really make the new set
> a *must* to own! Sure, the bit rate will be kept high and in
> an A/B with the old two-disc set the new might look better.
>
> But the new transfer is the thing!
>
Would I be correct in assuming that you may have seen a sneak preview
of this new edition? If so how does the tent scene(with Lawrence,
Feisal, Ali and Brighton) look. I viewed the new 70MM DTS print A few
weeks ago and it's really obvious that this is a "night" scene,whereas
in the current DVD it could easily pass for a day scene since it is
too light, too blue and the colors are too washed out.
Don't suppose you would know when the PAL Superbit version will be
available?
Regards,
Peter Mason
Bob Morris
>mor...@galileo.sce.carleton.ca (Bob Morris) wrote in message news:<morris.1...@galileo.sce.carleton.ca>...
>>
>> Thus, IMO it is the new transfer that will really make the new set
>> a *must* to own! Sure, the bit rate will be kept high and in
>> an A/B with the old two-disc set the new might look better.
>>
>> But the new transfer is the thing!
>>
>Would I be correct in assuming that you may have seen a sneak preview
>of this new edition?
No. I'm anticipating this as much as anyone. I read about it on thedigitalbits
web site and then did a Google search on Lawrence of Arabia DVD 2003, which
uncovered the Columbia listing.
>If so how does the tent scene(with Lawrence,
>Feisal, Ali and Brighton) look. I viewed the new 70MM DTS print A few
>weeks ago and it's really obvious that this is a "night" scene,whereas
>in the current DVD it could easily pass for a day scene since it is
>too light, too blue and the colors are too washed out.
There are many brightness problems in the film.
Doesn't Feisal ask the reader to recite "the brightness"?
>Don't suppose you would know when the PAL Superbit version will be
>available?
Of course not!
I've been doing Amazon searches on Peter O'Toole for the last
several years trying to find out if his vol 3 (covering Lawrence)
is out yet!
Bob Morris
Patrick McCart
titles already. They've used 24fps restoration technology from the start,
but have progressively used better resolutions to do the work in. Here's the
titles they've worked on so far (and have been released):
North By Nothwest (PAL res)
Citizen Kane (PAL res)
Gone With The Wind (PAL res, R2-only)
Doctor Zhivago (PAL res)
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (PAL res)
Peter Pan (PAL res, for special edition)
Now, Voyager (PAL res)
Sunset Blvd. (2K res)
Roman Holiday (2K res)
Giant (unknown, but probably PAL res)
Upcoming:
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Casablanca (rumored, for 2-disc special edition)
Singin' In The Rain was NOT worked on by LDI. The film was worked on by
Warner's new Ultra-Resolution system which takes the 3-strip source and
recombines them digitally. Through this process, they correct alignment and
clean up the image, too.
LDI is supposedly working on 2K transfers for Mary Poppins and Pinocchio for
upcoming DVD special editions, too. They also seem to have transfers for
Brief Encounter and Sabotage for MGM.
In a Home Theater Forum chat, they revealed that they'd like to do
refurbishings for The Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind, and Citizen Kane
(again) at 2K resolution and using 3-strip elements for the two color films.
"Martin Schemitsch" <team8ma...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oprsd9h6...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Michel Hafner
>
> Lowry Digital Images has performed digital refurbishing for over a dozen
> titles already. They've used 24fps restoration technology from the start,
> but have progressively used better resolutions to do the work in. Here's the
> titles they've worked on so far (and have been released):
>
> North By Nothwest (PAL res)
> Citizen Kane (PAL res)
> Gone With The Wind (PAL res, R2-only)
> Doctor Zhivago (PAL res)
> Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (PAL res)
That was already digitally restored many years ago. Now again?
> Peter Pan (PAL res, for special edition)
> Now, Voyager (PAL res)
> Sunset Blvd. (2K res)
> Roman Holiday (2K res)
> Giant (unknown, but probably PAL res)
No, is shown on DLP.
>
> Upcoming:
>
> Raiders of the Lost Ark
> Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
> Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Why on earth need these film already digital restoration beyond some
color tweaking?? These films should really not be grain reduced at all
when the negatives are used.
> Casablanca (rumored, for 2-disc special edition)
>
> Singin' In The Rain was NOT worked on by LDI. The film was worked on by
> Warner's new Ultra-Resolution system which takes the 3-strip source and
> recombines them digitally. Through this process, they correct alignment and
> clean up the image, too.
>
> LDI is supposedly working on 2K transfers for Mary Poppins and Pinocchio for
> upcoming DVD special editions, too. They also seem to have transfers for
> Brief Encounter and Sabotage for MGM.
>
> In a Home Theater Forum chat, they revealed that they'd like to do
> refurbishings for The Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind, and Citizen Kane
> (again) at 2K resolution and using 3-strip elements for the two color films.
All this stuff is coming a couple of years too early. It should not be done
now but once the future digital cinema standard is defined (hopefully
a 4K standard) and then executed to that standard. The grain removal software
is not good enough yet and adds artifacts that are objectionable for long time archival restorations.
fdu...@aol.com
>
> All this stuff is coming a couple of years too early.
No it ins't If they do it now then they can do it again next year for
HD DVDs. They have to rush.
Then some months later, of course, release an "improved" HDDVD release.
The question isn't what they will or can do. The question is how many
releases they can make or sell to people willing to buy the same title
more than once a year and dozens of times in a lifetime. Each one
claimed to be (maybe) slightly better in quality than the last.
Frank
Richard Lenoir
wrote:
>>
>> Raiders of the Lost Ark
>> Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
>> Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
To remove guns and weapons ????
Patrick McCart
negatives. However, there was light dirt, specks, etc on the restoration
since they recombined the 3-strip neg. Disney then had Kodak's "Cineon"
division do a digital restoration which fixed all the film damage and also
cleaned up the cel dust. Removing the cel dust may seem like a "revisionist"
idea....however, dye-transfer prints of the day would hide the dust thanks
to the nature of the process. What was invisible then was again made
invisible.
The Cineon restoration was still great, but it still had a yellow push in
the image along with being overly grainy (judging from the clips on the
supplements DVD). The LDI restoration's point was to make the film look like
the original animation...they excelled in that.
Except for Roman Holiday and Sunset Blvd, which were restored with the
intention of being output back to film, all of the LDI transfers are simply
meant to be video transfers.
Their grain removal is still a growing technology...but LDI really does have
the best system of this sort. LDI mentioned they'd be interested in moving
to 4K..which would be neat. If the studios will put the money towards them,
LDI could do wonders for more films with no good elements to work from.
I think it's mostly silly that the Indy movies are getting this treatment,
but it ought to be interesting to see how they turn out. Personally, I'd
like to see LDI work on films that are in rough shape such as some silent
films. For example, the surviving print of The Unknown looks beautiful, but
is marred with film damage in every frame. It would be neat to see LDI clean
up the film to remove the damage...but keep the photographic quality.
Thankfully, that print is an original and wouldn't require grain removal.
"Michel Hafner" <mha...@mhafner.ch> wrote in message
news:3F184743...@mhafner.ch...
Patrick McCart
That's how I look at it...it's not restoration since North By Northwest
still has a negative with yellow fade. Now, if they did the restoration at
4K and output it to a 65mm stock... but for now, it's just a nice video
transfer.
"Martin Hart" <martinB...@widescreenBLOCKmuseum.com> wrote in message
news:lOJRa.91248$TJ.51...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> In article <MlJRa.20212$vx3.5...@kent.svc.tds.net>, pmc...@tds.net
> says...
> > Lowry Digital Images has performed digital refurbishing for over a dozen
> > titles already. They've used 24fps restoration technology from the
start,
> > but have progressively used better resolutions to do the work in. Here's
the
> > titles they've worked on so far (and have been released):
>
> I'm a bit leery of a term that I'm not familiar with, "digital
> refurbishing". I hope this isn't another meaningless term being thrown
> into the technobabble we endure these days.
>
> Marty
> --
> The American WideScreen Museum
> Online Archive
> http://www.widescreenmuseum.com
Martin Schemitsch
Thank you for the detailed information - I certainly appreciate it!
Martin
P.S.: My mistake that I thought of Singin' having been done by Lowry
Digital Images (I must have confused the three strip digital restoration
with LDI's process) - but now I know why it doesn't look quite as sharp
[when projected] as North by Northwest ;-)
P.P.S.: I am counting the days to the Indiana Jones Trilogy on DVD - what a
visual (and musical) feast this will be!!
Martin Schemitsch
wrote:
LOL!
Yep - in my nightmares...
... this is what I feared most: Them [tm] messing with the original films
:-)
Martin
Martin Schemitsch
wrote:
> Patrick McCart wrote:
>>
>> Lowry Digital Images has performed digital refurbishing for over a dozen
>> titles already. They've used 24fps restoration technology from the
>> start,
>> but have progressively used better resolutions to do the work in. Here's
>> the
>> titles they've worked on so far (and have been released):
[snip]
>> Upcoming:
>>
>> Raiders of the Lost Ark
>> Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
>> Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
>
> Why on earth need these film already digital restoration beyond some
> color tweaking?? These films should really not be grain reduced at all
> when the negatives are used.
Age and grain have nothing to do with it [IMHO] - it's the overall picture
quality of the transfers I am looking forward to! I want them to look as
good as North by Northwest :-)
Just an observation [quality of film-making is irrelevant]:
North by Northwest is kind of old and looks marvellous on DVD [done by LDI]
Star Wars: The Phantom Menace is practically brand new but the transfer
looks atrocious [I am talking about the picture quality of the DVD when
projected - nothing else - not about the theatrical prints or about the
movie itself...]; the end titles look even worse than the rest of the
picture! [done by ??? - nothing to be proud of, really]
Just my 2 cents,
Martin
Derek Gee
news:JDeSa.20596$vx3.5...@kent.svc.tds.net...
> Snow White was physically restored first by YCM Labs from the nitrate
> negatives. However, there was light dirt, specks, etc on the restoration
> since they recombined the 3-strip neg. Disney then had Kodak's "Cineon"
> division do a digital restoration which fixed all the film damage and also
> cleaned up the cel dust. Removing the cel dust may seem like a
"revisionist"
> idea....however, dye-transfer prints of the day would hide the dust thanks
> to the nature of the process. What was invisible then was again made
> invisible.
>
> The Cineon restoration was still great, but it still had a yellow push in
> the image along with being overly grainy (judging from the clips on the
> supplements DVD). The LDI restoration's point was to make the film look
like
> the original animation...they excelled in that.
I wouldn't say the Cineon restoration was "overly grainy". It looks like
the original film did, that is to say, grainy. The later manipulation of
the Cineon digital files pretty much erased any grain that was on the
negative.
Derek
John Anastasio
didn't know how to avoid it. I'm sure that if they had a finer grain stock
to use, Disney technicians would have used it. On cartoons, I find it
distracting to watch the grain swim all over a solid color. Let's face it,
the best reproduction of the original cell would have no grain at all.
Loving film grain is like loving the hiss on an old 78rpm recording. Sure,
there's a certain trueness to the way that people saw or heard things in the
1930s, but that doesn't mean that it's true to the original intention of the
artist.
"Martin Hart" <martinB...@widescreenBLOCKmuseum.com> wrote in message
news:G_iTa.94378$hV.69...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> In article <fA1Ta.183248$BA.54...@twister.columbus.rr.com>,
> dgeeSP...@INVALID.twmi.rr.com says...
> > "Patrick McCart" <pmc...@tds.net> wrote in message
> > news:JDeSa.20596$vx3.5...@kent.svc.tds.net...
> > > Snow White was physically restored first by YCM Labs from the nitrate
> > > negatives. However, there was light dirt, specks, etc on the
restoration
> > > since they recombined the 3-strip neg. Disney then had Kodak's
"Cineon"
> > > division do a digital restoration which fixed all the film damage and
also
> > > cleaned up the cel dust. Removing the cel dust may seem like a
> > "revisionist"
> > > idea....however, dye-transfer prints of the day would hide the dust
thanks
> > > to the nature of the process. What was invisible then was again made
> > > invisible.
>
> This is absolutely incorrect. The dye transfer prints never hid the cell
> dust. "Snow White" was loaded with it as were all Disney films produced
> before the early to mid forties. "Bambi" was also constantly peppered
> with cell dust.
>
> Personally, I don't feel that removing cell dust is to be considered
> "revisionist" any more that repairing a scratch on the original negative.
> Nobody wanted the dust there, they just didn't know how to avoid it. And
> it can be extremely distracting. I'm speaking from personal experience.
>
>
> > > The Cineon restoration was still great, but it still had a yellow push
in
> > > the image along with being overly grainy (judging from the clips on
the
> > > supplements DVD). The LDI restoration's point was to make the film
look
> > like
> > > the original animation...they excelled in that.
> >
> > I wouldn't say the Cineon restoration was "overly grainy". It looks
like
> > the original film did, that is to say, grainy. The later manipulation
of
> > the Cineon digital files pretty much erased any grain that was on the
> > negative.
>
> Erasing grain IS revisionist. The image is made up of grain. It breathes
> life into the image though it might be a subconscious effect. Grain
> removal is something that digital manipulators do because they can AND it
> significantly reduces the bandwidth necessary to store compressed images.
CP__J
>
> To use your own argument, Martin, Nobody wanted the grain there, they just
> didn't know how to avoid it. I'm sure that if they had a finer grain stock
> to use, Disney technicians would have used it. On cartoons, I find it
> distracting to watch the grain swim all over a solid color. Let's face it,
> the best reproduction of the original cell would have no grain at all.
> Loving film grain is like loving the hiss on an old 78rpm recording. Sure,
> there's a certain trueness to the way that people saw or heard things in the
> 1930s, but that doesn't mean that it's true to the original intention of the
> artist.
>
>
> > Erasing grain IS revisionist. The image is made up of grain. It breathes
> > life into the image though it might be a subconscious effect.
Have to agree with John on this.
One might as well claim that scan lines and interlace artifacts "breathe
life" into NTSC and PAL video images.
When these TV standards were developed many decades ago, there simply
wasn't the requisite technology (or, alternatively, broadcast bandwidth)
to avoid them.
As for movie (and film-sourced television) acquisition, directors and
DPs have traditionally sought a 'grainy' look only when there was a very
specific artistic reason to introduce a technologically dated look.
A recent example would be the paintball episode from "Six Feet Under"
(S3), filmed last January, for which 16mm was used to create a
'newsreel' look for the relevant scenes, albeit ironically juxtaposed
with a 'big orchestra' score (which the series normally doesn't use),
generating a humorous parody of certain recent war movies.
Further back, Robert Wise used fake grain (also fake scratches and other
fake artifacts) to make the fake newsreel segments in "Star!" as
authentic looking as possible, within the context of a 65mm Todd-AO
movie. Mr. Wise had to do this, since he had also used genuine newsreel
footage for the movie.
Not all attempts to replicate old technology for supposed artistic
reasons work IMO. "Far From Heaven", set in the late 50s, was (for me,
at least) decidedly depressing to view. "The Talented Mr. Ripley",
"Inventing The Abbotts" and "Liberty Heights" used completely modern
cinematography and production techniques and, accordingly, were much
more successful and convincing period recreations.
C.
Stefan Adler
grain to begin with, like a good 65mm and having digitally removed, filtered
away grain. I agree with Marty. Highly filtered DVD images are lifeless and
dull! A great eaxample of the opposite is the DVD of 42nd Street, beutiful
crisp and clean, fresh nitrate looking, but with visable grain. There is
grain and there is grain...
//Stefan
"John Anastasio" <je...@earthlink.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:V3uTa.17972$Mc.13...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Lincoln Spector
"Stefan Adler" <s.a...@home.se> wrote in message
news:bfm1s5$a0l$1...@minox.tripnet.se...
> On the other hand, there is a major difference between having invisible
> grain to begin with, like a good 65mm and having digitally removed,
filtered
> away grain. I agree with Marty. Highly filtered DVD images are lifeless
and
> dull! A great eaxample of the opposite is the DVD of 42nd Street, beutiful
> crisp and clean, fresh nitrate looking, but with visable grain. There is
> grain and there is grain...
getting rid of textures when you get rid of the grain.
Speaking of which, there's something about this DVD grain controversy that
confuses me. The reason we all prefer film to DVD is that film carries more
information--more detail. Correct? Now, the lowest level of detail in a
photochemical image is the grain, correct? If a detail in the final image is
smaller than the grain, it won't get picked up, correct? The lowest level of
detail in a DVD is the pixel. And there are less pixels in a DVD frame than
grains in a typical film frame, correct (if there weren't, film wouldn't
have higher resolution). So how come you can see grain on a DVD image?
Lincoln
Stefan Adler
who needs image noise reduction on DVD when a pixel is so large compared to
film grain - or even tons of clusters of grain, which I suspect is what we
see? If we see it, that is :-) Maybe we can introduce a new conception:
Psychsomatic lack/excess of grain, Grainosis Vulgaere. Best cured with a
severe dose of 70mm on +75 feet screens!
//Stefan
"Lincoln Spector" <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:GPzTa.2202$9F5...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
Derek Gee
(stuff snipped)
>We have seldom had the opportunity to see what's on those
> original negatives or fine-grains. I have been provided with snips of
> nitrate prints of Chaplin films that are astonishing in their fine grain
> and beautiful gray scale. It is my sincere belief that there is little to
> complain about when we discuss first generation prints or negatives made
> in 35mm or large format systems.
How old are the Chaplin snips? Keystones? Essanay's? Mutuals? First
Nationals? UA's?
Derek
Daniel P. B. Smith
Martin Hart <martinB...@widescreenBLOCKmuseum.com> wrote:
> I'm afraid there are too many people speaking about grain that are
> relating to multi-generation dupes that are also excessively contrasty.
> Reproduction of the original grain contained in the negatives of films
> dating back to before the turn of the last century will surprise almost
> everyone. We have seldom had the opportunity to see what's on those
> original negatives or fine-grains. I have been provided with snips of
> nitrate prints of Chaplin films that are astonishing in their fine grain
> and beautiful gray scale. It is my sincere belief that there is little to
> complain about when we discuss first generation prints or negatives made
> in 35mm or large format systems.
What's the explanation of the semiperiodic lightening and darkening
which you frequently see in umpteenth-generation versions of old
black-and-white films? Most typically seen in films from the silent
era. I am talking about the slowish changes that last a big fraction of
a second. Obviously excess contrast is exaggerating the effect, but
what caused it? Sloppy processing? (Poorly rinsed fixer?)
Deterioration in storage?
I've found that when people talk about old movies being "flickery," THIS
(and not the 16 fps flicker) is what they are referring to.
--
dpbsmith at world dot std dot com
(replace "at" with at-sign and "dot" with period and remove spaces)
Peter Mason
>
> What's the explanation of the semiperiodic lightening and darkening
> which you frequently see in umpteenth-generation versions of old
> black-and-white films? Most typically seen in films from the silent
> era. I am talking about the slowish changes that last a big fraction of
> a second. Obviously excess contrast is exaggerating the effect, but
> what caused it? Sloppy processing? (Poorly rinsed fixer?)
> Deterioration in storage?
Most silent films were shot with hand-cranked cameras, and even slight
variations in cranking rate, would cause slight changes in exposure
which manifested itself as flickering.
Regards,
Peter Mason
Scott Dorsey
Additionally, much of this stuff was hand-processed and even slightly
uneven development will cause these sorts of problems. Reel-and-trough
tanks and rewind tanks (especially at higher temperatures and shorter
times) were notorious for this.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Allan Young
> We thought we read somewhere that Robert Harris is supervising the new
> Superbit transfer. This should improve things tenfold.
>
> Dean
> > > (I hope they reduce the edge enhancement)
> >
> > Unless the transfer is significantly improved (ie, redone and mastered
> > in HiDef [and perhaps also released in D-VHS]) this will not likely be a
> > major improvement.
> >
> > I watched about 40 minutes of the DVD a few evenings ago. Re
> > directional dialog (discussed here a few days ago), what I noted was in
> > some instances it was very obvious (early scene with O'Toole, Rains and
> > Wolfit), while in others [especially once everyone had hit the desert]
> > the dialog seemed to be almost exclusively center-channel. My
> > impression/speculation is they used/retained directional audio for
> > dialog recorded on the larger sound stages (also maintaining the
> > acoustics), but kept the sound design more basic for scenes which were
> > post-dubbed. [I've also heard claims that the audio on the current DVD
> > is a few frames out-of-sync. However, for a movie with major chunks of
> > looped dialog this might be extremely difficult to judge.]
"It has been confirmed that there will be no new electronic
sharpening." according to Robert Harris here ...
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/robertharris/harris073003.html