Video about 4K digital restoration of Mildred Pierce (1945)

Open, general discussion of classic sound-era films, personalities and history.
All Darc
Posts: 1227
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
Location: Brazil

Video about 4K digital restoration of Mildred Pierce (1945)

Unread post by All Darc » Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:36 pm

Interesting :



But why they scanned in 4K before a carefully cleaning of the camera negative.

There is a scene (03:44), showing the film on computer, with a lot of fine dirty, and then showing the dirty highlighted in red (detected by restoration software) that give us the idea they didn't cleaned the dirt on camera negative before scanning. It's too much dirt to be just embebed dirt (when dirt glue into film in such way that's difficult or dangerous to physically remove).

On (o3:58) we see some digital fix, but the opperator sellected a much huger area then the deffect itself, replacing a lot of health image instead of just the damaged portion.
Last edited by silentfilm on Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Embedded Vimeo link
Keep thinking...

Image

User avatar
mwalls
Posts: 549
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:02 am
Location: Greensboro, NC

Re: Video about 4K digital restoration of Mildred Pierce (19

Unread post by mwalls » Sat Jun 30, 2018 5:25 am

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

I have never seen nitrate projected but understand that it is gorgeous and superior to safety film. Is digital technology such that a transfer from nitrate as opposed to from safety will be a perceptible difference on Blu-Ray?

Matthew

All Darc
Posts: 1227
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: Video about 4K digital restoration of Mildred Pierce (19

Unread post by All Darc » Sat Jun 30, 2018 7:11 am

About projection, for prints, comparing nitrate to acetate, you are probably right, according many film restorers and old film schollars, despite some few people in this forum argue it was more due B&W gradding than nitrate itself.
Nitrate plastic have more transparency than acetate and than pollyester, so it could render a better contrast for projection.

But... for film preservation what counts it's the quality of the emulsion, how fine it is, how the is the sharpness and dynamic range. So the film protetion materials from acetate era tend to be better.
The quality of the film printers also have a influence, for example the step contact printers (expose frame by frame) have better sharpness than continuour printers (continuous exposure while the film pass/run in front of a light beam). And contact film printers have better sharpness and contrast than optical printers (project the film image through lenses into the virgen film).
Wet-gate (a liquid fill the film to remove scratchs in the film base/plastic) tends to add some softness to the image, specially the vintage wet-gate from decades ago.
mwalls wrote:Interesting. Thanks for posting.

I have never seen nitrate projected but understand that it is gorgeous and superior to safety film. Is digital technology such that a transfer from nitrate as opposed to from safety will be a perceptible difference on Blu-Ray?

Matthew
Keep thinking...

Image

Post Reply