4K restoration process?

[mishal]

I've always been fascinated with the process of converting an old film to something unbelievable in blu-ray. I have seen the process of the restoration in HD for The Godfather.

Is there a website where I can read or see more about the process of converting and restoring films to HD? And what is the difference between 4K and 6K restoration? Is there particular company that does the restoration and do movie studies do it themselves?

Appreciate any help I can get.

[42041]

4K refers to the horizontal resolution of the film scanner. 4096 pixels. Such a high resolution is needed to accurately sample the analog image on the film to a digital image.

Old films still had to be projected onto a large screen, and 35mm negative from even 60 years ago still had higher resolution than any current home video format. Unless the film is severely physically degraded, you just take the highest quality sources you can (like the original camera negative) and digitize them at the best quality you can, then fix scratches/dust/color fading with digital tools.

Most experts on the matter seem to think you don't need a higher resolution than 4K to restore older 35mm films, so 6K or 8K or whatever for 35mm is largely just hype.

[mishal]

Interesting. Thanks a lot 42041.

Is there a video or site that is sort of like"How it is Made" for restoration? I am very interested to see the process.

[42041]

Originally Posted by mishal

Interesting. Thanks a lot 42041.

Is there a video or site that is sort of like"How it is Made" for restoration? I am very interested to see the process.

Robert Harris has a column on The Digital Bits that may shed some insights, though a lot of it was written before Blu-Ray and when digital tools were considerably less advanced:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...ris/index.html

There's also some special features on discs that go into the restoration process in some depth. The Wizard of Oz and Metropolis come to mind.

For old films, don't they only scan the inter-positive or something like that (not the original camera negative)?

They scan all sorts of stuff, like dupe negatives, interpositives, color separations (where they separated the colors onto several strips of black and white film... the silver in B&W film is much more stable than the dyes in Eastman color, which fade readily under poor storage conditions). The camera negative has the best quality, but as I understand it, the disadvantage is that it's not color timed, so it doesn't have day-for-night shots and color tints and whatnot, so they have to recreate that. The OCN is also irreplaceable and quite fragile.

Older video masters originally made for DVD are typically from the interpositive. There was no reason to use a higher quality source.

[Blue_Baron]

Check out these on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...storation&aq=f

This one in particular: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yksfQDHC5QY

[mishal]

Thanks a lot you guys. Really Appreciate.

Anthony P, Thanks for the well explained process

[Spicoli]

Originally Posted by Blue_Baron

Check out these on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...storation&aq=f

This one in particular: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yksfQDHC5QY

Great video everyone must see!

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by 42041

Old films still had to be projected onto a large screen, and 35mm negative from even 60 years ago still had higher resolution than any current home video format. Unless the film is severely physically degraded, you just take the highest quality sources you can (like the original camera negative) and digitize them at the best quality you can, then fix scratches/dust/color fading with digital tools.

For old films, don't they only scan the inter-positive or something like that (not the original camera negative)?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

For old films, don't they only scan the inter-positive or something like that (not the original camera negative)?

with real old films (anything pre-80s and even a bit later) you go with what you have. Before VHS film preservation was not big since, except for a handful of movies, once the theatrical run was done there was little value. With VHS and DVD came the idea that the films life does not end with the theatrical run. That is one of the reason that some films that don't have a lot of DNR you can sometimes see where they probably used one print and then an other.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

For old films, don't they only scan the inter-positive or something like that (not the original camera negative)?

That's correct. All films before 1949 and some films before 1952 were on nitrate stock, which is highly flammable, especially if it has begun to deteriorate. There are only a few institutions in the country that are permitted to project nitrate stock (either USC or UCLA being one of them, maybe the only one) and it's almost as dangerous even if you're not putting a hot projection lamp behind it. So it's highly unlikely that any scans would be made from any nitrate stock, even if the negative has survived.

For some older films, we're probably looking at prints many generations away from the original negative. Most silent films look terrible, but they weren't originally that way - when you see an archival print, they're actually quite beautiful. I attended NYU Film School in the 1970s and they showed archival quality 16mm film prints for Film History courses that were gorgeous and as projected on high quality equipment, were indistinguishable from 35mm prints. (While I don't know this for a fact, I suspect today that Film History students are watching these films from a DVD or BD.)

For later films on acetate or polyester-based stocks, many of the negatives are either missing or have deteriorated. The technicolor process was a three-strip process and before the advent of VCRs, some idiot executives at the studios had two of the three strips destroyed to save money on storage, thinking they had three copies of the negative.

But even besides all that, if there's any opticals (even if they're only used for dissolves or wipes), in the film, you can't use the camera negative anyway, unless you re-create the optical, which is one of the things that Lucas has been doing on so-called "special editions" of the Star Wars series, in order to improve the quality. And of course, any non-practical special effects won't be reflected in the negative.

So more often than not, an inter-positive or a print (or portions of many prints) are used for scans for DVD/BD release. And in spite of the heroic efforts of "restorians" like Robert A. Harris and the claims of reviewers in some cases that "the film never looked this good", that's usually not the case. There is always a price to be paid by not having use of the original negative, at least in terms of resolution and grain structure, even if current tech permits them to improve the color timing.

There's also the issue of films that have been lost forever. Martin Scorsese's Film Foundation estimates that 80 percent of American films produced from 1894 to 1930 have been destroyed forever and I believe (although I couldn't find the quote) that 50% of all films prior to 1950 have been destroyed. Luckily, most of the important sound films have survived, at least in some form.

[Atreyu]

I heard on AMC, quite a few years ago, that of all the silent films made in this country, only about 5% are known to still exist. That is so sad.

[Flatnate]

I would think part of that is because their is only a handful of facilities that have the ability to store extremely flammable old nitrate film. You have to bet at some point, some studio insurance bean counter told the studios to get rid of the stuff unless you can get it all in to some fire proof halon protected vault. I know there is a video of the stuff burning underwater even on Youtube somewhere. I can't imagine being a projectionist in the 1930's, spooling that stuff up in front of a burning carbon arc lamp. Man I'd crap my pants working with the stuff.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by 42041

4K refers to the horizontal resolution of the film scanner. 4096 pixels. Such a high resolution is needed to accurately sample the analog image on the film to a digital image.

Old films still had to be projected onto a large screen, and 35mm negative from even 60 years ago still had higher resolution than any current home video format. Unless the film is severely physically degraded, you just take the highest quality sources you can (like the original camera negative) and digitize them at the best quality you can, then fix scratches/dust/color fading with digital tools.

Most experts on the matter seem to think you don't need a higher resolution than 4K to restore older 35mm films, so 6K or 8K or whatever for 35mm is largely just hype.

that's more than likely true, but IMAX, 65mm, Vistavision films have to at least have a 6K restoration

[Flatnate]

Another member posted these two links on a different thread that I found fascinating and thought you may enjoy as well. They sorta relate to the restoration process.

Image Resolution of 35MM Film in Theatrical Presentation

HD VIDEO vs. 35mm FILM

[wilky61]

What films have undergone a 4K restoration for Blu-Ray release other than River Kwai and Taxi Driver?
I was also reading that a 4K restoration is currently under progress for Lawrence, but the release date is still a ways off.

[Flatnate]

I read on the forums that Minority Report will be a 4k transfer, and ... don't quote me but someone somewhere mentioned re-mastering the Godfather in 4k as well.

Quick edit... Sound and Vision article and several other forums confirms that the Godfather was a 4k scan.

[Crimson King]

Originally Posted by wilky61

What films have undergone a 4K restoration for Blu-Ray release other than River Kwai and Taxi Driver?
I was also reading that a 4K restoration is currently under progress for Lawrence, but the release date is still a ways off.

Dr. Strangelove

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by wilky61

...I was also reading that a 4K restoration is currently under progress for Lawrence, but the release date is still a ways off.

Think higher in terms of scanning.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by mishal

Is there a website where I can read or see more about the process of converting and restoring films to HD? And what is the difference between 4K and 6K restoration? Is there particular company that does the restoration and do movie studies do it themselves?

don't know of any websites, but a few films have it as extras. The first step is find prints (usualy more then one) and then finding the best one (and sometimes taking parts of one print and other parts from an other). Then it is usualy sent out for restoration. Some might be film but some will be digital. Between a restoration on film and digital, the film is passed through a scanner which works a lot like the scanner you might have at home or office, but obviously not made fr paper but a 35mm (or other film sizes) frame. Like the scanner at home it reads/creates several dots per inch, and that gives the resolution. For example if you have a digital display it is either 720p or 1080p , for 1080p that means that there are 1080x1920, 4k means that instead of 1920 (~2000) there are ~4000 and 6k ~6000 and 8k ~ 8000 and obviously the equivalent in height. So 4k means 2x 2k (HD) and so 4x the resolution of 1080p (because of CRT TVs that had lines of resolution the common practice is to use lines and so 1080, but since movies have different AR and the width is fixed they use columns and so 4k, think of it this way, if you watch a movie you have black bars above and below, so you have 1920 columns of pixels but you don't have 1080 rows of them).


each studio is a bit different and some do more in house while for others it is more outsourced. There are many companies who's job is restoration, for example Mr. Harris, in the insider forum here , works for one of them and does just that. But even if outsourced a studio is “involved” they might want a cheap simple procedure or go with an expensive full restoration.