Restoring Old Movies

[toef]

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but my lackluster searching skills weren't able to turn up any results.

I like a lot of classic movies, and I'm glad some of them are making their way onto BD, but this made me wonder what the process is like.

Can someone explain how lengthy a process it is to restore an old movie for BD? I know it's mostly (or completely) done by computers, but how long would a regular 2 hour movie take? If it's been brought up before, and if there is a good thread about this, can someone post the link to it.

Also, I kind of understand the difference between 2k and 4k, but how prevalent is 4k, and how does that factor into restoring movies for BD? Does 4k make a difference for non-gigantic screens?

Thanks.

[richieb1971]

It takes as long as it takes. Your assuming every reel of 35mm has the same amount of damage/dust/aging and what not.

The 4k principle is used because in the digital realm going higher than 4k is pointless. That is the point where 35mm film has its digital boundaries. So logic presents you with that choice since it will be digitally stored forever at the highest resolution digitally possible from 35mm. There is no point anyone doing a 1080p restoration and later doing a 2160p for example. You might as well go 4k and then downscale to 1080p or 2160p.

I would say the quickest transfers to 4k are 2 months. Maybe not to do the transfer, but every single frame has to be checked, thats 172800 frames. I might be wildly guessing, but I've never heard of a release date being announced within 2 months of its official release.

[Joe Cain]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

The 4k principle is used because in the digital realm going higher than 4k is pointless. That is the point where 35mm film has its digital boundaries.

(What about 70mm films?)

WB is working on their first-ever 6k scan for A Star Is Born:

Ned Price, vp mastering, Warner Bros. Technical Operations, said that the facility's reason to go to higher resolution was because "The original camera negative contains more information than 2K, though 2K is today's typical display resolution. But we anticipate higher display resolution in the future. So we are attempting to preserve the asset, rather than just create an element for exhibition...6K is typically a costly proposition, so that's why we are testing the waters on 'A Star is Born'. As the size of data is more easily managed and the tools become more accessible, we will increase our resolution."

[Bobby Henderson]

The 4k principle is used because in the digital realm going higher than 4k is pointless.

Actually, that is not true at all.

Arri put together a pretty interesting 30 page PDF document about the virtues of using 6K scanning for 4K digital intermediates and 4K scanning for 2K digital intermediates:
4K Plus Motion Picture Imaging

The article has some interesting visual examples of how 2K falls apart in capturing certain kinds of detail from 35mm film frames. A good argument is made in following the same scanning principal many who are involved in print graphics use: scan your original at 150% or more of the final output size/resolution to eliminate problems with moiré and other issues.

[Deciazulado]

For those wondering how old movies will look on Blu-ray, or thinking that "oh this movie is from the 90's, it can't look as good , can't it?" here's how a 60+ year old can look
.





More pics here. Read the review Stev made here

[johnnymech]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

For those wondering how old movies will look on Blu-ray...

It's true. The remastered movie can look as good as the source.

I'm waiting for "Gone With The Wind" on Blu-ray. When that movie was restored, they (the people that did the restoration) had software that aligned the Technicolor layers together. The resulting image was sharper than anything seen when the movie was first released.

[J_UNTITLED]

From HollywoodReporter.com

- "It's a magical experience to view pristine film classics, and these days it seems studios are restoring an increasing number of their most valuable assets for commercial as well as historical reasons.

Among the reasons for this upswing:

>The advent of Blu-ray Disc and larger home displays are putting increased emphasis on image quality;

>Studios are fielding requests for digital versions of legacy films for display at digital cinema theaters as well as film festivals;

>The emergence of the digital technology means there are more capabilities than ever.

Restoration increasingly has been shifting from a lab process to a digital one. The digital intermediate process has played an important part in that transition, along with such specialty tools as MTI Film's Correct and Digital Vision's Phoenix.

This new technology has advanced the field of restoration. But it also has shifted the model and raised new questions, from what should be restored and how to go about it to how to preserve it and how to pay for it. The community will address those issues at the Reel Thing Technical Symposium -- a nonprofit event dedicated to studying the technology used for restoration and presentation -- set for June 6-7 in Los Angeles.

"Restoration is taking on a sense of urgency because there is a capability that wasn't there before," said Ray Feeney, co-chairman of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' Science and Technology Council. "Those doing restoration are empowered."

Empowered as well as, in some cases, cautious, adds MTI CEO Larry Chernoff, "because it can have profound impact on the image. ... The idea is to attempt to bring back its original state without altering the intent." That's why many projects have had the oversight of the original film's director and/or director of photography.

Budgets, of course, also are an issue. "It's very difficult to get funding for titles that don't have immediate commercial outlets like Blu-ray," says Tom Burton, vp of Technicolor Digital Services. "The sad reality is there are a whole lot of other titles which are brilliant pieces of filmmaking that will probably never benefit because they don't have that outlet."

From a technical standpoint, the shift toward digital has raised many questions. Among them: What is the best resolution for the work? And how do you archive it?

Today, 2K resolution is commonly used, but 4K -- four times the amount of picture information than in a 2K file -- is gaining on it, meaning there are bandwidth and cost issues thrown into the mix.

As for digital archiving, a landmark report on the subject recently released by the AMPAS' Sci Tech Council laid out a series of issues. Chief among them is the fact that the annual cost of preserving film archival material is $1,059 per title, while the cost of preserving a 4K digital master is $12,514.

Industry leaders agree that the only proven way to archive is film negative -- today's standard practice. Digital archiving, however, is a critical concern.

"If we are not careful, we are going to have a really big restoration problem," AMPAS film archive director Mike Pogorzelski says. "With data, it's either readable and there or it's not. So if file formats change or equipment becomes obsolete, that it, it's over. That is a really scary situation."

Ned Price, vp mastering at Warner Bros. Technical Operations, adds that audio also should be viewed as an "urgent situation. ... Compared with picture, the magnetic film (where audio is originated and stored) is decaying at a faster rate."

Grover Crisp, the newly named senior vp asset management, film restoration and digital mastering at Sony Pictures Entertainment -- and who is coordinating the Reel Thing symposium with Sony technical specialist Michael Friend -- says standardization also must be addressed.

"The data from the DI process presents a problem for preservation right now because there aren't any real standards for preservation or workflow in place, certainly none that are agreed to by any sanctioned body. Everyone is kind of operating on their own, although there are some best practices in place."

Digtal archiving also is a point to consider for new films that are digitally lensed, posted and mastered.

Which leads to yet another question: How will this generation of filmmakers preserve its digital history?"

[dagon01]

Fascinating stuff. It's too bad about the budget concerns as classic films deserve to be restored to their maximum potential. As long as they can keep the master in good shape though it might get cheaper down the road.

[Heart&Soul]

Is there a site that lists all the steps to restoring a film and putting it on Blu-ray?

[quirkmanly]

Originally Posted by Heart&Soul

Is there a site that lists all the steps to restoring a film and putting it on Blu-ray?

This article has some detail on the restoration of "The Wizard of Oz" in 2004(?).

http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/feature.php?id=313

If you haven't seen it, the mini documentary "Prettier Than Ever: The Restoration of Oz" included on the last DVD is excellent.

[Stephan.klose]

In some cases they even physically wash the original prints before making the transfer. That's only being done in rare cases. For High-profile titles it's sometimes done

[Blu-ray Fanatic]

Still waiting for The Exorcist to go blu.

[SolidBlu]

Originally Posted by Blu-ray Fanatic

Still waiting for The Exorcist to go blu.

same here mate! also waiting for casablanca, ben-hur, gone with the wind & the third man in blu...

[flyers1718]

Pretty interesting stuff.

Does 2k mean 2000x2000 pixels and so on?

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by flyers1718

Pretty interesting stuff.

Does 2k mean 2000x2000 pixels and so on?

2K normally means a 2048 pixel scan across the silent 35mm Frame width designed to cover almost the Full 35mm Camera Aperture* for a total file size of 1556 x 2048 pixels (height x width) at around 83.33 pixels per mm (2117 dpi) covering an area of aproximately 18.672 mm by 24.576 mm (0.735" x 0.968") which is more than enough for the intended area to be shown (the Projector Aperture) of all 35mm formats:


1.33:1 Silent 35mm projection frame: 0.710" x 0.945" = 1500 x 2000

1.37:1 Academy Sound 35mm projection frame: 0.600" x 0.825" = 1270 x 1746

1.66:1 European 35mm projection frame: 0.497" x 0.825" = 1052 x 1746

1.75:1 Disney 35mm projection frame: 0.471" x 0.825" = 996 x 1746

1.85:1 US 35mm projection frame: 0.446" x 0.825" = 944 x 1746

2.39:1 Anamorphic 35mm projection frame: 0.690" x 0.825" (current digital) = 1460 x 1746

2.39:1 Anamorphic 35mm projection frame: 0.700" x 0.838" (revised optical) = 1482 x 1774

2.35:1 Anamorphic 35mm projection frame: 0.715" x 0.839" (original optical) = 1512 x 1776

2.55:1 Anamorphic 35mm projection frame: 0.715" x 0.912" (original magnetic) = 1512 x 1930

1.85:1 Super 35 Panavision extraction for flat prints: 0.511" x 0.945" = 1080 x 2000

1.85:1 Super 35 Arri DIN extraction for flat prints: 0.500" x 0.925" = 1060 x 1960

2.39:1 Super 35 Panavision extraction for anamorphic prints: 0.395" x 0.945" = 836 x 2000

2.35:1 Super 35 Arri DIN extraction for anamorphic prints: 0.394" x 0.925" = 832 x 1960



1.33 *Full Camera Aperture: 0.735" x 0.980"

[swifty7]

awesome thread!!!

[Deciazulado]

Interesting recent film restoration article with a Blu-ray Disc Studio's Senior Vice President of Asset Management, Film Restoration and Digital Mastering

Observations on film art and Film Art

[bageleaterkkjji]

Originally Posted by Joe Cain

(What about 70mm films?)

WB is working on their first-ever 6k scan for A Star Is Born:

lol they dont even use what they have to its ability and now they want to add more 2.25x more information

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by bageleaterkkjji

lol they dont even use what they have to its ability and now they want to add more 2.25x more information

Warner is basically trying to future proof the master for at least sometime to come. Once a 6K master is struck it can be used for all versions that Warner will try to sell you like Blu-ray, dvd, digital versions, etc.

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

For those wondering how old movies will look on Blu-ray, or thinking that "oh this movie is from the 90's, it can't look as good , can't it?" here's how a 60+ year old can look
.





More pics here. Read the review Stev made here

Wow. That is amazing!