Spartacus (1960) (Restored Edition)

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by Eeeper

Them's fightin' words!
*image*

It even comes with 7.1 audio. Nolan can only poop out 5.1 till the end.

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

It even comes with 7.1 audio. Nolan can only poop out 5.1 till the end.

8 bit looking Heston....gotta love it! Thanks!

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

It even comes with 7.1 audio. Nolan can only poop out 5.1 till the end.

That's because Nolan still makes his movies with film projection as reference in his mind.

You can't project film with 7.1 audio (Dolby Digital SRD/DTS)

[infiniteCR]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Actually the source is a 4K DCI Package (full size 4096x3112) that I down-rezed to 1080p/16:9 (OAR).

I don't think the difference in quality between the 1080p "reduction" and the original 4K is that big...

It's the quality of the source/restoration (also the 6K OCN Scan) that makes the difference here...



Actually there is more image on all four sides and the aspect ratio is right for the first time: almost exactly 2.20:1 (2.197:1)

Thanks for the elaboration. You got me thinking for a moment and wondering if the color you have displayed in the photos is the same as the color we will see on our blurays, rec.709, or is there a 'downscale/rez' effect there also?

Thanks again for the wonderful images!

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by infiniteCR

Thanks for the elaboration. You got me thinking for a moment and wondering if the color you have displayed in the photos is the same as the color we will see on our blurays, rec.709, or is there a 'downscale/rez' effect there also?

Thanks again for the wonderful images!

The original files were normal high-quality JPGs. The video levels were wrong (I think because of the DCI source) and I fixed them (simple 16-235 to 0-255 conversion) but i think that apart from that what you see here is what you are going see on the Blu-ray. There's no reason to expect any difference even if there were a color space conversion involved (that is basically lossless)

The only thing Universal has to do now is to give this an healty bitrate for the AVC encode

[CelestialAgent]

Originally Posted by Maggot

The Breakfast Club, like a lot of 80's films, suffers from generally lackluster 80's film stock. The 50's and 60's were the glory days of film stock and film lensing. The "look" of these old film-stocks compliments the story. For me, all too often, modern film stock looks uninviting, sterile and unimpressive. There's a tangible and palpable presence of warmth, richness and depth on display in these old CinemaScope/VistaVision/65mm-70mm film stocks.

Pretty much. You can tell when a film was shot just down to the film stock used.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Poya

Breakfast Club didn't look that drastic.

I really don't think that movie had much potential to look a ton better than it did.

However, with that said, I A/B'd both discs in motion on my front projection set-up and the remastered version looked better in all aspects. Admittingly, not a huge difference, but I found it appreciable and worthwhile none the less...worth the upgrade

[42041]

Originally Posted by Maggot

Regardless of the limits of the past technology with regard to holding up over time, you still end up with overall lackluster film stock moving forward say past 1970. 80's stock is about as "dystopian looking" as one can get. It's pretty dead looking, almost not human. I'll take something that doesn't hold up over time, but looks grand, over something that.....out the gate.....looks like crap......any day of the week.

I'm really not sure what you mean by "dystopian" (to my eye, the faded colors of most 50s Eastman films look about as bleak as you can get, and it's kind of strange to make such generalizations about whole decades of films that looked all sorts of different ways), but it's more a matter of changing stylistic preferences than emulsions. If a DP in 1983 wanted to shoot a movie in the overlit backlot style of classic Hollywood, he could've certainly done so (he wouldn't have Technicolor dye-transfer at his disposal, but plenty of 70s films did), but that style of shooting died with that style of filmmaking. Of course, the much faster negatives developed during the 70s and 80s let filmmakers push further into natural lighting and extremes of low light, which, when done for budgetary or practical reasons, isn't always the most pleasant thing aesthetically. Personally, I'm not a big fan of this sort of classic Hollywood cinematography; I'll take a night shot over a day-for-night shot any day.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

That's because Nolan still makes his movies with film projection as reference in his mind.

You can't project film with 7.1 audio (Dolby Digital SRD/DTS)

8-channel SDDS could ... well five front / 2 surrounds to be technically correct.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

That's because Nolan still makes his movies with film projection as reference in his mind.

You can't project film with 7.1 audio (Dolby Digital SRD/DTS)

Dolby Digital EX was 6.1 with a matrixed center rear.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Dolby Digital EX was 6.1 with a matrixed center rear.

THREAD DIGRESSION: my neighborhood theater largest screen is still configured to play movies this way - why? nothing is mixed anymore as such - AMC is just being clueless since it's an easy conversion from EX to 7.1

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

That's because Nolan still makes his movies with film projection as reference in his mind.

You can't project film with 7.1 audio (Dolby Digital SRD/DTS)

Sony's SDDS could do 8-channel sound and some films were mixed and released that way (THE LAST ACTION MOVIE being one as I recall).

EDIT: Dubstar beat me to it.

Chris

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

These screenshots look better than all Christopher Nolan's movies together.

I'm sure Nolan would agree, since Kubrick is his idol.

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

Sony's SDDS could do 8-channel sound and some films were mixed and released that way (THE LAST ACTION HERO being one as I recall).

EDIT: Dubstar beat me to it.

Chris

Fixed. And to add to this, that's still digital sound. Filmmakers like Nolan and PTA adore the better sounding magnetic sound you get from 35mm prints.

Originally Posted by Maggot

The Breakfast Club, like a lot of 80's films, suffers from generally lackluster 80's film stock. The 50's and 60's were the glory days of film stock and film lensing. The "look" of these old film-stocks compliments the story. For me, all too often, modern film stock looks uninviting, sterile and unimpressive. There's a tangible and palpable presence of warmth, richness and depth on display in these old CinemaScope/VistaVision/65mm-70mm film stocks.

What? Film stock is better than ever! More colors, better dynamic range, finer grain, etc. What you're describing are films shot on film but went through a DI, which are graded to the point they might as well have been shot digitally. Interstellar and Inherent Vice (I'll even include Transcendence) were made without a DI and they look exactly what films should look like.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

Sony's SDDS could do 8-channel sound and some films were mixed and released that way (THE LAST ACTION MOVIE being one as I recall).

EDIT: Dubstar beat me to it.

Chris

SDDS doesn't work with 5-perf 70mm prints and 15/70 IMAX prints so it didn't make any sense to Nolan to use it only for 35mm prints.

In fact he released:

35mm: Dolby SRD 5.1
5/70: Datasat 5.1
IMAX 15/70: Uncompressed DTAC 5.1
Digital: PCM 5.1

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Poya

Fixed. And to add to this, that's still digital sound. Filmmakers like Nolan and PTA adore the better sounding magnetic sound you get from 35mm prints.

35MM prints haven't had magnetic sound since the '50s. It was 70MM prints that had magnetic sound until recently.

[Trax-3]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

35MM prints haven't had magnetic sound since the '50s. It was 70MM prints that had magnetic sound until recently.

Quick search shows that some films had 35mm 4-track magnetic prints as late as Scarface.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Trax-3

Quick search shows that some films had 35mm 4-track magnetic prints as late as Scarface.

Extremely rare though, they were not in mainstream use.

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by 42041

I'm really not sure what you mean by "dystopian" (to my eye, the faded colors of most 50s Eastman films look about as bleak as you can get, and it's kind of strange to make such generalizations about whole decades of films that looked all sorts of different ways), but it's more a matter of changing stylistic preferences than emulsions. If a DP in 1983 wanted to shoot a movie in the overlit backlot style of classic Hollywood, he could've certainly done so (he wouldn't have Technicolor dye-transfer at his disposal, but plenty of 70s films did), but that style of shooting died with that style of filmmaking. Of course, the much faster negatives developed during the 70s and 80s let filmmakers push further into natural lighting and extremes of low light, which, when done for budgetary or practical reasons, isn't always the most pleasant thing aesthetically. Personally, I'm not a big fan of this sort of classic Hollywood cinematography; I'll take a night shot over a day-for-night shot any day.

It's not strange at all and in fact it has been stated countless times on forums how bad 80's film stock looks. That's another problem, the natural, low lighting look doesn't look natural at all.....it looks dead and nothing remotely resembling reality. Clearly as you have stated, you are not a fan of classic Hollywood.

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by Poya

I'm sure Nolan would agree, since Kubrick is his idol.



Fixed. And to add to this, that's still digital sound. Filmmakers like Nolan and PTA adore the better sounding magnetic sound you get from 35mm prints.



What? Film stock is better than ever! More colors, better dynamic range, finer grain, etc. What you're describing are films shot on film but went through a DI, which are graded to the point they might as well have been shot digitally. Interstellar and Inherent Vice (I'll even include Transcendence) were made without a DI and they look exactly what films should look like.

Interstellar looks like crap. Sterile, flat, no warmth, no richness. Typical "needs to be on Zoloft these days" Hollywood.

[Professor Echo]

I realize Nolan has his fans and that I'm not one of them, but comparing Nolan to Kubrick is like comparing a dead asteroid to Earth.