|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: New 2001 OCN (elements)70mm prints.
|
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 06-18-2018 10:52 AM
David and Jean-Pierre argue from two different viewpoints. David seems to accept Christopher Nolan’s view, that any 70mm presentation of the film, even one from a compromised printing element, is preferable. Jean-Pierre seems to feel that the film is best served as a work of cinema by an optimal presentation.
I saw the fourth play of a fesh-from-Fotokem print last night at the Coolidge Corner Cinema in Brookline, Massachusetts. Knowing what I know about this release I went in with low expectations, and I’m not even sure these were met. Don’t get me wrong, it was GREAT seeing the film in a with a top-notch, high showmanship presentation, and well worth the trip up. But while I was watching it I came to understand why Nolan underlined the whole “unrestored” qualification, because honestly, it didn’t look that good. Among the issues I saw: there were three quite serious tears in the printing element: the first about ninety seconds into the Dawn of Man sequence, the second in the Moon scene just as the astronaut is about to touch the monolith for the first time, the third just a few frames before the end credits began. There were many instance of white speckles observed, and some serious patches of dirt, the worst coming in the drawing room scene just as Bowman sits down at the table just before he knocks over the wine glass, very distracting. There was general low contrast throughout the print (but I noticed a few other things that made me believe that this may have been in part a theatre-specific issue). In general, highlights were quite blown-out and lacking in detail. And the color timing. Oy vay, the color timing. David might argue: in some scenes yes, others no. But if there are issues in any scenes at all, you're not seeing the best obtainable presentation.
If Nolan and van Hoytema obtained the best possible results from the remaining film elements, then from this point on to obtain a clean, color correct, OPTIMAL presentation of the title will absolutely require a digital restoration, because I don't see a way to address these issues photochemically. In fact, I found myself grading the film in my mind as I was watching it. So keyframe a tracking window there, there’s a yellow secondary correction, make a DVO REgrain layer there, you need the Phoenix plug-in to fix that tear . . . you get the point.
Again, very film-romantic to see a beloved movie this way, but I would have been equally happy to see a better looking image from a digital file. I just hope to Christ that nobody gets the idea to do the same thing to this picture that is being done to Lawrence Of Arabia, lay off a digital file onto film and pass it off as 70mm.
*****
The Coolidge Corner put on a great show last night. The projectionist was a young man named Riley who had a “Support Your Local Projectionist” teeshirt on, and who introduced the show. Very tasteful use of curtains and lights during the overture, entr’acte and exit. Dead-nuts changeovers from DP70s. I noticed that very bright images on dark backgrounds caused a faint ghost image at the bottom of the screen which I have never seen before and which makes me wonder about this theatre and the contrast issue mentioned above. Overall, though, a nice presentation shown to an appreciative crowd.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jean-Pierre Gutzeit
Film Handler
Posts: 43
From: Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Registered: Nov 2012
|
posted 06-18-2018 05:06 PM
It would be desirable to increase the number of 70mm sites and film inserts, especially classics.
However, the end customers, the dedicated cinema operators as well as the cinemagoers, must take responsibility for the quality of these film prints in their own hands and demand accountability from the distributors and the laboratories. The latter have to make their work transparent. Otherwise it threatens a disgrace on all levels.
Over the last six weeks, the most contradictory statements by Christopher Nolan or the lab have been read on the “unrestored version” [which is very much a restoration of the original, while a digital restoration should rather be called digitization]. Rendered in the sense:
a. We did not touch the camera negative
b. The camera negatives were elaborately repaired and cleaned
c. We found an unused 65mm interpositive from 1999, commissioned by the director [objection: however, looking at the 70mm clips of the Home Cinema editions since 2000/01, we discover the signs and edge numbering of an interpositive from the late 1990s ]
d. Over 40 employees worked on the production of the 65mm Internegative for several months in 2017/18 [Objection: an unprecedented effort]
e. More than 40 employees spent several months working on the 65mm Interpositiv in 1999 [Objection: an unprecedented effort]
f. we want to give the audience a version of the look of the premiere original [of course you could approach this goal successfully, if the print process developed exactly, properly color timed, intact printers for the production of intermediates keeps running and experienced employees from earlier labs with attracts]
The lab had to dismiss many experienced employees in recent years, as I was told. In addition, most of them live from orders for digitization, while traditional copying work is on the verge of a deficit.
It is therefore tragic to have experienced some very unbalanced 70mm prints of Fox classics for about 15 years: often with a strongly yellow discolored white, basic vote too green or too dark. [There may also be problems with the positive development machines, but that's just a speculation]. The internegatives of recent productions like INTERSTELLAR, HATEFUL 8 or DUNKIRK did not show sufficient sharpness in my experience. Unfortunately I did not see the direct prints of the camera original negative, but only the prints of the Internegativ. Had DUNKIRK and HATEFUL 8 been shot anamorphic in 35mm, the same result would have been achievable. One does not recognize the 65mm-shot - in contrast to earlier classics.
[part 1 of 2]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jean-Pierre Gutzeit
Film Handler
Posts: 43
From: Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Registered: Nov 2012
|
posted 06-18-2018 07:52 PM
Tendentiell noticed in all the mentioned 70mm titles INTERSTELLAR or HATEFUL 8 that loss of detail in the shadows and lights appeared. Then these movies on Blu-ray looked quite normal: like a 35mm direct print of the original negative from the 1990s. Without additions and enhancements. The 65mm Intermediates of films like MY FAIR LADY, VERTIGO, TITANIC or TRUE LIES, made in the 1990s, provided largely satisfactory results.
David Kornfeld mentioned the formerly I.N. I prints (2001-2017): I saw very different prints. Some awful, but one of a special festival print with much better saturation and details than the version from 2018.
The modern symptoms of the new production line seem now also affecting 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. 2001 has now the look of DUNKIRK. In the "2001"-prints of Metrocolor since 1968, which mentioned Steve Guttag, hardly complaints arose. The Blu ray from 2007 also contains many usable scenes that serve as orientation for comparisons and were obtained from intact interpositives.
What was printed to 70mm in 2018 is frightening. One might suspect that the original negative would be severely blurred, so full of soot, graying and poor in details looked like the picture. The color timing is definitely "in line" in my opinion, extensively striving for a scene correction. But the basic character is desolate. Unfortunately, in the reaction to criticism, the buzz words "dead negative" often serve to discredit the analogue film and casually refer to digitization. But if you look more closely, the starting materials at "2001" are apparently not that bad:
- 65mm Interpositiv from 1999 is untouched, said Warner [but I assume that the Blu ray Disc of 2007 was won, so the results of a 70mm-theatrical prints would have to be good in 2018 as well.]
- 65mm original negative: the restoration manager Ned Price said that the negative is in good condition according to his age. A slight color fading could be compensated on the way of the analog color timing and printing [I hereby like to confirm. And add: you should have tried the only one dozen new 70mm prints in 2018 to strike from the original negative. I doubt the alleged "impossibility". (Last week, a 35mm Eastman Color original negative from 1968 was scanned in this city, though not developed by Metrocolor, but perfectly flawless, no fading, no color crossings)]
The restoration must therefore be repeated photochemically (exceptly the title sequence, because it is yet a "dup" in the OCN) and possibly be used by additional personnel or a new lab. Christopher Nolan should take care of that if he does not want to risk the demise of the 70mm format.
[part 2 of 2]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 06-19-2018 03:54 AM
Thanks Jean. I appreciate your comments.
I have not seen this release of 2001 yet (coming in July to a theatre near me). But I have definitely be underwhelmed by the 70mm that has been coming out in this last batch (last few years). They have been very un-70mm like. They seem to lack steadiness/sharpness, in particular. Whereas I had not seen the new movies before, I couldn't say if the saturation was right or not.
As I recall from back when the 25th Anniversary was run, they said that in addition to the OCN, that full separations also exist of 2001. One would think that a 1990s IP shouldn't have to be the starting point on this title. It isn't in my skill set to say what can or can't be done photochemically from the OCN is whatever its present state. Probably, a new negative should be struck to preserve it and in that process it should be properly "restored" with the best techniques of the day that also ensure that no detail is lost. My concern there is, every time I see a 70mm title go through the DCP conversion, it just looks wrong on a big screen. Thus far, Oklahoma! has looked the best to me but it wasn't 70mm. The colors were nice but the sound was a fail (didn't keep the Todd Ao mix). I just have yet to see a good modern digital restoration out to 70mm (or even 4K DCP) that really have that 70mm look.
My fear is that what is being passed off for 70mm in either modern prints or 4K DCP will soon be entrenched in people's minds as the look of 70mm when in fact, it is a pale comparison of what 70mm was. I've run a LOT of 70mm on reasonably large screens and what I'm seeing today just doesn't stand up.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jean-Pierre Gutzeit
Film Handler
Posts: 43
From: Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Registered: Nov 2012
|
posted 06-19-2018 05:15 PM
Steve,
maybe the last integral 70mm roadshow productions had been made in 1970? A long debate. Since then, one can expect a fragmentation of the system and many half-hearted resurrections.
Also, I have just recently read that from "2001" color separations should have been made. Actually, 5 years ago, the intermediate process and additive color printing had been introduced to replace the process of color separations.
If these "2001" separations really exist and they were reexamined for possible errors before being put into storage, they might be another clue for the determination of color and light today. But they have almost never been used in the practice of printing or reprinting in 65/70mm format. Even more than the weaknesses of the 3-Strip Technicolor system on 35mm one feared covering problems and color fringes in the wide Gänge format. The wider the format, the more fringing the color fringes. But before the intermediate process the separations were security packages, thought also for the insurance companies. There are other types of material than the black and white negative films in the three-strip Technicolor, they are very grainy and they are positives.
Perhaps Robert Harris is the only one who had the opportunity to resort in 1994 to 65mm separations when inserts for damaged partals of the original negative of "My Fair Lady" had to be replaced (in the pub scene with Dolittle just before the end of the movie)?
In general, however, the production of intermediates, a prerequisite for internegatives, as well as for the scans for later DVD releases, the interpositive were preferred. They are able to absorb all the parameters of the original negative and usually also have the advantage of an integral light determination from the premiere time. They can still be used today for the production of new internegatives, new film prints and sometimes also for the production of HD masters. They have a threefold finer grain structure than the Print Film: the grain is almost invisible.
I sincerely hope that the interpositives of "2001" were always in good working order, as it should be the norm.
However, in the still popular "2001" Blu-ray disc, the color intersections appear in the interpositive, because the surfaces of the original white spaceships all have a green or yellow tint. With previous knowledge, one could fall back on the interpositive produced in 1968 or produced in 1999 or even produce a new interpositive in 2018, if the fading of the original negative should be justifiable, which Warner has at least admitted.
And it is by no means impossible to draw a new direct copy of an original negative from 1968 and certainly also on today's print materials (!), If one wants to approach the character of the premiere version. It is only an approximation, because the absolute picture cleanliness demanded today will not be possible in this way. But I would be happy if the sharpness and the colors would give away more than the catastrophic re-printing of the film. Because I doubt that this lab is even able to produce flawless intermediates. In my opinion, that is a question of qualification and available staff and much less a material question - that is what I would like to emphasize.
DCPs: I saw "Lawrence of Arabia" as DCP, but this version lacked the look and brilliance of a 70mm premiere print. The details in the 4k DCP hardly differ from the Blu-ray Disc. The image quality is very clean due to elaborate retouching, but the light determination is inconsistent. I can better accept the restoration of 1988, because the definition of light at that time is of one piece (I can see that on my own 70mm print, but also on the then released Sony Super Bit DVD).
Unfortunately, illumination errors have crept into both the interpositives of "2001" and "Lawrence of Arabia" because the image pages tend to be a different color from the center of the image.
"Ben Hur" in DCP and Blu-ray was disappointing: about 40% of the film is indoor and hopelessly drowned. An emerald green in this movie or glass green leaves now tend to turn blue.
"Oklahoma!" shows me some drawbacks in the picture, but you could imagine that the original negative 1955 was not developed process-accurate and therefore tended to stronger fading?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Robert Harris
Film Handler
Posts: 95
From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 06-25-2018 05:31 AM
To Steve: At some point, I’d like to sit with you, and screen MFL in 4k.
As to 65mm sep masters, whether 5216, or 5235, there are always problems, although I’ve been far happier taking them through an 8k scan, than analogue.
Unless they are digitally massaged, they do not, in any way, replicate an original 65mm look and texture.
Many were improperly produced - optical defects, focus, improper field illumination - so we have what we have, and need them.
At their base, they exist, not for preservation, although that’s important, but rather as a means of stopping production insurance, which is why many do not conform to the finished production. Different cuts, missing fx, etc.
On another subject, original printings of 65mm productions were struck on optical printers. I believe they’re all now continuous contact. That could account for a bit of a drop in quality.
One major problem, c. 2005-6, was an inability at Tech to produce a flat field. We tested various contact printers, and found One capable of producing quality prints of Williamsburg. Exposure from sides to center of image was extreme enough to be seen on a light table.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jean-Pierre Gutzeit
Film Handler
Posts: 43
From: Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Registered: Nov 2012
|
posted 06-27-2018 07:30 PM
This correctly presents the situation around the separations. They are extremely difficult to handle in copying and to bring to cover. In this case, digitization would be an advantage. But separations will not replicate the Todd AO impression of a print of the original negative even in 8K.
quote: Robert Harris
"On another subject, original printings of 65mm productions were struck on optical printers."
Typically, optical printing involves a higher reject rate, difficult illumination, and complicated color correction. The industry (at first DeLuxe) was glad to introduce CLEOPATRA for 65mm / 70mm Continuous Contact printers (additive printing) from 1963 onwards.
Over 90% of all 70mm film prints were made using Continous Contact printers. Exempted may be the blow-up prints of GREYSTOKE, some handpicked copies of INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, ALIEN 3 and of course the older Ultra Panavision films and Technirama movies on 70mm.
The new Blu ray version of MY FAIR LADY is excellent. And SPARTACUS, TEN COMMANDMENTS and VERTIGO are nearly perfect. Wished, that RAINTREE COUNTY find a sponsor for some 70mm prints, however the OCN is cut, if I was correct informed.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic