Do they go back to the source film, or what? They obviously can't just upconvert from a DVD.

But even films that aren't too old like Unforgiven or Dead Calm....how do they do it? Let alone really old movies like The Adventures of Robin Hood.

They transfer from the original film to HD video. The film has higher resolution then HDTV already.

They transfer from the original film to HD video. The film has higher resolution then HDTV already.


THat can't be true b/c old movies like Robin Hood has limited archived footage. Not only that, but the edits are not done on the actual film for most movies that were made after the 60s. The pre-60s movie edits were done by film strips, and they wouldn't use those masters for transfers.

THat can't be true b/c old movies like Robin Hood has limited archived footage. Not only that, but the edits are not done on the actual film for most movies that were made after the 60s. The pre-60s movie edits were done by film strips, and they wouldn't use those masters for transfers.
You said movies, not TV. For movies, editing has been exclusively done on film up until the last decade or so. Before then, there simply wasn't enough computing power in the non-linear world to operate in theatrical screen resolutions. In addition, unlike for TV, you can't edit a movie on tape like they did for some shows in the last few decades.

Some directors also still like to cut film, so it still happens, despite having digital methods available.

At any rate, for theatrical movies, there is always a film master created that prints are made from - even movies shot digitally. They can go back to that master to create an HD video transfer. In the case of digital movies, they already have one when they complete the final edit.

You said movies, not TV. For movies, editing has been exclusively done on film up until the last decade or so. Before then, there simply wasn't enough computing power in the non-linear world to operate in theatrical screen resolutions. In addition, unlike for TV, you can't edit a movie on tape like they did for some shows in the last few decades.

Some directors also still like to cut film, so it still happens, despite having digital methods available.

At any rate, for theatrical movies, there is always a film master created that prints are made from - even movies shot digitally. They can go back to that master to create an HD video transfer. In the case of digital movies, they already have one when they complete the final edit.

So what he is saying, if I understand the process, is that a new HD tape transfer is made from as close to a "master print" as possible, which considering the age of the movie and available materials, is likely several generations removed from what you might think of as the "original film".

Not only that, but the edits are not done on the actual film for most movies that were made after the 60s.

How were they edited then?

How were they edited then?
Well, now everybody uses Avid or Final Cut. However, before those were available for film, they cut and spliced film pretty much like they always did. There were no tape formats before the "D" series cassettes that had enough resolution to be used for anything but SDTV. 2", 1" and 3/4" were fine for TV shows, but would never be able to be projected on a large screen.

Well, now everybody uses Avid or Final Cut. However, before those were available for film, they cut and spliced film pretty much like they always did. There were no tape formats before the "D" series cassettes that had enough resolution to be used for anything but SDTV. 2", 1" and 3/4" were fine for TV shows, but would never be able to be projected on a large screen.

I never considered 3/4" fine for anything.

So what he is saying, if I understand the process, is that a new HD tape transfer is made from as close to a "master print" as possible, which considering the age of the movie and available materials, is likely several generations removed from what you might think of as the "original film".

Unless it's a film where the edit masters or even distribution masters were lost, it's rare to be too far down the chain toward projection prints. It's often easier to restore a damaged archival print than a projection print since you're dealing with a crisper image to work from. In addition, those distro prints are usually scratched up, dirty and will have worn sprocket holes that may cause jitter and alignment issues in the scanner.

Of course, if a projection print is the only thing available, then that's what they'll work with. Unfortunately, fires, floods and other events can destroy an archived print. In addition, when studios are absorbed by other studios, rights to films go from one studio to another and stuff gets stolen, you don't always have the "master" to go back to.

I never considered 3/4" fine for anything.
It's fine enough for cleaning between the buttons on production equipment...

I know how telecine film is edited, the OP claims editing was not done on film...how was it done?
I'm currently installing an AVID adreniline system, I'm aware of non-linear editing systems as well....but there were no AVIDs in the 60's.

I know how telecine film is edited, the OP claims editing was not done on film...how was it done?
I'm currently installing an AVID adreniline system, I'm aware of non-linear editing systems as well....but there were no AVIDs in the 60's.
That's what I was getting at. The OP is mistaken about how films are/were edited.

I know how telecine film is edited, the OP claims editing was not done on film...how was it done?
I'm currently installing an AVID adreniline system, I'm aware of non-linear editing systems as well....but there were no AVIDs in the 60's.

NetworkTV already answered the question... films used to be edited literally by cutting and splicing film. Special transitions like wipes and fades were done with optical printers.

In fact, this is still done today for most films. While the films are cut on on programs like Avid, an EDL is printed out and a film print still has to be cut together from the EDL to get a master film print. This is probably not happening any more with movies shot with HD cameras but unless something has happened in the last few years that I'm not aware of, this is probably still being done with movies shot on film. The only thing I can think of is if they made HD transfers of all the film footage and made film prints from a HD final cut the same way they make film prints from movies shot in HD. But I don't know why they'd shoot on film in the first place if they did this (it would make sense for television shows though since a final film print does not need to be made).

Back in the day, films editing workflow was to edit with workprint. This was generally a quick one light or best light print right off the original negative. Instead of time code, film had edge numbers to reference what was back on the negative. The editor used a device called a moviola (or Steenbeck, another brand) and would draw dissolve markers on the workprint when needed.

Once the editing was done, the original negative was cut and conformed into an A roll and a B roll, each having alternate shots. The lab would first run the A roll and expose it to a special negative film. Then (using punch marks for reference) would run the B roll over the same negative, fading the printing lights up and down for dissolves. Cuts would happen naturally as a shot on the A roll ended, the B roll began. Color was adjusted by changing the color of the printing lamps.

The result was a master interpositive, which was a negative of a negative. Because it was still negative film stock, it maintained most all of the resolution and dynamic range of the original camera negative. This element, or a master internegative (one more generation, for safety's sake) makes a fine candidate for transfer on a modern HD telecine.

I never considered 3/4" fine for anything.
What, no mention of MII?
Some of the MII cassettes I have are great as bookends; some have been doorstops.

Transferring from cut negatives with timing notches was always a joy. :)

Well, now everybody uses Avid or Final Cut. However, before those were available for film, they cut and spliced film pretty much like they always did..

Ultimately, you take your edit list from the Avid and either cut negative, or or scan the negative at 2K or 4K for a digital intermediate. If you cut negative, that goes to make IPs and prints, and ultimately is telecined for video (standard def or HD). Or, if you do a digital intermediate, the scanned film frames are colortimed, then output to a film recorder to make a new negative of the final cut. The same digital files are then adjusted slightly by a DI colorist for digital cinema display, and video versions.

Figure 4 (http://digitalcontentproducer.com/ar/video_digital_cinemas_special/) in consultant Matt Cowan's '03 article for Digital Content Producer shows how film resolution falls off with cascading film production steps. He also illustrates how using higher-resolution (4k) digital movies downconverted to ~2k boosts the final resolvable detail. In a separate pdf paper (http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf) Cowan's Graph 6.5 shows this film processing/resolution-drop in more detail.

Since TV productions can use film negatives or interpositives (graph 6.5) rather than reduced-resolution prints for telecine copying (less 'precious' film), that may tend to make them crisper and more colorful (chroma601's post above). Hard to generalize, but for productions such as the CSI series on CBS that seems to be the case. As with other film/video dramas, deliberate behind-the-lens camera filtering reduces resolution, especially compared to other types (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7408766&&#post7408766) of productions. Older films may also undergo special digital processing such as John Lowry's supercomputer technique (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=392263); now DTS Digital Images. -- John

I never considered 3/4" fine for anything.

D1 wasn't bad in its day (which was the late 80s/early 90s prior to DigiBeta and D5 I guess...) and D2 solved a problem for decent quality composite playout (especially of commercials) - and these were 3/4" based.

If you're talking about UMatic (we had three variants in the UK - LoBand (truly awful and not used for broadcast), HiBand (awful - but used for ENG and occasional EFP in the 80s), HiBand SP (still awful and by the time it was launched only really used for corporate stuff, as Betacam SP had arrived for broadcast use)

D1 wasn't bad in its day (which was the late 80s/early 90s prior to DigiBeta and D5 I guess...) and D2 solved a problem for decent quality composite playout (especially of commercials) - and these were 3/4" based.

If you're talking about UMatic (we had three variants in the UK - LoBand (truly awful and not used for broadcast), HiBand (awful - but used for ENG and occasional EFP in the 80s), HiBand SP (still awful and by the time it was launched only really used for corporate stuff, as Betacam SP had arrived for broadcast use)
Yes, we're talking U-Matic.

Do they go back to the source film, or what? They obviously can't just upconvert from a DVD.

But even films that aren't too old like Unforgiven or Dead Calm....how do they do it? Let alone really old movies like The Adventures of Robin Hood.

The Adventures of Robin Hood has been transfered to HD, and the current DVD release is a downconvert from that HD master. It probably looks better than it ever did in even the best Technicolor dye transfer print. Warner Bros. has been using a spectacular, but expensive, restoration process on some of its 3-strip Technicolor holdings.

The three strips of film (or, more often, first generation prints from the negatives) which represented the three primary colors from the old Technicolor cameras, are separately telecined to HD tape. The three tapes are then adjusted electronically so that they are in perfect register (a process that the old dye transfer printers had to do mechanically - often resulting in color fringing), and color balanced onto a new master tape. Along the way the new process is also able to compensate for the slightly out of focus "red" image that resulted from the way the three strips of film had to run through the original camera.

The results are little short of spectacular, as anyone who has seen the DVDs of Robin Hood or Singing in the Rain, among others, will testify. As these films are not in widescreen format in may be some time before we see them in HD release, but we are in for a treat when this happens.

Yes, we're talking U-Matic.

Correct.

Hey, three 3/4" U-matic tapes are doing a good job in my edit bay - my CRT reference monitor is sitting on them bring the screen closer to level with my dual 23" widescreen Mac LCD screens.

Oh and d3193, Adventures of Robin Hood has been out on HD-DVD for several months.

The three strip process lives on for preservation. Color features are physically cleaned up on a frame to frame basis, and then printed to 3 B&W fine grain records for each primary color. The records are recombined for a test to see if it all works. The dyes in the B&W film are very stable and should last for 100+ years.

Yes, we're talking U-Matic.

Thought you might have been - but I hate ambiguity!

:o

(As someone who has worked with both 3/4" Umatic and 3/4" D1 - and remembers the great "tracking" control on both of them... I like to be clear about these things...)