Titanic 4K UHD (1997)

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Hopefully this is a worst-case-scenario that won't come to fruition.

It's a scary prospect, but I think it's also possible that negative scanning will be so cheap in decades to come that there'll be no incentive to do an upres instead.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Hopefully this is a worst-case-scenario that won't come to fruition.

The fallout would be that you could conceivably render in any resolution.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

So, it's possible that native high resolution image acquisition will begin to die a slow death in addition to the death of native 4K home video discs. Only a few boutique labels run by hardcore film preservationists and cinephiles might keep up 4K scanning alive. Similarly, passionate filmmakers and influential ones who can control their work, will prefer native higher resolution capture and release.

This will also hit real film restorations hard, because the negative scanning might be eliminated completely. They'll just take a decades-old Blu-ray master and just upscale that to 4K and call it a "restoration."

I think mainstream stuff will go that way quickly, but if we get a long laserdisc style run of enthusiast releases I think those will shy away from stuff like this unless the director insists on it (like Cameron) or the studio does.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I think mainstream stuff will go that way quickly, but if we get a long laserdisc style run of enthusiast releases I think those will shy away from stuff like this unless the director insists on it (like Cameron) or the studio does.

Originally Posted by mar3o

Hopefully this is a worst-case-scenario that won't come to fruition.

The first people to insist on this will be the producers, in most likelihood, 'cause it's their money being invested in the picture. Innovations have, more often than not, been driven by profit rather than for the sake of innovation itself.

AI is being developed at a breakneck pace because the AI overlords see huge profit at the end of the tunnel. They know they will be able to eliminate 90% of their workforce and expenditure by just having a computer program do things instead; a computer they won't have to give salary, health benefits or holidays to.

The entertainment industry is, like other industries, also driven by profit, primarily. So, filmmakers may want a better quality product, but ultimately, whoever has the money, controls the business. If influential directors, editors who care about film preservation can get together and create rival production houses that does not rely on AI, then we can have a more balanced future.

Originally Posted by James Luckard

It's a scary prospect, but I think it's also possible that negative scanning will be so cheap in decades to come that there'll be no incentive to do an upres instead.

How do you see how negative scanning becoming cheaper? Is there an increase in people shooting motion picture film? Is there an increase in film prints being struck for movies? Napoleon's 70mm engagements were an outlier, I think. Any other upcoming examples? Unless people strike prints or shoot on film regularly, film scanning will remain a limited activity, which will keep the expenses high. Part of the charm of film, which was grain, gate weave, halation and an overall optical, organic look, can now be recreated digitally. Look at The Holdovers, for example. It almost looks like a film print; almost, but not exactly. The image is still much sharper than film and the title cards look too sharp and don't have the softer feathering around the edges which optical titles do. But again, those can be easily corrected digitally.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

How do you see how negative scanning becoming cheaper? Is there an increase in people shooting motion picture film? Is there an increase in film prints being struck for movies? Napoleon's 70mm engagements were an outlier, I think. Any other upcoming examples? Unless people strike prints or shoot on film regularly, film scanning will remain a limited activity, which will keep the expenses high.

Everything that involves computers becomes cheaper as time passes. I'm no expert in the field, and I'd love it if someone who works in film scanning for the studios could chime in, but it seems reasonable that the costs involved will only go down.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Everything that involves computers becomes cheaper as time passes. I'm no expert in the field, and I'd love it if someone who works in film scanning for the studios could chime in, but it seems reasonable that the costs involved will only go down.

How many negatives are scanned nowadays on a regular basis? The cost of maintaining those machines rise as demand for them has declined due to the overwhelming shift towards digital image acquisition. Unless there's a regular flow of scanning and printing of film, the houses that use those scanners will not see much profit. If the don't have much profit then the cost for scanning will be higher. That's what I think, anyway. Also, like you, I am no expert. It's just my deduction. Mass produced items are always cheaper compared to things that are used infrequently or are niche.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

How many negatives are scanned nowadays on a regular basis? The cost of maintaining those machines rise as demand for them has declined due to the overwhelming shift towards digital image acquisition. Unless there's a regular flow of scanning and printing of film, the houses that use those scanners will not see much profit. If the don't have much profit then the cost for scanning will be higher. That's what I think, anyway. Also, like you, I am no expert. It's just my deduction. Mass produced items are always cheaper compared to things that are used infrequently or are niche.

True, very few new films have negatives scanned, but many studios are clearly scanning lots of their old films, to future-proof them for streaming and digital sale. Look at all the titles MGM licensed with new 4K masters, or all the Paramount titles appearing in 4K, or even the many gorgeous new masters among the Disney titles Kino Lorber licensed a few years back. The fact that a film as relatively obscure and forgotten as Green Card got a stunning new master at Disney (even if it only got a 1080p disc) gives me hope.

Again though, this isn't my field, I'm just guessing, so I'd love comments from anyone who works directly in this area.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

True, very few new films have negatives scanned, but many studios are clearly scanning lots of their old films, to future-proof them for streaming and digital sale. Look at all the titles MGM licensed with new 4K masters, or all the Paramount titles appearing in 4K, or even the many gorgeous new masters among the Disney titles Kino Lorber licensed a few years back. The fact that a film as relatively obscure and forgotten as Green Card got a stunning new master at Disney (even if it only got a 1080p disc) gives me hope.

Again though, this isn't my field, I'm just guessing, so I'd love comments from anyone who works directly in this area.

It's possible, but with AI making everything cheap, those concerned primarily with profit will opt for the easy way out. Boutique labels, if they can stay afloat, will continue to give us great masters. The major studios? I doubt. As with everything in the world, convenience and quantity wins over quality in most scenarios, though not all.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Everything that involves computers becomes cheaper as time passes.

A computer doesn't have legs, hands and eyes Restoration can be a very long process; it takes time to find the negatives, check them, clean and fix - if it's even possible - potential physical damages. Sometimes they're lost, sometimes they're partially destroyed so other sources need to be found.

Creation of the digital scan is just a one step of many.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

A computer doesn't have legs, hands and eyes Restoration can be a very long process; it takes time to find the negatives, check them, clean and fix - if it's even possible - potential physical damages. Sometimes they're lost, sometimes they're partially destroyed so other sources need to be found.

Creation of the digital scan is just a one step of many.

The vast, vast majority of modern studio films don't need to be restored in order to be remastered.

Yes, there are horror stories of films with negatives that were nearly ruined, but they're mostly older and they're often only the most popular films, where the moron studios back in the day, unconcerned with the future in an era before home video, struck release prints straight from the negatives, or some other such stupidity.

As far as I know, almost all modern (let's say post-1980) studio films have negatives that are properly cared for, simply because they're a huge part of each studio's value as a business.

Again, as far as I know, most modern studio films (as long as they don't have A-list directors with control over every step of remastering, like this one) can be remastered without herculean difficulty.

I'll use Green Card as an example again, because it can stand in for thousands of non-blockbuster studio catalog titles. It most likely has a pristine negative that Disney has carefully stored, and which they pulled and scanned and did some minor adjustments to for the current, gorgeous master.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

The first people to insist on this will be the producers, in most likelihood, 'cause it's their money being invested in the picture. Innovations have, more often than not, been driven by profit rather than for the sake of innovation itself.

AI is being developed at a breakneck pace because the AI overlords see huge profit at the end of the tunnel. They know they will be able to eliminate 90% of their workforce and expenditure by just having a computer program do things instead; a computer they won't have to give salary, health benefits or holidays to.

The entertainment industry is, like other industries, also driven by profit, primarily. So, filmmakers may want a better quality product, but ultimately, whoever has the money, controls the business. If influential directors, editors who care about film preservation can get together and create rival production houses that does not rely on AI, then we can have a more balanced future.



How do you see how negative scanning becoming cheaper? Is there an increase in people shooting motion picture film? Is there an increase in film prints being struck for movies? Napoleon's 70mm engagements were an outlier, I think. Any other upcoming examples? Unless people strike prints or shoot on film regularly, film scanning will remain a limited activity, which will keep the expenses high. Part of the charm of film, which was grain, gate weave, halation and an overall optical, organic look, can now be recreated digitally. Look at The Holdovers, for example. It almost looks like a film print; almost, but not exactly. The image is still much sharper than film and the title cards look too sharp and don't have the softer feathering around the edges which optical titles do. But again, those can be easily corrected digitally.

I think you're putting two and two together and getting five. What does shooting/printing on film have to do with scanning dying out or becoming obsolete? And since when did it become a "limited activity" anyway? Yes, the need for DI film scanning came and went years ago as digital cameras took over. But there are still beaucoup scanners out there like the Imagicas used by IMAX, the ARRISCAN, the Northlight series, Scanity, LaserGraphics, GoldenEye and more. As James said, where do you think all these new transfers from studios and indies alike keep coming from?

Film scanning for transfer/archival purposes has been around for decades and will be a thing for as long as film exists, and I mean film in the sense of the format itself, all those billions of feet of film sitting in vaults and salt mines all over the world. Even if no one shot another frame of film ever again that would not affect the demand to have existing content transferred anew, simply because those still shooting film are not drivers of that scanning market and have not been for many years. Even our filmic lord and saviour Nolan hates scanning his negatives. Hates it.

What Cameron has done might seem scary but hey, it's Cameron: he will march to the beat of his own drum and no one else's, if he wants to uprez old (but good) transfers of his own work that's up to him, but any sane filmmaker/studio/label will continue to return to as high a generational source as possible to create a new transfer from. And even in Cameron's case he basically sees these existing transfers as being archival versions of his work even if they were only done at 2K (Titanic was done in 4K at the time), and as he doesn't give a hoot about HDR he doesn't need any more dynamic range which a new scan would provide. But at the same time we're not talking about him grabbing some old-ass telecine off the shelf and uprezzing that (though some have tried, turbine in Germany have done several such 'remasters').

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

It most likely has a pristine negative that Disney has carefully stored, and which they pulled and scanned and did some minor adjustments to for the current, gorgeous master.

You only confirmed what I said - it involved HUMANS

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

You only confirmed what I said - it involved HUMANS

The larger point of what I was saying is that 99% of modern movies shot on film don't need to be restored to be remastered, so we're talking about a minimal number of humans for a minimal amount of time.

I don't agree with Robert Harris about everything, but I do agree with him when he argues strongly that the word "restored" is wildly misused most of the time, including by the studios in their own deceptive press releases. Most modern studio movies just need to be remastered, not restored in any way.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Most movies just need to be remastered, not restored in any way.

This is 100% untrue. What is being released on discs is only a small part of the history of cinematography; there's a world beyond Hollywood's biggest studios and the same titles re-released over and over again.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

This is 100% untrue. What is being released on discs is only a small part of the history of cinematography; there's a world beyond Hollywood's biggest studios and the same titles re-released over and over again.

That was why I quickly edited the post to include the words "modern studio."

I wasn't referring to non-studio or older films, I was referring to the modern studio films we've been talking about. I just forgot to restate that.

I grant you, older and non-studio films don't have as bright a future, but they never have, sadly.

My point was that, for example, when a BD like the 2003 reissue of Love Actually has a banner atop it like this, proclaiming an "All New Digital Restoration," it's wildly misleading:


The negative for Love Actually is safely stored somewhere, and there was no chance any restoration was needed to remaster it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

That was why I quickly edited the post to include the words "modern studio."

I wasn't referring to non-studio or older films, I was referring to the modern studio films we've been talking about. I just forgot to restate that.

I grant you, older and non-studio films don't have as bright a future, but they never have, sadly.

My point was that, for example, when a BD like the 2003 reissue of Love Actually has a banner atop it like this, proclaiming an "All New Digital Restoration," it's wildly misleading:


The negative for Love Actually is safely stored somewhere, and there was no chance any restoration was needed to remaster it.

Restored, remastered, to me it's much the same market. I just made this point in the Lawrence thread, funnily enough, but what would you consider an actual 'film restoration' to be? Like, what would it physically do to the film negative itself if it was badly torn, faded, or otherwise damaged? Or is 'film restoration' purely about rescuing a lost cut of a movie?

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Restored, remastered, to me it's much the same market. I just made this point in the Lawrence thread, funnily enough, but what would you consider an actual 'film restoration' to be? Like, what would it physically do to the film negative itself if it was badly torn, faded, or otherwise damaged? Or is 'film restoration' purely about rescuing a lost cut of a movie?

I agree, the terms have been misused by the studios in their PR so much that they've become interchangeable, but...

Wouldn't a "restoration" involve taking a film with a compromised negative, or compromised audio, and fixing/finding missing footage, fixing ginormous scratches running the length of a reel, badly faded colors, misaligned 3-strip colors, garbled audio, etc?

And wouldn't "remastering" just involve taking a properly stored negative and properly stored audio elements and scanning the negative and doing some color timing fixes to match the internegative or a vaulted print, and then possibly doing an HDR pass?

As I understood it, that's the distinction Harris makes.

There's no way Love Actually was in such bad shape in 2003 that they needed to restore it in any way, right?

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Restored, remastered, to me it's much the same market. I just made this point in the Lawrence thread, funnily enough, but what would you consider an actual 'film restoration' to be? Like, what would it physically do to the film negative itself if it was badly torn, faded, or otherwise damaged? Or is 'film restoration' purely about rescuing a lost cut of a movie?

Just to be clear, having now read your Lawrence post, I totally get that the original negative itself can't be "restored," it is what it is, what I mean is that they create a restored version from it. In those days, it was a new 35mm element. Today, it's a restored digital version, with all those fixes applied.

I'm thinking more of the digital restorations Universal has done to films like Spartacus, The Man Who Knew Too Much and Rope, where the film elements needed serious digital work.

A film like Love Actually would need no such work, they'd just scan the pristine negative and be basically done, right?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Just to be clear, having now read your Lawrence post, I totally get that the original negative itself can't be "restored," it is what it is, what I mean is that they create a restored version from it. In those days, it was a new 35mm element. Today, it's a restored digital version, with all those fixes applied.

I'm thinking more of the digital restorations Universal has done to films like Spartacus, The Man Who Knew Too Much and Rope, where the film elements needed serious digital work.

A film like Love Actually would need no such work, they'd just scan the pristine negative and be basically done, right?

Right, so digital restoration is still restoration in your eyes. Phew.

Modern negs aren't (or shouldn't be) badly scratched or torn or faded, but film is basically a dust magnet so even as recent a movie as that would still need a good dollop of digital dust-busting. It shouldn't need rescuing as such but when so many movies, old and new, essentially go through the same digital pipelines to end up in the HD/4K space then I just don't see the need to be so precious about the terminology any more. I mean, I'm a persnickety **** and usually love me some precious terminology but in this case it seems needless.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Right, so digital restoration is still restoration in your eyes. Phew.

Modern negs aren't (or shouldn't be) badly scratched or torn or faded, but film is basically a dust magnet so even as recent a movie as that would still need a good dollop of digital dust-busting. It shouldn't need rescuing as such but when so many movies, old and new, essentially go through the same digital pipelines to end up in the HD/4K space then I just don't see the need to be so precious about the terminology any more. I mean, I'm a persnickety **** and usually love me some precious terminology but in this case it seems needless.

Glad we cleared that up. I never meant to suggest that actual damaged 35mm OCN material could be magicked into looking good-as-new.

I only meant that it's pretty clear it doesn't require a Lawrence-style restoration to remaster 99% of modern studio movies.

I was absolutely floored when I bought Fox's BD of Working Girl, to give another example. It was clearly a new 4K scan of the negative. That's another minor catalog title like Green Card where there's no way they did some expensive and time-consuming digital work, and there's no way they needed to. They'd have just pulled the negative, scanned it, and done some fairly basic color timing and dirt cleanups, right?