Originally Posted by oink
, in all the years of this forum, we have never had someone who ACTUALLY did a transfer come and explain on this site what was done with the transfer or what the original elements looked like when compared to the BD.
From Don May Jr who did the transfer of Texas Chainsaw Massacre
For more details about this great transfer all from the same post see http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post14724572
"This version looks almost identical to what the original HD masters I made looked like"
"In regards to the A/B roll Interneg questions. I decided to create new materials, just to remain true to the 16mm origins of the film. We certainly had access to the 35mm materials, but i made a conscious decision NOT to use them because they were all 16mm to 35mm blow-up materials. I bit the bullet, got the A/B roll and created a 16mm IN element with all new timings based on my discussions and meetings with director Tobe Hooper (the original timing sheets were all gone)."
"We didn't just run the A/B roll through the telecine because I was worried that they were too brittle and the splices were weak."
"The A/B roll was in pretty bad shape and was pretty poorly stored over the years. Making the new single-strand IN was my way of helping preserve the film in the best way possible."
And before that post, there was this discussion... http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post14707576
"The reason a new IN was made was because the original A/B rolls were so badly damaged. They had to create a new element to work from, so the A/B rolls were cleaned as best as possible then step-printed to create a new IN. Don May can describe the problems with the TEXAS CHAINSAW elements since he was the one actually handling them, but I remember him telling me that the original A/B rolls were not properly stored and a lot of the glue splices had become affected by moisture over time, and the glue had seeped onto other parts of the negative. It took them a long time and a lot of effort to physically clean the A/B rolls as well as they possibly could then print a new IN from the A/B rolls, and even that IN had a lot of printed-in damage and visible glue marks that had to be erased frame-by-frame digitally.
What's cool about this link is my quoted statement above his comment where I do a really good job of explaining the term "Reversal film" (the type of film used to make that movie.)