or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Lawrence of Arabia (UK)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lawrence of Arabia (UK) - Page 6

post #151 of 435
What did Penton actually write about the restoration that Grover objected too?
post #152 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

What did Penton actually write about the restoration that Grover objected too?

Sounds like he objected more to the jabs at Robert Harris that he's been making since the last round of drama over there.
post #153 of 435
Penton posted videos of Crisp discussing the restoration process and implied that Crisp was knocking photochemical restorations. Crisp felt his words were being misrepresented and didn't want to be used to further Penton's own views on the issue.
post #154 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiftyeyes View Post

Penton posted videos of Crisp discussing the restoration process and implied that Crisp was knocking photochemical restorations. Crisp felt his words were being misrepresented and didn't want to be used to further Penton's own views on the issue.

Crisp's words were taken out of context and the result was Crisp outed Penton as a fraud.
post #155 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiftyeyes View Post

Penton posted videos of Crisp discussing the restoration process and implied that Crisp was knocking photochemical restorations. Crisp felt his words were being misrepresented and didn't want to be used to further Penton's own views on the issue.

So photochemical restorations are still being done nowadays?
post #156 of 435
It's more like the two processes compliment each other. With regards to LAWRENCE in particular, what Penton was too stupid to realize was that the basis for the new 8K scan/4K restoration was the negative that Robert Harris reconstructed and restored photochemically back in 1989. Penton going on and on about the "new digital restoration" while making back-handed jabs at guys who work in the photochemical realm ruffled a lot of feathers, since had Harris not done the work he and his team did back in 1989, who knows if the 8K digital job that was done now would have even been possible. All that cut footage that Harris rescued and reinstated into the film might have been gone forever.

Vincent
post #157 of 435
That the original negative was photochemically restored is news to me. What exactly was done beyond locating missing footage, repairing splices, possibly removing dirt with a bath and ultrasonic cleaner?
post #158 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

That the original negative was photochemically restored is news to me. What exactly was done beyond locating missing footage, repairing splices, possibly removing dirt with a bath and ultrasonic cleaner?

Go here:

http://www.davidlean.com/writings/Ar..._lawrence.html

That describes some of the basics.

In addition, we were missing 20 minutes of audio, much of which had to be re-created. The extant tracks were for the 202 minute version. All stems had been junked.

Wish it would have been simpler, but as it was, and beyond the functions you note above, the work took 26 months.

When we began, we did so without an extant copy of the original film, or continuity. The first task was trying to figure out what the film had been. After that one could say that "it was only a matter of going."

But it was a bit more complex.

RAH
post #159 of 435
RAH,

Do I recall correctly that, at the time (1989), your restoration of LOA was the most expensive film restoration project undertaken?
post #160 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

Go here:

http://www.davidlean.com/writings/Ar..._lawrence.html

That describes some of the basics.

In addition, we were missing 20 minutes of audio, much of which had to be re-created. The extant tracks were for the 202 minute version. All stems had been junked.

Wish it would have been simpler, but as it was, and beyond the functions you note above, the work took 26 months.

When we began, we did so without an extant copy of the original film, or continuity. The first task was trying to figure out what the film had been. After that one could say that "it was only a matter of going."

But it was a bit more complex.

RAH

Robert,

Thank you very much for your explanation and your post, and most of all, thank you for the painstaking work you have done on this masterpiece. I am very eager to see the results. I will wait patiently, but this Blu-ray will certainly be a first-day purchase for me. I have treasured my DVD since it was released. Great work.
post #161 of 435
While the unmasking drama is compelling, I don't want these words about LOA on Blu-ray from Robert Harris to be overlooked:

Quote:


Beyond that, and not to be a tease, all I can tell you is that when finally brought to a Blu-ray disc, the look, textures, and especially detail and resolution in the Blu-ray is beyond stupendous. It is, without a doubt the most beautiful, and most highly resolved classic film that anyone will have ever seen on Blu-ray.

From the first step to the last, Mr. Crisp went for quality, and he, his staff, Colorworks, and outside vendors, were all held to a position of quality first, in a "take no prisoners" charge toward perfection. At no time, with Mr. Crisp at the helm, did I ever have a moment of hesitation or concern regarding the quality of the final product -- as data files, as a 4k DCP, or as a Blu-ray disc.

Probably the best and easiest way for me to put this, is that quite simply, Sir David Lean, Freddie Young, John Box, and all those who created this film, would be thrilled. Their work has been respected, and their (unfortunately) quiet wishes have been met.

(emphasis added)

I can't wait.
post #162 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

Go here:

http://www.davidlean.com/writings/Ar..._lawrence.html

That describes some of the basics.

In addition, we were missing 20 minutes of audio, much of which had to be re-created. The extant tracks were for the 202 minute version. All stems had been junked.

Wish it would have been simpler, but as it was, and beyond the functions you note above, the work took 26 months.

When we began, we did so without an extant copy of the original film, or continuity. The first task was trying to figure out what the film had been. After that one could say that "it was only a matter of going."

But it was a bit more complex.

RAH

have you seen the psychical disc being played, or just the new master?
post #163 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

Go here:

http://www.davidlean.com/writings/Ar..._lawrence.html
That describes some of the basics.
RAH

Ah, yes. I knew about that. I guess photochemical is a word that needs interpretation since the actual work was not chemcial, was it? No bath in special chemicals to rejuvenate colours or something like that. So photochemical means now "not digital", e.g. all traditional procedures used whether any chemicals are involved (beyond copying material and the normal development process) or not. Is that correct?
Could the number of sections that needed alternative sources be reduced for the digital restoration since what used to be unprintable and therefore unusable was still scannable and restorable digitally?
post #164 of 435
I always thought "photochemical" meant new printable film elements being created in the analog realm, not necessarily putting any chemicals on the film to "rejuvenate" it. In fact, didn't it turn out that the "rejuvenation" chemicals that were sometimes used actually led to the film deteriorating at a more rapid rate? I thought that was one of the reasons the 70mm print of the uncut version of THE ALAMO has been all but destroyed.

Vincent
post #165 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

Ah, yes. I knew about that. I guess photochemical is a word that needs interpretation since the actual work was not chemcial, was it? No bath in special chemicals to rejuvenate colours or something like that. So photochemical means now "not digital", e.g. all traditional procedures used whether any chemicals are involved (beyond copying material and the normal development process) or not. Is that correct?
Could the number of sections that needed alternative sources be reduced for the digital restoration since what used to be unprintable and therefore unusable was still scannable and restorable digitally?

No.
post #166 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira View Post

I always thought "photochemical" meant new printable film elements being created in the analog realm, not necessarily putting any chemicals on the film to "rejuvenate" it. In fact, didn't it turn out that the "rejuvenation" chemicals that were sometimes used actually led to the film deteriorating at a more rapid rate? I thought that was one of the reasons the 70mm print of the uncut version of THE ALAMO has been all but destroyed.

Yeah chemicals can be dangerous like Leonardo da Vincis drawing of Orpheus being attacked by the Furies was reportedly destroyed when restorers tried to clean it by submerging it in alcohol and water but ended up washing away the ink'. In the 1960's? Nope, in 2001.

That's why testing should be done first and not by cheap amateurs. Best of all avoid if possible.
post #167 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

No.

Why is that? Can the 8K scanner not deal with perforation problems etc.? Would it require to develop a new 70mm scanner for this?
post #168 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira View Post

I always thought "photochemical" meant new printable film elements being created in the analog realm

Vincent

I guess it does. It just confused me when
"What exactly was done beyond locating missing footage, repairing splices, possibly removing dirt with a bath and ultrasonic cleaner? " did not seem to cover what was done (e.g. mechanically dealing with the negative elements and dupe materials and copying them onto today's stocks).
post #169 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

Why is that? Can the 8K scanner not deal with perforation problems etc.? Would it require to develop a new 70mm scanner for this?

Materials removed from the OCN over the years for damage were generally junked.

As was SOP.
post #170 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

Materials removed from the OCN over the years for damage were generally junked.
As was SOP.

Lesson not learned from the Nitrate junking days, it seems.
post #171 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

Lesson not learned from the Nitrate junking days, it seems.

If all studios learned they would 'preserve' their classics now with new 4K ON scans instead of complaining years from now that the films 'deteriorated'.

But I guess that's a derailing subject.
post #172 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cham313 View Post

Very interesting melodrama playing out today on Blu Ray Forum and Home Theater Forum about PentonMan misrepresenting himself:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/30...in-blu-ray/150

...beginning with post #165 and the followup.

After some research on AVS I guess Penton-Man at one time was truthful about his occupation before he put on his Sony employment persona:
04-18-07, 11:49 AM
Penton-Man
AVS Special Member

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,751

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb
What company do you work for again?

And his response:
None, I'm an independent contractor that is semi-retired and now provides consultative services when in fact I do "work".

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post10330435
post #173 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeb
What company do you work for again?

And his response:
None, I'm an independent contractor that is semi-retired and now provides consultative services when in fact I do "work".

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post10330435

It doesn't really matter....

Exactly WHO Penton is/was is irrelevant.
What DOES matter is the guy DID have inside info....
post #174 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

It doesn't really matter....

Exactly WHO Penton is/was is irrelevant.
What DOES matter is the guy DID have inside info....

I agree with you he was a good source of info and aside from misleading readers into thinking he worked for Sony and perhaps getting off on a few unneeded tangents he was pleasant and never tried to spin the information.

The unfortunate problem was one of his own making that he tried to impress people by implying he is a Sony executive and maybe as his Sony persona increased he needed to do more bending of the truth to cover up this falsehood.

His information and reputation could have easily been built on his own credentials, but instead he felt he had to embellish it to be taken seriously.

I really feel sorry for him and I sincerely wish him the best because I know he really enjoyed interacting with the people on his thread.

Unfortunately I do feel this cover-up was shared by many people on Blu-ray.com - including some of the other "insiders", possibly because he was a good draw to their website of perhaps because he was a good well intentioned guy and they felt this white lie wasn't causing any harm.

In any case it is a lesson to to be learned and hopefully not repeated.
post #175 of 435
Cover ups? accusations? this place! it's only a Blu-ray....
post #176 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

It doesn't really matter....

Exactly WHO Penton is/was is irrelevant.
What DOES matter is the guy DID have inside info....

He used his status as a supposed "insider" to attack and denigrate other people who worked in the industry. THAT matters.

Vincent
post #177 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira View Post

He used his status as a supposed "insider" to attack and denigrate other people who worked in the industry. THAT matters.

Vincent

Why? some anonymous idiot on the net gets people annoyed? news at 11! why get wound up over it?
Just ignore him.
post #178 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira View Post

He used his status as a supposed "insider" to attack and denigrate other people who worked in the industry. THAT matters.

Vincent

I wasn't aware of that.
FWIW and IMO, it isn't very cool to do such thing.
post #179 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Why? some anonymous idiot on the net gets people annoyed? news at 11! why get wound up over it?
Just ignore him.

Those with morals who value truth have every right to get upset about such things. News at 11! Just because it happens all over the Internet doesn't make it right, and when it's of this severity and has gone on this long people are going to be upset, disgusted, and irritated by it. Just ignore it.
post #180 of 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

Those with morals who value truth have every right to get upset about such things. News at 11! Just because it happens all over the Internet doesn't make it right, and when it's of this severity and has gone on this long people are going to be upset, disgusted, and irritated by it. Just ignore it.

Sadly, truth has become a casualty of modern society.
I can't go down without fighting...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Lawrence of Arabia (UK)