Quote:
Originally Posted by ernest rister
rdu is (finally) faithful to the original theatrical release,
the film was projected via film interpositives.
The creators planned for grain during the production of the movie, like every disney movie preceeding it.
On one hand, you have people who carp about the digital look of fantasia, sleeping beauty, pinocchio, beauty and the beast and tinkered color timing --
-- here's a disney blu that is, for my money, faithful to the original theatrical presentation
now, the other hand carps it isn't an all-digital affair.
I would love to have rdu in an all-caps version. But i'm very happy to have it in a version that meets me halfway, and elminates the issues with the previous release.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by disneyfreak
It may look like how it looked in theaters but wouldn't you rather have it look like the actual source?
|
The source for a movie image is the original camera (film) negative or in the digital world a digital file. If you read about photographic processes and materials, or these days, imaging, you might find that the original image (the actual source) is, and can be different from the final product.
In photographic imaging, photographic materials and products distort the original object in front of the lens. The lens itself distorts it, and the photographic emulsion and chemicals distort it further. But the negative is where the source of the movie is first "fixed". Compared to the original object in front of the lens, the tonal values from black to grey are changed in non linear fashion by both the lens and the film, the blacks are limited by both the lens and film and the whites are by the film, the sharpness and resolution is reduced too first by the lens then by the film and there might be even geometrical distortions. The film also adds a grain structure to the image, although negatives usually have the minimum amount the budget, film emulsion technology and available light can afford. For color images, there's also distortions in color saturation, lightness and hue in various directions from the original by these film emulsion distortions. Since the negative is not actually watched, there are technological "tricks" to minimize this (Technicolor b/w separation negatives preserving the color records separately, or orange dye masks preventing color interactions and distortions from the color dyes' reactions to light up to a point in conventional color negatives, etc) but however minimal, the look of the original object changes when it's first "fixed" as an image (I mention this because with animation films you can have the "object" (the cel or art) to compare). This distortion might be known and taken into account when designing and choosing the colors/tones of the object to be reproduced, etc. So even if the "original" won't look exactly like the object this is known and planned for in designing the look of the film.
Now this original fixed image (the negative) isn't looked at (or 'seen') directly , or at least till recently, you couldn't see how it really looked like, as it was less than an inch wide, and in negative tones and reversed colors. The "original" is used to make a print, and actually the final print can be a couple of generations (or further "copies") from the "original" be it by negative -> technicolor pos matrix film with the dye migrating onto the dye prints, or negative - > interpos -> interneg -> print.
This copying process, just like when "fixing" the original image, adds more of the same distortions: changes in tonal values, hues and colors, reduction in sharpness and additional layers of grain. Since the intermediate steps are done in the laboratory and in controlled conditions and not "live" as in shooting a film, the intermediate emulsions can be of finer grain and high sharpness than shooting film, to minimize degradations but as it still is a copying process, degradations however minimal happen.(For animation theoretically since shooting is also done in the equivalent of "controlled conditions", the negative film usually can also be of finest grain available for filming, as you can expose it to as much light as needed by letting the shutter open). Also, conventional color prints don't have the color distortion-preventing orange dye masks of intermediate films, as they are to be viewed directly
. So following this chain of events, you'll see that A: the print doesn't look exactly like the original exposed image and B: the original exposed image doesn't look exactly like the object.
Again since the distortions are known and understood, the object and the various components in the procces of making the film (the lighting used in shooting, the make up, the clothing, the paint, the emulsions and filters, etc) are often chosen in a manner possible to get the desired effect as closely as feasible on
the print.
Of course technological or budgetary limitations might put a limit on the quality achievable. But most of the desired look is achieved on the print, the "components" chosen to that end, within limits. Also print projection degrades sharpness available in the print itself further (and lowers film grain with it to a point) so in reality, the print is a little better than what you see on the screen, and the "original" (the negative) further has better highlight and shadow separation, purity of hues and possible maximum saturation, finer grain and sharpness than the print, and even can look totally different than the print. Take for example the hypothetical case of a red object x negative x print dyes = very red apple on print. The print material might boost or lower the reds, so on the original negative the actual red recorded might be less or more, and also different from the actual red painted on the cel. etc.
With digital files, although different, a similar process happens. First digital files images don't "exist" or can be looked at directly, they are numbers or electrons dancing on the head of a pin. What exists is a fixed instruction of how to display them. But to display them they have to be "translated" into reality: A monitor has to create them, to be seen or evaluated, and the monitor will have a fixed set of characteristics, like pixels, lines of resolution, contrast, colors, etc, or the instructions will be recorded on a film "negative" with a film recorder and printed also the conventional way so the above applies. With digital the components can be controlled and specified more accurately in a fashion, and the file is then created in a way that looks good on the medium it's watched (or is manipulated so it looks good on the final medium it's watched) on.
In any case if you're following closely, you can see that the "original" and the "final" are not exactly the same in a sense, the "original" is a working part, and it can look like the "finalized version" in slightly to much better quality, or it can be not specifically better but be very different at the same time. (And again for animation fans, also different from the object (the cel) in color and tones etc. it recorded). So you could create (or try) 3 different transfers or "interpretations": Make it just like the print (or slightly worse, how it looked on screen). Make it just like the negative (or original, which nobody has really seen directly). Or in the case of animation when the cels exist, even make it like the object (which you could argue nobody except the crew has seen and not exactly how it should look on the screen as the filming process took into account (and counts on!) the "distortions" as part of the aim in achieving the final look. That's why historians, technicians and reference materials like original prints are important and integral to the process.
So what should the aim of a video release transfer be?: Recreate the original print experience, including projection degradations? Recreate the best possible print sans projection optical/mechanical degradation (In a sense, the "Perfect Projection")? Go way beyond that and recreate the actual negative which will look even better than the original, and in doing so, go and make it look like the print looked but much better, or make it more like the negative original actually looks? (I remember in the 80's and 90's seeing how the video version of movies transferred from the earlier elements looked way beyond the prints I just had seen in the theaters (except for the image resolution) with better purer or saturated colors, higher shadow detail and contrast, and for example vivid emerald greens that never showed up on theater screens making them look different). Or in the case of animation, recreate the original actual art, but disregarding the original film look? etc. Or with digital files.. recreate the raw and pure digital data (equivalent of recreating the original negative look) or recreate the original film print look? etc. etc.
These are different interpretations/re-interpretations, same as a photographic print is a interpretation of the image fixed at the time of exposure in the negative. People familiar or that have read for example Ansel Adams' books
The Negative and T
he Print will understand better what I'm getting at here.
anegative.jpgaprint.jpg
I think the quote goes the negative (the original) is the "score" as a print is the "performance" . So with a new video do we try for a better reproduction of the original performance or a better performance of the original score?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ernest rister
Your grain complaint makes me wonder if your sharpness is over-cranked, because the grain looks smooth and natural to me.
|
All video enthusiast should check the sharpness setting by putting on an appropriate pattern and sitting very close (1PH) turn sharpness all the way down, turn it slowly up till edges and lines are sharp but without edge enhancement showing up (lets call this the 'flat' setting) and writing it down. If you sit at theatrical viewing experience distances (~2PH) that'll probably be fine. But at the average home sitting distance (~4PH) (equivalent to sitting on the last row of the theater) or if you use glasses, your eyes might not resolve the smallest lines with full contrast so you could maybe turn up the sharpness a smidgen then from the 'flat' setting to bring the lines into 'focus", taking care to not bring visible edge enhancement from your viewing position, and write it down (Call it your 'sitting position custom setting'). From there, for the discs that might not look focused, you could occasionally turn it up a little higher till they look ok for the evening, always remembering to bring it back to the original setting after viewing that particular disc, for viewing other discs.
.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
