Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 'Oklahoma!' Todd-AO version restoration / premier at TCM Fest 2014

This is topic 'Oklahoma!' Todd-AO version restoration / premier at TCM Fest 2014 in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=001794

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 02-17-2014, 10:41 AM:

"The 2014 TCM Classic Film Festival will open April 10 with the world premiere of the new restoration of "Oklahoma!" Fred Zinnemann's 1955 classic based on the groundbreaking Richard Rodgers-Oscar Hammerstein II musical.

Restoration presented in collaboration with Twentieth Century Fox and Fotokem. The original 6-track soundtrack has been also restored and re-mastered at Twentieth Century Fox, in collaboration with End Point Audio and Chase Audio by Deluxe.

This unique 4K presentation, painstakingly restored from 65mm Todd-AO elements by Twentieth Century Fox and Fotokem, will be screened at 30 frames per second—the same frame rate as when the film was originally released in 1955. The original 6-track soundtrack has been also restored and re-mastered at Twentieth Century Fox, in collaboration with End Point Audio and Chase Audio by Deluxe.

Shirley Jones will be in attendance at the screening in the TCL Chinese Theater IMAX in Hollywood. The film will be introduced by TCM host Robert Osborne."

~

so not only is the 30fps encoded - how is this achieved projected back as such?

but with all the fanfare of the sound, does anyone know if they actually hard encoded the five front channel spread onto the DCP? or is this the now standard 5.1 configurement?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-17-2014, 12:30 PM:

Ewwwwww, Chase Audio. They were responsible for the absolute destruction of the 1990 remix of Rocky Horror.

These morons need to leave things alone.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-17-2014, 02:30 PM:

Although OKLAHOMA never played at the Kuhio as a road show, it did play there in the 35mm/mono CinemaScope version because it did not get 70mm until the road show engagement of SOUTH PACIFIC in 1958. The film did have two 70mm showings later- once at the Royal in Waikiki and and during a 70mm festival at the Cinerama. I saw both of the showings as well as the 35mm at the Kuhio and enjoyed the film.

OKLAHOMA was released in a special edition DVD set with both the CinemaScope and the 70 mm versions. The image and sound from the 35mm version was fantastic but the 70mm was a big disappointment. Hopefully when OKLAHOMA comes out on Blu Ray, it will be from the new 70mm Todd AO restoration.

-Claude

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 02-17-2014, 03:13 PM:

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
so not only is the 30fps encoded - how is this achieved projected back as such?

but with all the fanfare of the sound, does anyone know if they actually hard encoded the five front channel spread onto the DCP? or is this the now standard 5.1 configurement?

No problem to play even 4k at 30fps with todays DCI machines.

For a special screening, they can use any non-standard channel layout. As a matter of fact, the SDDS type 5front layout is even one of DCIs 'approved' layouts, although hardly ever used. No problem to play it with any 8ch enabled processor.

- Carsten

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-17-2014, 03:40 PM:

I ran some of the showings of the 70mm/30fps rerelease in the early 80's at the Uptown in DC. Really amazing to see. I wonder if they can get that almost 3D like depth in digital.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-17-2014, 04:30 PM:

So far, without exception, every 70mm transfer I've seen to 4K DCP has looked like garbage.

Let them run a 70mm print side by side with this new thing and let the people compare.

The 70mm 6-track soundtrack was actually quite good...though not as good as Sound of Music, in my opinion.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 02-17-2014, 04:33 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
OKLAHOMA was released in a special edition DVD set with both the CinemaScope and the 70 mm versions. The image and sound from the 35mm version was fantastic but the 70mm was a big disappointment. Hopefully when OKLAHOMA comes out on Blu Ray, it will be from the new 70mm Todd AO restoration

as I recall reading the Hammerstein estate were known to pleased how the TODD-AO version looked on DVD - that's why it's taken so long for this to appear - the restoration must have extensive. For the TODD-AO version NOT to be on the eventual bluray would be foolish on Fox Home Video's part.

quote:
No problem to play even 4k at 30fps with todays DCI machines.

For a special screening, they can use any non-standard channel layout. As a matter of fact, the SDDS type 5 front layout is even one of DCIs 'approved' layouts, although hardly ever used. No problem to play it with any 8ch enabled processor.

- Carsten

but that's only achievable if a theater is outfitted as such - five front channel sound would only exist in this day and age if said theater can playback 70mm features and I'd assume the specialty premium 'large' screens that use five channels to fill in the extra 'wide' screens and / or Dolby Atmos.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-17-2014, 04:39 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
So far, without exception, every 70mm transfer I've seen to 4K DCP has looked like garbage.

What are the problems? Poor contrast & black levels?

One of the things I did like about 70mm, particular stuff shot in 70mm, was the deeper blacks and better contrast. However, some movies that mixed 35mm live action plates in with 70mm produced visual effects looked a bit odd (the 35mm stuff didn't have the black levels of the 70mm stuff composited into the same frame).

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-17-2014, 04:40 PM:

I have not seen any DCP 70mm conversations except SAMSARA in 4K and it was gorgeous. Many have seen the 4K DCP of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and have praised it. If these two movies are included in your 70mm DCP garbage list, I guess we all have to differ with you, Steve. [Smile]

-Claude

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 02-17-2014, 04:49 PM:

quote:
So far, without exception, every 70mm transfer I've seen to 4K DCP has looked like garbage.

Let them run a 70mm print side by side with this new thing and let the people compare.

The 70mm 6-track soundtrack was actually quite good...though not as good as Sound of Music, in my opinion.

you lost me - are you saying that the DCP of 'Sound of Music' is better than the 70mm 6-track mix. I had read that Robert Wise was not all that enamored with surround sound, that's why the 70mm/6-track mix 'Sound of Music' is very front heavy, but makes great use of directionalized dialogue - this would be further emphasized on 'West Side Story's recently restored 6-track mix which gave the frontal soundstage such prominence and power - notably in the music.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 02-18-2014, 05:39 AM:

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
but that's only achievable if a theater is outfitted as such - five front channel sound would only exist in this day and age if said theater can playback 70mm features and I'd assume the specialty premium 'large' screens that use five channels to fill in the extra 'wide' screens and / or Dolby Atmos.

They will probably supply a standard 5.1 mix as well. I mean, if they want to do it right, retaining the original 5front mix is certainly valuable, and it costs them nothing extra.

- Carsten

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-18-2014, 06:52 AM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
I have not seen any DCP 70mm conversations except SAMSARA in 4K and it was gorgeous. Many have seen the 4K DCP of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and have praised it. If these two movies are included in your 70mm DCP garbage list, I guess we all have to differ with you, Steve.

Samsara looked fine in 4K...not 70mm but a very good representation of what 4K can look like.

Lawrence of Arabia...now that is an embarrassment! This is not opinion...it is a hideous transfer from 70mm. It is absolute garbage.

Unlike many, if not most, I've had the privilege of seeing, showing Lawrence in 70mm many many times in multiple venues...I've seen good copies of it and not so good in 70mm...I've presented the film to Sir David Lean. I have also seen it in DCP, 4K on the same screen as presented in 70mm. Lawrence in 4K DCP doesn't even compare favorably to so-so 35mm. That is the fact...again, not opinion. It has many, many visible artifacts in it...one can freeze frame it to verify (I have). And the sound on the DCP of Lawrence is nothing to write home about either...it really sounded mediocre and I heard it in a THX theatre that was indeed calibrated and does indeed meet spec.

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
are you saying that the DCP of 'Sound of Music' is better than the 70mm 6-track mix.

NO! I'm saying that I think the 70mm 6-track mix is an excellent representation of how good a 70mm 6-track mix can sound. It mix was 1st rate. Again, I've run a lot of 70mm in my day...I've seen it and heard it quite a bit...both magnetic and digital. But putting the medium aside, The Sound of Music's 6-track mix was excellent. It was better, in my opinion, than Oklahoma's 6-track mix...but that is my opinion.

I don't know what your fixation is with surround and their use or lack thereof. If the sound designer wants to use them for effect or to convey realism or even atmosphere, so be it. If not...that is fine too. The movie is on the screen, not in the audience, I can certainly appreciate one that concentrates their sound in that area more than in the audience. Furthermore, back in the 50s/60s, aside from novelties like Fantasia, Surrounds meant turning all of the speakers on in the audience without directionality. It can be fine for adding ambiance but could be a distraction for adding a directional effect that can't have direction due to the nature of a mono surround track.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-18-2014, 04:51 PM:

Speaking of comparisons the Red Mysterium MX (digital) vs The Panaflex (35mm) is almost a joke. Run it up to 4:08, the close up of the eye is the best example of film killing digital!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OQ6hdyaNBw

Mark

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 02-18-2014, 05:33 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag

NO! I'm saying that I think the 70mm 6-track mix is an excellent representation of how good a 70mm 6-track mix can sound. It mix was 1st rate. Again, I've run a lot of 70mm in my day...I've seen it and heard it quite a bit...both magnetic and digital. But putting the medium aside, The Sound of Music's 6-track mix was excellent. It was better, in my opinion, than Oklahoma's 6-track mix...but that is my opinion.

I don't know what your fixation is with surround and their use or lack thereof. If the sound designer wants to use them for effect or to convey realism or even atmosphere, so be it. If not...that is fine too. The movie is on the screen, not in the audience, I can certainly appreciate one that concentrates their sound in that area more than in the audience. Furthermore, back in the 50s/60s, aside from novelties like Fantasia, Surrounds meant turning all of the speakers on in the audience without directionality. It can be fine for adding ambiance but could be a distraction for adding a directional effect that can't have direction due to the nature of a mono surround track.

well excuse for me being a dick about my fixation with film sound ... [sheesh]

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 02-18-2014, 06:23 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Speaking of comparisons the Red Mysterium MX (digital) vs The Panaflex (35mm) is almost a joke. Run it up to 4:08, the close up of the eye is the best example of film killing digital!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OQ6hdyaNBw

The video is a crock of shit, Mark.

Whoever posted this to YouTube simply hijacked another person's video, which appears to be a legitimate Red one camera test using a variety of lenses and placed on-line in a non-gamma corrected, unsharpened state. Then they added bullshit captions and some mournful background music, and then over-sharpened the hell out of half of it hoping to dupe someone into believing it was film. I mean, c'mon, didn't the fact that the shot was exactly the same between the supposed two cameras tip you off?

Unbelievable.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-19-2014, 01:30 PM:

quote: Press Release
This unique 4K presentation, painstakingly restored...

Well they were hardly going to say "We got some knackered old 16mm airline print, had the intern put it through our $5k Moviestuff or Tobin scanner, transcoded and uprezzed the resulting YouTube video to a DCP and bingo!", were they?!

If I had the necessary programming skills, I'd produce a "lazy archivists' restoration press release generator" along the same lines as the lazy journalists' plane story generator.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 02-19-2014, 07:01 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
lazy journalists' plane story generator

that's hilarious

Next step is the lazy journalist topic based story generator generator.

Pick from 'plane story', 'shooting', 'high speed chase' or other popular news items.

Speaking of fake stories, this

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

Speaking of comparisons the Red Mysterium MX (digital) vs The Panaflex (35mm) is almost a joke. Run it up to 4:08, the close up of the eye is the best example of film killing digital!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OQ6hdyaNBw

is a known fake. Who would actually believe that a 14MPix Sensor would not even be able to challenge a 720p video rezwise? The original footage is ALL from the RED One Mx.

- Carsten

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 02-22-2014, 09:40 AM:

I got to see this one in 1982-3 in Atlanta in 70mm. It was like looking into a mirror. Beautiful and sharp from corner to corner.

Is the studio just going to kill the 35mm Cinemascope version, now? It has its merits, too.

If given the chance to see it, I will probably go have a look. This is one of my favorite films.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 04-08-2014, 01:25 AM:

well apparently Bruce - the big 'ol Rodgers & Hammerstein bluray box set (coming out at the end of the month), has both the TODD-AO 'AND' the Cinemascope version in hidef. Whether DCP's were also created from both versions... no idea.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-08-2014, 04:22 AM:

From what I've seen, Samsara was the best 4K presentation I've ever witnessed and it's probably the closest to what 70mm once used to be. But this is all-new content and the transfer was made by people that actually cared about the end result. If all digital presentations would look just remotely like that one, I would be one happy camper.

The 70mm scenes in The Master also looked great in 4K, but I hated the added flicker-effect they obviously put in there, to simulate the film look.

For some reason, no "natively shot in 4K(+)" presentation up until now really impressed me. Maybe I'm underwhelmed by the image quality of the RED cameras that currently are the backbone of most native 4K productions.

Coincidentally, the 4K transfer of Django Unchained looked gorgeous to me. The resolution seems to be sufficient to capture the essence of all the little intricacies of 35mm, minus most of the defects.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 04-08-2014, 10:26 AM:

umm, I thought 'Django Unchained' WAS shot on 35mm ??

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-08-2014, 11:18 AM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Maybe I'm underwhelmed by the image quality of the RED cameras that currently are the backbone of most native 4K productions.

They might not be for long: rumours are that a 4K version of the Blackmagic camera is just around the corner, and that Arri are working on a four-chip (R, G, B and key image) body.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-08-2014, 11:37 AM:

I always wondered why there were no multi chip D-Cinema cameras. This has been standard in broadcast since color cameras first appeared and still is.

Mark

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-08-2014, 12:34 PM:

Evidently, the issue with 3-chip cameras is that they require a greater flange focal depth than film cameras due to the prisms and filters. Thus, the existing PL-mount film lenses that work fine and that everyone wants to use would be unusable with a 3-chip camera, and rental houses would be required to buy entire new sets of lenses, making everything more expensive and difficult for everyone.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-08-2014, 02:56 PM:

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
umm, I thought 'Django Unchained' WAS shot on 35mm ??

It was, but it was scanned at 4K and actually delivered as a 4K DCP. Many 35mm movies only receive a 2K transfer. In my opinion, many 35mm shots (especially the grainy ones) scanned to 2K look quite ugly, primarily because the film grain often ends up looking like digital noise, which I find very distracting.

quote: Leo Enticknap
They might not be for long: rumours are that a 4K version of the Blackmagic camera is just around the corner, and that Arri are working on a four-chip (R, G, B and key image) body.

If Blackmagic can make that work for the same aggressive price as their current 2.5K model, both RED and Arri might be in an interesting position...

Personally, I really prefer the look of both the Sony and Arri gear above the strangely unsaturated look of the RED cameras almost any time. I've only seen the 2.5K Blackmagic camera once, at a trade show, so I cannot really say anything about the quality, but many of their products are surely game changers, especially given their pricing.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 04-08-2014, 05:21 PM:

quote:
rumours are that a 4K version of the Blackmagic camera is just around the corner,

Already out.

quote: Leo Enticknap
and that Arri are working on a four-chip (R, G, B and key image) body.

I'd be interested in where you heard that, Leo, as such a camera files in the face of common sense and economics in the digital cinema world. As Scott mentioned above, and as I have mentioned before, such a camera would involve beam-splitting prism optics, which would mean that no PL mount cinema lens would work on it, which would pretty much negate the point of it. The fourth sensor being for a "key image" (I presume that you are talking about luminance only, as generating a key signal internally is pretty pointless) is difficult technology, Ikegami tried something like that years ago and couldn't get it to work.

What Arri DID recently do is team up with Ikegami on a 3-chip, B4 lens mount broadcast camera, which uses the Super-35 imagers from the Alexa and an conventional HDK-97 back end. Perhaps that's what you'd heard of.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-08-2014, 05:51 PM:

We're probably going slightly off-topic, but then again...

quote: Mark Ogden
Already out.

But is it already shipping? The 2.5K model only started shipping halfway past year, while it was officially announced and available for (pre-)order in 2012.

quote: Mark Ogden
The fourth sensor being for a "key image" (I presume that you are talking about luminance only, as generating a key signal internally is pretty pointless) is difficult technology, Ikegami tried something like that years ago and couldn't get it to work.

Besides the focal length problem already in place, wouldn't this be as "easy" as just bouncing off the light off a semi-transparent mirror to a single CMOS or CCD sensor? Of course, it would introduce some other issues: your RGB sensors will lose light, but maybe your separate luminance channel is worth it and can easily compensate for that.

And regarding that focal length problem: Arri also sells lenses. So, couldn't they be the first ones sufficiently brave to introduce a new camera that needs new lenses? Maybe they could even pull a Gillette on this one: Make the camera body dirt cheap, but you will need new razor blades/lenses for this one to actually do something meaningful.

Maybe this step needs to be taken or we will be stuck with stupid Bayer filters for eternity.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 04-08-2014, 06:58 PM:

The Blackmagic 4K camera is out now and available for retail purchase at many dealers.

As far as the four-chip Alexa goes (if such a thing really is happening): I suppose that Arri could do such a thing, bring out a dedicated line of lenses for it. I just don't see either the practical or economic point of it. Arri makes a great lens, but what about DPs who like Cooke, Schneider, Panavision et. al. ? The entire point of the single chip design was to allow people use whatever commonly available PL mount (or E or EF) lens they wanted. As far as I know, there is no B4 mount prime lens available, so you lose that as well. Unless this alleged camera is light years over and above what is now available, it's going to be hard to get other manufactures to go along. What's to be gained? There's nothing inherently wrong with Bayer technology, the entire digital photography industry runs on it, and the already existing Alexa makes a stunning image.

The only advantage to a fourth luminence-only imager is somewhat increased resolution IF you spatially offset it from the other chips (I can't imagine what happens to the sampling rate then). As I mentioned above, Ikegami was fooling around with this years ago but never did anything with it, partially because the proposed increase in detail and S/N wasn't worth the engineering headache.

I'm not saying "no way", but if this camera is for real, I will be very interested in hearing the philosophy behind it.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-08-2014, 09:17 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
If Blackmagic can make that work for the same aggressive price as their current 2.5K model, both RED and Arri might be in an interesting position...

Maybe. And then again maybe not. The potential customer base for d-cinema capable cameras is very small, especially if one is trying to overcome all the built in limitations with everything priced in a remotely affordable range to the "prosumer" market.

It's possible to buy a low priced camera that can shoot 4K video. The just announced Sony A7s mirrorless camera features a full frame sensor in native 4K resolution (rather than the typical 24 or so Mpixel resolutions of other full frame cameras). There's no down-sampling involved with shooting 4K video, unlike nearly all other still cameras offering video capabilities.

This is all fine and good until you want to pair it up with a good lens. Still camera lenses are best used for shooting still images, not video. Cine lenses are expensive as hell. "Digital" has done absolutely nothing to change this.

Even though the camera bodies and sensors are getting better, they still have some serious issues. Fundamentally I don't like all the problems that come from rolling shutters. Moving to 4K across all camera levels from consumer to professional is fine.

But now a lot more work needs to be centered on developing global shutter sensor designs. Every pixel "sees" the image frame simultaneously rather than being recorded in a linear fashion, which is what CMOS sensors typically do. Global shutter sensors wouldn't have all the distorted, sheared video imagery in zip pans like you get with rolling shutter based image sensors.

Global shutter sensors in DSLRs and mirror-less cameras could be a God-send for certain types of still photography. If someone wants to use controlled lighting outdoors and use high shutter speeds to kill ambient light from the sun, he has a couple choices. He can use a ridiculously expensive camera system with specialized lenses with things like leaf shutters. Or he can try using a less expensive DSLR system with speed lights tricked into "hypersync" with Pocket Wizards. Unfortunately hypersync is a good way to burn up a good speed light. Global sensors and a different shutter curtain design would negate that nonsense. $2000 of camera would be able to do what a $50,000 camera could do without any tricks.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-09-2014, 01:03 PM:

With respect to major motion pictures (i.e. the kind that get released into large numbers of theatres and that have major advertising campaigns behind them), does anyone really care about the cost of cameras? Cameras are rented, not purchased, by these productions, and the rental cost is probably a fraction of the catering budget on a large film.

That is not to say that a cheap 4K video camera wouldn't be nifty, but cameras are not the reason why movies are expensive to make. Even for low budget productions, high-quality video cameras may be cheap(-ish) now, but everything else (lenses, lighting, grip equipment, locations, set design, actors, sound equipment, crew, permits, music/book rights, insurance, etc.) is still as expensive as it ever was....

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-09-2014, 01:56 PM:

You're right Scott.... Anything using a prism is gonna have a greater back focus then one without... Apparently Arri has other ideas though...

Mark

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 04-29-2014, 04:30 PM:

oh .. my .. god. Got the new bluray edition in the mail today and was watching select scenes - the new transfer is truly spectacular - it's sharp as a tack and creates this faux 3D look to the image.

unfortunately the work/transfer on 'The King of I' leaves much to be desired - the image looks too blue tinted in some scenes and the 5.0 mix on the DVD is not on the bluray, but only features the soundmix in 4.0

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 08-22-2014, 09:48 PM:

so apparently the DCP is being shown tomorrow and Sunday at the AFI Silver - and obviously I have social obligations that prevent me from seeing this on the big screen (damn it).

Bow Tie Cinema's is supposedly going to show this at some point as part of it's Cine Classic series this Fall.

has anyone else shown the DCP of this? what is the sound? 5.1?