AVS Forum banner

21 - 32 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,314 Posts
(I note that the colour of very old prints apart from being subject to possible deterioration arising from ageing would tend to be rather idiosyncratic to the era and these idiosyncracies might swamp relatively minor variations in the colour capture characteristics of scanning technology.)
They scan the camera NEGATIVE.

Goodnight have fun with your lasers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,118 Posts
They scan the camera NEGATIVE.
For creating a Blu-ray release of older films (I'm not taking about scanning for recent films for DI etc.) don't they sometimes (often?) scan a print (or prints) of the film and not always the original camera negative. Also for composited shots of older films (eg. done optically) don't they also often scan prints of the film rather than always going back to the original elements (so they could look worse)? Aren't there quality differences between films releases on Blu-ray by film release date/decade - not just because of the film stock used but because some are said to use an old master (dvd master?) or from a print rather than the original negative - like isn't a a Blu-ray of a film from around 20 years ago likely to look worse (lower effective resolution) than a film of today in general because of those things (not just because of the film negative format used but type/quality of the scan/scanning of print(s) rather than original camera negative/lower quality due to extra generation for any optical composites)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
They scan the camera NEGATIVE.

Goodnight have fun with your lasers.
No need for sarcasm. Of course negatives will be scanned if suitable negatives are available. I was referring in that particular post to very old sources where only a print is available. I also note the comments immediately above by Joe Bloggs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,679 Posts
Also with digital effects, the term "camera negative" has no meaning. This is true for many optical effects as well since they only exist on the print. They don't do fades in the camera any more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,314 Posts
Also with digital effects, the term "camera negative" has no meaning. This is true for many optical effects as well since they only exist on the print. They don't do fades in the camera any more.
Er?? speaking as a VFX supervisor .

The term "camera negative" refers to the exposed negative out of the camera. It most definitely does have "meaning" for VFX or otherwise.

Optical effects ( even simple transitions) were created ultimately on an optical printer which uses multiple elements shot on negative including the camera negative and rephotographs them through a series of multiple passes using mattes ( either hand drawn or created through lab processing key passes).

The end shots are rephotographed back to negative creating an "interpositive which is itself rephotographed back to negative creating an "internegative". They do not work with print other than reference for lab grading and final sign off.

The internegative is then conformed back into the conformed master negative ; which is usually the camera negative "neg cut" together to "conform" to the desired cut of the film. The optical effect works slots in the same as any other bit of negative and then goes through a lab grade, it doesn't come in from another pipe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,314 Posts
For creating a Blu-ray release of older films (I'm not taking about scanning for recent films for DI etc.) don't they sometimes (often?) scan a print (or prints) of the film and not always the original camera negative.
Print is usually avoided it at all possible, what you may get is an interpositive or an internegative scanned but thats not print stock its low contrast intermediate to try and preserve the full latitude of the neg . Print is too high contrast to scan effectively ; you are essentially unable to grade it very well.

Also for composited shots of older films (eg. done optically) don't they also often scan prints of the film rather than always going back to the original elements (so they could look worse)?
No because there should be a conformed negative or an interpositive or an internegative to use before you have to consider scanning print. Prints are last resort. Print stock is not designed to have a long life.

Aren't there quality differences between films releases on Blu-ray by film release date/decade - not just because of the film stock used but because some are said to use an old master (dvd master?) or from a print rather than the original negative - like isn't a a Blu-ray of a film from around 20 years ago likely to look worse (lower effective resolution) than a film of today in general because of those things (not just because of the film negative format used but type/quality of the scan/scanning of print(s) rather than original camera negative/lower quality due to extra generation for any optical composites)?
Scanning technology has literally been about the same quality as today since about 1997. Prior to that point telecine machines couldn't capture quite as much range in the backs or whites.

When DVD arrived most studios remastered their back catalogues because DVD sales were rocketing. It also gave them compatability for 16x9 TVs and digital broadcasting. 1080p was a pipedream initially. The important legacy films were all being scanned to at least 2k 10bit log to preserve and in some cases restore back catalogue material. If you do that you are effectively future proof. 10bit log full latitude scanning of negative is to all intents and purposes transparent and was 20 years ago. Remastering that for video colorpace or DCP deliverables is pretty trivial at that point.

Film negative is a very robust recording material , it captures more dynamic range than is necessary desired on screen. Still at least 3-4 stops beyond what you'll necessary see on the video transfer.

Think why the original Star Trek series looks so good. Think why Dallas went downhill when they started conforming to video rather than negative. They had conformed negatives or lab rolls that they could pull and treat as if it was filmed yesterday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe Bloggs

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,679 Posts
Er?? speaking as a VFX supervisor .

The term "camera negative" refers to the exposed negative out of the camera. It most definitely does have "meaning" for VFX or otherwise.
But it doesn't in terms of a video release. Some people think all features can be transferred directly from the negative that was exposed in the camera. As your explanation shows, that's not possible except for a few old features.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
964 Posts
since catalog films are out now and i dont see an equivalent topic thread.

if film negative source like unforgiven, leon, 5th element have more color range than rec2020

then why do the current reviews on these say the hdr is 'meh'

vs it is amazing!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,857 Posts
It's all about the transfer.

Catalog films are especially vulnerable to bad transfers because the movie will not sell many copies and they're sold at heavily discounted prices. So they may simply not do all the proper steps of scanning the original films and using that, instead using the digital archives and doing some minor color grading to expand the color space back when it was crushed.

It's why you have companies like Criterion who manually remaster a film from the original stock (or try to - they do complain sometimes there isn't enough time to do proper transfers too). They obvious cost a lot more money too, so they are selective in doing films that not only deserve a proper transfer, but has enough fans to actually buy it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
964 Posts
some of these titles just received a fresh 4k transfer. do folks like WB not take into account HDR/DV when scanning into older films that my have pretty nice color palette?

It's all about the transfer.

Catalog films are especially vulnerable to bad transfers because the movie will not sell many copies and they're sold at heavily discounted prices. So they may simply not do all the proper steps of scanning the original films and using that, instead using the digital archives and doing some minor color grading to expand the color space back when it was crushed.

It's why you have companies like Criterion who manually remaster a film from the original stock (or try to - they do complain sometimes there isn't enough time to do proper transfers too). They obvious cost a lot more money too, so they are selective in doing films that not only deserve a proper transfer, but has enough fans to actually buy it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,857 Posts
Like i said, it depends on how much the studios were willing to spend on the movie. Some were cheap, others decided to ante up for a good transfer.

If you're lucky, they will scan the original film and re-color grade the film for HDR. But this is expensive as it's slow (each frame has to be retouched by hand - the scan itself can introduce dirt artifacts and the film may not be completely clean). Of course this gives the best results.

Otherwise they may not even go back to the original film but to a digital intermediate or other digital capture done years earlier for say, the blu-Ray release. This is much cheaper and faster (the scans and film correction was already done), but you suffer from the limits of the original transfer, which happened before stuff like HDR was widespread.

And yes, it happened when Blu-Ray first came out too - a lot of early Blu-rays simply sucked - they were often worse than the DVD! The one that came with the ps3 and the Fifth Element were completely unwatchable. They were so bad, a few years later Sony re-issued them with much improved quality. Here it appears to build up a Blu-Ray library, Sony did fast transfers that were lousy, then redid them years later to correct some of the more egregious transfers (and double dip).

So the catalog releases may be done cheaply and quickly because WB wants to build up a UHD library quickly, or they're being cheap because they know it's only an incremental amount of sales so they aren't willing to spend the money to do a proper transfer.

The thing is, to produce a catalog title, there are probably dozens of ways to make a transfer, all with their own time, quality and cost trade offs. You'd hope studios would always pick the best transfer possible, but no.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
964 Posts
it would be awesome if they did... because the older black & whites will finally be closer to their original 35mm shown in film circuits! it's like a veil being torn off and we are finally able to see what the 35mm originals are actually capable of in terms of grayscales and lights and even colors as well.

70mm are prime examples of possible great transfers not just 4k/8k but the colors are amazing
 
21 - 32 of 32 Posts
Top