Escape from New York (1981) (Collector's Edition)

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by travisbickle

They did one for Sleepaway Camp and it turned out great.

Didn't they also scan the entire Pee-Wee Playhouse series? It turned out great as well.

That cover is awesome BTW.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

It's actually close to the same price to scan film at 4K now than it is 2K. I work in Hollywood and most places have 4K scanning now as a standard. Oh well, I'm sure it'll look good, but it could already look somewhat better.

Really makes zero sense though with EVERYTHING going 4K - even the little Sony handycams - to be stuck with 2K scans. Kind of like being stuck with DVD when blu-ray is available, although of course the difference is as night and day as that.

I'm sure there was a reason of it, and in no way am I knocking the effort they put into the disc. I just think if they wanted to make it as "definitive" as they claim it to be, it should at least be scanned in 4K.

Well, if all they have access to is an IP like their statement suggests, then scanning in 4K would be poinless anyway and wouldn't give any new detail. Scanning the IP in 4K or in a good new 2K scan (not the crappy old Universal ones) produces virtually the same results. So



A good, modern 2K scan of the original negative > a 4K scan of an interpositive - this is a FACT

I always use the Dr. Strangelove example to prove this. Sony scanned the IP of Strangelove in 4K (the original negative was destroyed/lost apparently). But Criterion's releases of Persona and Il Sorpasso whose ONs were scanned in 2K look better, anyone who has seen all 3 would agree, I am sure. All three movies are black & white, all made in a span of 4 years.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Didn't they also scan the entire Pee-Wee Playhouse series? It turned out great as well.

That cover is awesome BTW.

Yep that looks amazing.

All this 2k fud needs to get out.
Nothing wrong with a modern 2k scan

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

I'm surprised people have sky high expectations that a small company like Scream would do 4K scans. I mean they are very time consuming and expensive, it makes sense that only the bigger studio labels that actually care about quality control could fiance them. Don't forgot, well done modern 2K transfers can yield very good results if handled correctly.

It will be interesting how this new transfer compares with the U.S one in terms of blacks. The U.S release was quite dark, I get the feeling this new transfer won't be quite as dark.

I wouldn't call Shout! a small company

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by jlk5844

I would prefer if Universal gave us a 4K remaster, but that would be the next best thing.

I mentioned Shout! because that would seem to me to be a more likely scenario as Universal isn't going to do anything.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Yep that looks amazing.

All this 2k fud needs to get out.
Nothing wrong with a modern 2k scan

The problem is when people read "2K scan" they think of Universal's ancient 2K scans made in 1995 or something.

[starman15317]

This release is going to be awesome.

[klauswhereareyou]

New Scan...this release just keeps looking better and better.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Well, if all they have access to is an IP like their statement suggests, then scanning in 4K would be poinless anyway and wouldn't give any new detail. Scanning the IP in 4K or in a good new 2K scan (not the crappy old Universal ones) produces virtually the same results. So



A good, modern 2K scan of the original negative > a 4K scan of an interpositive - this is a FACT

I always use the Dr. Strangelove example to prove this. Sony scanned the IP of Strangelove in 4K (the original negative was destroyed/lost apparently). But Criterion's releases of Persona and Il Sorpasso whose ONs were scanned in 2K look better, anyone who has seen all 3 would agree, I am sure. All three movies are black & white, all made in a span of 4 years.

This is where I need some clarification on the process....someone who knows these things, please jump in. I am confused a bit.

With a colored movie, when you go back to the original negative (which is in B&W) you may have to clean it up, repair some frames, scratches, or whatever else. But, in essence you try to get it in as nice of a condition as possible BEFORE scanning it.

Now, once you scan the negative (whether at 2K or 4K or higher), you have to create an IP from the negative as that is when the color grading has to be applied, correct? So, if you have a nice IP that came off a nice scan, there is really no need to go back to the negative, right?

With the IP, a digital master is then created which becomes the source for the Blu-ray?

[Ill_Be_Back]

I don't like asking but I really want the poster for this release. Can a member help me out?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Generally speaking, I would imagine the quality of the IP determines whether or not they actually want to go back to the OCN (if the budget is there to potentially do the necessary work on the OCN before creating a new IP). Otherwise, they probably just do what they can on the current IP before doing a new transfer from it? The whole process seems a little nebulous to me and I've seen it documented inconsistently. It sounds like there is just so much variation on how to go about it.

Film has been transferred to video from positive materials since the get-go, and it's only in the last 5-10 years that transferring from the neg @ 4K (or higher) has really gained traction thanks to the concurrent developments in the Digital Intermediate process. Even then, with regard to new transfers it's still only really been used for high-profile restoration efforts or for powerful directors who wanted to create definitive 4K masters of their work, like what Spielbergo did with SPR & Minority Report and Cameron with Aliens & Titanic. There is one exception to that rule: Sony, who are 4K'ing everything they can get their hands on, but that's been driven more by their desperation to create content to fuel their TV sales. All those reasons have created a certain sense of entitlement amongst the home video cognoscenti.

Negatives shouldn't get pulled on a whim. There's got to be a very good reason to string the cut neg of x movie into your Baselight, and if the neg is in good physical condition and you've got IP materials to hand then there's no need to embark on what is effectively a restoration, because the film itself is fine and doesn't need such heroic measures. Some directors and studios have enough clout to have that done to new-ish movies anyway (as mentioned above) and that's fair enough - but not everyone has that sort of influence, so the disappointment that greets every mention of 2K needs to get dialled down a tad IMO.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

This is where I need some clarification on the process....someone who knows these things, please jump in. I am confused a bit.

With a colored movie, when you go back to the original negative (which is in B&W) you may have to clean it up, repair some frames, scratches, or whatever else. But, in essence you try to get it in as nice of a condition as possible BEFORE scanning it.

Now, once you scan the negative (whether at 2K or 4K or higher), you have to create an IP from the negative as that is when the color grading has to be applied, correct? So, if you have a nice IP that came off a nice scan, there is really no need to go back to the negative, right?

With the IP, a digital master is then created which becomes the source for the Blu-ray?

No no no, once scanned the negative image is digitally inverted (becoming positive) and then worked on as if it were any other piece of positive material. That's why I've made mention several times recently about how we're literally seeing the original negatives at work with all of those fancy restorations.

[Geoff D]

In other words: there is NOTHING photochemical about current mastering practices (unless you're a certain C.Nolan). Once the film is scanned in, that's it. You wouldn't even need to create a timed IP then IN from the o-neg for the purposes of creating prints, you'd just film out a dupe neg from the colour-corrected DSM (digital source master) and run the prints from that.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No no no, once scanned the negative image is digitally inverted (becoming positive) and then worked on as if it were any other piece of positive material. That's why I've made mention several times recently about how we're literally seeing the original negatives at work with all of those fancy restorations.

Ahhhh....okay now, I get it.

So, you either scan the negative to get your end result OR you scan your IP (this is based on the assumption of movies pre-DI...as the DI takes care of what is needed for the Blu release).

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

In other words: there is NOTHING photochemical about current mastering practices (unless you're a certain C.Nolan). Once the film is scanned in, that's it. You wouldn't even need to create a timed IP then IN from the o-neg for the purposes of creating prints, you'd just film out a dupe neg from the colour-corrected DSM (digital source master) and run the prints from that.

Makes total sense.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's why I've made mention several times recently about how we're literally seeing the original negatives at work with all of those fancy restorations.

Yeah, we really are rather fortunate getting to this level of transparency.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Ahhhh....okay now, I get it.

So, you either scan the negative to get your end result OR you scan your IP (this is based on the assumption of movies pre-DI...as the DI takes care of what is needed for the Blu release).

Correctamundo. IPs (or fine-grain masters for B&W movies) are only a generation removed from the negative so they still provide a very high-quality source as long as they're in good condition to begin with (as you said, a poor IP is as good a reason as any to back to the o-neg).

But although IPs basically represent the properly timed version of any given single-strip film they still need colour correction when transferring to video, this is because they're low-contrast elements designed to be printed down another two stages (IN to print) before reaching the screen, which builds up contrast as it goes.

And yeah, modern DI movies are migrated across from the DSM.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Correctamundo. IPs (or fine-grain masters for B&W movies) are only a generation removed from the negative so they still provide a very high-quality source as long as they're in good condition to begin with (as you said, a poor IP is as good a reason as any to back to the o-neg).

But although IPs basically represent the properly timed version of any given single-strip film they still need colour correction when transferring to video, this is because they're low-contrast elements designed to be printed down another two stages (IN to print) before reaching the screen, which builds up contrast as it goes.

And yeah, modern DI movies are migrated across from the DSM.

So, how close are DI's to the original negative? I realize it depends on where they are finished at - as they are often finished at 2K because of CGI where as they could have been actually filmed at 4K or on 35mm.

[Batmon77]

Any chance of 7.1 audio?

Is it even needed? Is there enough to stretch it out to 7.1?

[jlk5844]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I mentioned Shout! because that would seem to me to be a more likely scenario as Universal isn't going to do anything.

Yeah, probably. Although Universal seems to want to hang onto it as it's a popular title for them. I imagine The Thing sold much more than MGM's Blu-ray of Escape from New York. In any case, like you said I just hope for a new transfer of at least 2K quality! (thankfully, the current Blu-ray is still very watchable)