Digital Restoration to HD. Does it go far enough?

[ElthorLandstander]

While I'm not a fan of the idea of 2k DI's being upscaled for 4k UHD releases, I'm starting to dislike some standard Blu-ray restorations of older titles.

More and more I'm noticing on Blu-rays of older films that whenever there is a dissolve between scenes, no matter how brief, the picture usually degrades and the colors shift.

I assume this is because an intermediate from the final edit of the film is cut in between new high quality scans from earlier print stages.

If you told me a new transfer from camera negatives was used to digitally reconstructed edit points in order to maintain the quality throughout, my first opinion would be disgust. I'm not sure I feel that way anymore.

One of the worst examples I've ever seen is 'Damn Yankees'. Whenever there is a scene change or special effect, the picture looks like someone upscaled a VHS tape. It makes the older DVD transfer look better because the quality is fairly consistent and doesn't draw your attention.

LucasFilm has done some of the worst examples of digital reconstruction by corrupting the original appearance of their films.

I think what we need is something in between. Restraint but not the use of a lower grade clip unless it was extremely necessary.

I'm curious what other people think of this?

[Areyakiddin]

The raw footage for these transitional scenes for the most part were thrown away decades ago. The optical fades are apart of the finished camera negatives.

[Dragun]

For most films, the dissolves and other optical transitions are cut into the conformed camera negative from dupe elements. Unless the studios kept the trims from the camera negatives and want to recreate the transitions, we are stuck with dupey transitions.

Another issue is that some transfers will nuke the transitions with DNR but that just makes them look even worse.

[ElthorLandstander]

I'm actually kind of surprised so many releases don't try to color balance them to match the lead in/out at the very least.

[CinemaScope]

Originally Posted by ElthorLandstander

I'm actually kind of surprised so many releases don't try to color balance them to match the lead in/out at the very least.

The problem is that the dupe stock fades a lot faster that the original negative that it's cut into. At the time the film was made the dupes were new & easy to match in, but now the dupes have faded to a shocking extent & you need all the latest digital tools to try to match it in. As you Americans say...it is what it is.

There is maybe one solution, I don't know if computer technology is up to it yet, but...the computer looks at the shot dissolving out & from the frame before the dissolve starts, creates the outgoing scene artificially, continuing all the various movement (& the same with the shot dissolving in), that way the dupe stuff is taken out, & the computer doesn't have to get it bang on, as the action is happing during a dissolve.

[Rizor]

I always find this stuff pretty fascinating. When you're watching an old movie, you always know when the scene will end because the quality gets worse before it fades into the next scene. It's interesting to see studio practices though. I think Sony seems to let these look dupey (The Bridge on the River Kwai). I think the major WB restorations will DNR these (see 2001: A Space Odyssey) but I'm not sure about the Warner Archive releases. Paramount DNRs these. It's also curious to see how much of the video is dupey. Is it just for the optical or is it the entirety of the shot? I'm sure there's a lot of history about the technical processes. Such as with the Warner labs in the '50s that led to some really bad opticals for a lot of the run time in Giant and Dial M for Murder.

[Jack Theakston]

Opticals (especially cut-ins) are among the hardest things to tackle in a project, not just because of the fading, but because they tend to be extremely variable based on the lab that did them. You’ll always be fighting contrast, but vignetting, geometrical/position distortion, and two generations of dirt have to be removed.

There is software that will force the color space into where you set the last frame of original picture negative as a key frame, but your mileage varies based on the condition of the cut-in and the information that’s there to resolve. Sometimes, it’s just a lost cause, especially when you’re on the clock.

[bigshot]

There will come a point when AI will be able to analyze and reconstruct sections of films to eliminate all of the artifacts in the medium. We aren't there yet though.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by bigshot

There will come a point when AI will be able to analyze and reconstruct sections of films to eliminate all of the artifacts in the medium. We aren't there yet though.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by ElthorLandstander

If you told me a new transfer from camera negatives was used to digitally reconstructed edit points in order to maintain the quality throughout, my first opinion would be disgust. I'm not sure I feel that way anymore.

This is actually done from time to time. See the recent restoration of Lynch's Dune, for example. It's beautiful work, too. Very glad they went that extra mile.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by Rizor

I think the major WB restorations will DNR these (see 2001: A Space Odyssey)

There are no optical transitions in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

[Dragun]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

This is actually done from time to time. See the recent restoration of Lynch's Dune, for example. It's beautiful work, too. Very glad they went that extra mile.

Mulholland Drive has an A/B roll negative which allows for the opticals to be reconstructed digitally. Is this the case for Dune and other Lynch films as well?

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by Dragun

Mulholland Drive has an A/B roll negative which allows for the opticals to be reconstructed digitally. Is this the case for Dune and other Lynch films as well?

It is the case for Dune, yes. Can't speak for any others.

[Rizor]

Originally Posted by koberulz

There are no optical transitions in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Correct, which is what led to that missing fade from the first printing of the 4K Blu-ray! With 2001, the lower quality dupe footage has been noise reduced by WB in an attempt to match the other footage. On the 70mm prints I've seen the dupe scenes look very noisy and they stuck out like a sore thumb. Guess I conflated the issue earlier when discussing general studio restoration approaches to lower quality footage.

Recently, I noticed a few transitions that look a little noise reduced on the 4K of Casablanca.