TonyWDA

chocopock said:

TonyWDA said:
You’re presuming the digital elements are still there and weren’t corrupted or rendered inaccessible due to several factors. Few, if any, studios outside of Disney and Pixar were that careful with the preservation of their digital assets and the legacy software/plug-ins used to generate visual effects and composite the final frames. The Iron Giant, Cats Don’t Dance, The Prince of Egypt, all three theatrical Rugrats movies, and even Disney’s own A Goofy Movie were all film-sourced for their high-definition transfers because the digital sources and programs used to composite a scene were either misplaced, damaged, or the company simply did not see the need to re-render the film shot by shot due to missing assets or an unwillingness to put in that much time to retrieve data that may or may not even load properly.

This is correct, however, when they made a transfer for the Spongebob movie on Blu-ray and HD broadcast they would’ve had an uncompressed digital copy made available. Disney and Pixar have done it but some of those machines likely don’t work any more. Once you do it once, you don’t need to do it again since it’s a perfect digital recreation. Disney has reused those same digital copies for their UHD releases which is why you’re stuck with altered versions of The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast. Those are the finalized versions they decided to backup and likely can’t access the originals anymore. None of your examples had digital to digital releases before, but Spongebob has.

TSSM already had a digitally sourced render at the ready, yes, but any number of technological or artistically motivated reasons could have led to the decision to use a film scan over the digital render. “Filmic” transfers and color grades are still something of a trend at the moment, and rather than fake the look, Paramount probably decided to scan archival intermediates for the most authentic transfer— rather than applying fake film grain and subtle gate weave to achieve the effect. That or the color space, bit depth, and chroma sampling of the data used to strike the archival material superseded that of the only accessible digital out, and without access to the source elements for a render more suited for HDR grading, they deemed the 35mm elements the best material— even if the digital copy already had a substantial bitrate.

Without a Paramount representative or someone involved with the remaster to confirm any speculation, it’s impossible to know precisely why they opted for a film scan, but for better or worse, they absolutely did.

chocopock said:

There’s no reason Paramount would go back to scanning a filmout when the digital elements are right there.

You’re presuming the digital elements are still there and weren’t corrupted or rendered inaccessible due to several factors. Few, if any, studios outside of Disney and Pixar were that careful with the preservation of their digital assets and the legacy software/plug-ins used to generate visual effects and composite the final frames. The Iron Giant, Cats Don’t Dance, The Prince of Egypt, all three theatrical Rugrats movies, and even Disney’s own A Goofy Movie were all film-sourced for their high-definition transfers because the digital sources and programs used to composite a scene were either misplaced, damaged, or the company simply did not see the need to re-render the film shot by shot due to missing assets or an unwillingness to put in that much time to retrieve data that may or may not even load properly.

This isn’t unheard of. Shrek’s animation files still exist, but the texture and effects elements don’t and would require recreating them scene by scene to bring the film to native 4K, which is why every high-definition release of the film sources 1828 x 990 JPEG-compressed image files. When Disney returned to the CAPS files for The Lion King’s 2002 IMAX re-release, they occasionally encountered a corrupt file or scene element that wouldn’t load up properly and had to debug it. Troubleshooting variables of this nature takes time and are considered when remastering a catalog title. It’s likely why Paramount opted for a scan of the best available archival film sources for TSSM.

chocopock said:
Think of the Jimmy Neutron movie and how that’s a filmout. It looks like shit because that’s just how that kind of content looks.

Jimmy Neutron looks the way it does, at least partially, because it was originally rendered at 914 x 666, not because Paramount’s HD transfers use a filmout. There needed to be more detail to work with in the first place to yield a sharper transfer.

littlejoe416 said:

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

gmarsh1996 said:

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy

No, he means that presenting the movie with the visual trademarks and imperfections typical of the 35mm format was not the filmmakers’ original intent, but it was the only theatrical delivery format available at the time. Had digital projection caught on just a few years earlier, I guarantee that The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie would have been presented that way.

Ok? That’s a moot point tho

No, it’s not. gmarsh1996 is trying to understand why users in this community go through the trouble of reapplying a 35mm color palette and grainy texture— byproducts of the only available delivery format available in 2004– to a digitally sourced movie that was never intended to be visually presented that way. You thought his point was that the filmmakers never intended to show the movie on analog film in theaters, which is not what he said.

He’s questioning the altering of the movie’s visual quality because, as I stated in the last post, had digital projection been available at the time of the film’s release, it absolutely would have been presented that way since slightly altered colors and a dip in sharpness and resolve are anomalies the filmmakers would have preferred sidestepping altogether. Hope that clears things up.

Ok sure, but still, the first question they asked was why have a digitally created movie on 35mm.

Correct, that’s how he phrased it, before clarifying that he wants to understand why users “feel the need to recreate the film feel,” not literally “Why put a digital film on 35mm?” He even points out that was done “because of necessity,” so he clearly knows why.

littlejoe416 said:
Digital projection isn’t relevant to the history of this movie regarding how it was shown in theaters

Yes, it is. The abscense of that option is, anyway. Once again: had it been available, the movie likely would’ve gone straight to digital and not 35mm. The only reason I bring this up at all is because the discrepancies typical of that format conversion would betray the filmmakers’ original intent, which was gmarsh1996’s whole point in the first place; why take the time to re-create a look that was a byproduct of converting digital film to analog and goes against what the filmmakers intended when they colored and graded the movie in an all-digital environment?

That is what he’s trying to understand, and why I brought the absence of digital projection into this, but we can go back and forth on this forever so let’s forget I ever brought up digital projection. Gone. The fact remains that however different the movie looked on 35mm in palette and texture was not how it was meant to look, and— to finally answer your query, gmarsh1996— recreating that look is most likely fueled by nostalgia and a fascination with how a personal favorite may have looked when it first played in theaters. You’ll find tons of projects like that on OriginalTrilogy, and there will likely be plenty more to come in the future.

littlejoe416 said:
nevermind whether the filmmakers would have preferred digital or not, it wasn’t ever an option to begin with. So that’s why.

Exactly. I repeat: re-creating a look that came out of necessity due to the lack of a digital delivery option, and not creative intent, is what was put into question.

lpw1107 said:

Let me ask you something. How did you get a hold of those prints?

Knowing the right people, God’s favor, and good timing.

The owner of the 1956 print loaned it to me for preservation, which would not have even been arranged in the first place if I hadn’t known someone close to them.

I had one of the other two Technicolor prints offered to me after asking around in private collector circles. Because I wasn’t the only one interested in the print (it was uncensored, after all), it almost didn’t happen.

The other prints came from eBay.

littlejoe416 said:

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

gmarsh1996 said:

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy

No, he means that presenting the movie with the visual trademarks and imperfections typical of the 35mm format was not the filmmakers’ original intent, but it was the only theatrical delivery format available at the time. Had digital projection caught on just a few years earlier, I guarantee that The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie would have been presented that way.

Ok? That’s a moot point tho

No, it’s not. gmarsh1996 is trying to understand why users in this community go through the trouble of reapplying a 35mm color palette and grainy texture— byproducts of the only available delivery format available in 2004– to a digitally sourced movie that was never intended to be visually presented that way. You thought his point was that the filmmakers never intended to show the movie on analog film in theaters, which is not what he said.

He’s questioning the altering of the movie’s visual quality because, as I stated in the last post, had digital projection been available at the time of the film’s release, it absolutely would have been presented that way since slightly altered colors and a dip in sharpness and resolve are anomalies the filmmakers would have preferred sidestepping altogether. Hope that clears things up.

littlejoe416 said:

gmarsh1996 said:

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy

No, he means that presenting the movie with the visual trademarks and imperfections typical of the 35mm format was not the filmmakers’ original intent, but it was the only theatrical delivery format available at the time. Had digital projection caught on just a few years earlier, I guarantee that The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie would have been presented that way.

Swazzy said:

Glad to have confirmation it was considerably darker on film…

Well, remember, after a scan, you can color-correct and grade the visual elements in whichever way you want. The new 4K may be film-sourced and a few points darker than the preexisting HD transfer, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s what it looked like on original theatrical release prints. What you see in the 4K is likely a regrade to give a film a slightly newer look. You’d need to track down an original 2004 print and have it projected to know what TSSM more or less looked like in theaters. My memory of the print shown at SVA in 2018 is that it looked identical to what’s on the home video releases, but even I’m beginning to question that because it’s been so long since I’ve seen the darn thing.

Swazzy said:

Are you certain this is how it looks with HDR, or is there a HDR grade that was supposed to be applied but wasn’t in these screenshots?

On an actual HDR-enabled display, it’s only a touch brighter than the screenshots I posted, which are tone-mapped SDR snapshots of the new transfer. But you’re still more or less seeing how the new version looks.

spleaterzeldax said:

How can you tell it’s film sourced and what’s your general opinion?

A fine layer of film grain is present in the transfer, and if you look very closely at the edges of the frame, you can see some gate weave. I still have to watch the 4K version all the way through to give it a thorough review.

Well… it’s dimmer. Unlike the DVD and Blu-ray releases, the HDR version is a film-sourced transfer, matted to 1.85:1 with some of the colors dialed up. (Note the colors on the eyes of Mr. Krabs, Plankton, Gary, and Patrick’s pants.) I still need to check the rest of the HDR version and see how it compares to the original transfer.

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

CMGF said:

Whether the Disney+ rumor is true or not, if this guy is right about the Deems Taylor audio and it was actually found… then, is there any way we may be able to get our hands on it?

Oh, absolutely. I can bet on it. When the 4K/HDR transfers for “The Black Cauldron” and “The Sword in the Stone” went live, it didn’t take very long for 1:1 rips to show up and make their rounds. If Fantasia’s 4K doesn’t see a physical release before it drops on Disney+ (unlikely, I think, but there’s a first time for everything), then you can expect rips to show up soon after.

I mean, I’m totally for that if it’s true, but whoever started/passed along that rumor may be confusing the news with Snow White’s 4K release on Disney+, which I believe is slated for the 16th of this month. As for Fantasia, I don’t think Disney would quietly slip in a 4K remaster to one of its “Big 5” features with so little fanfare, but I suppose we’ll know whether the rumor is true over the next few days.

GlupShitto said:

Curious how this is coming along?

It’s coming along fine; I don’t have as much time as I’d prefer to make more consistent progress and updates, but things are still moving forward. I’m currently having the IB Tech prints scanned. Going by the proxy previews alone, the footage looks great. I’ll post an update soon after receiving the files.

CMGF said:

Are you still going to post this list? I thought it was a good idea, would make it easier to follow the project without asking for updates all the time (and will also give those who “can’t wait” an idea why they should, I guess)

Done.

MonkeyLizard10 said:

Going back to the other topic of 5.1 audio, another option, although unfortunately not for a lot of movies, is to use the Cinema DTS audio. 1995 would be far enough back for this film to have one.

I’m almost certain that Toy Story never played anywhere with Cinema DTS audio in '95, but it did receive a DTS LaserDisc. If someone can arrange a bit-perfect capture of the soundtrack, it’d be a terrific addition to this project.

RU.08 said:

Please don’t confuse Trist. ScanStations have two ways to transfer audio, the hissy hardware reader or software extraction that works better than AEO Light.

I never meant to cause any confusion. Until now, I had no idea about ScanStation’s software extraction option. Good to know.

MonkeyLizard10 said:

true, BUT I’ve heard the whole near vs. far field mix thing is a good deal overblown and that a lot of it was pushed by a single mixing studio that apparently wanted to use the idea to prop up their finances and sort of talked all the studios into the ‘critical’ need for it. I’ve read that many say that a lot of the claims pushed to get the whole thing going, upon further examination, didn’t really pan out like they claimed and some say the whole thing caused more trouble and even worse home results in the end, although it seems there is still some arguing over who is correct.

Yeah, it’s quite the hot topic in audio engineering circles. In this context, having as many audio options as possible is always best when all is said and done. It’s less convenient to get the Dolby 5.1 on the print preserved, but a lot easier to get the analog stereo track digitized using AEO Light— especially if the raw scan resolution is well past 2K. That would only be necessary if the scanner couldn’t (or simply didn’t) capture the analog audio along with the image scan or the sound on the capture was too hissy; unfortunately, LaserGraphics ScanStation units are kind of notorious for that. But all things in due time; I’m sure TristAndShout64 will cross that bridge when he gets to it.

A friendly reminder that with any mix— Dolby Digital or analog— on the actual print itself, you’re likely getting the “far field” version of the soundtrack, with mixing choices and dynamic range better suited for listening in large auditoriums. In contrast, that same mix is typically adjusted for “near field” listening in significantly smaller environments for the film’s home video release. The former mix is prepared knowing it will play from speakers a considerable distance from the listener(s); it also considers the architectural impact of the soundtrack in that room to give the audience a full, reflected acoustic effect. The latter is more direct and sometimes may even sound more detailed— or, at least, unmarred by the aural impact of a large auditorium because you’re sitting much closer to speakers with smaller drivers in a smaller room.

Neither is necessarily better or worse than the other (not always, anyway…). Still, it’s always best to consider the differences between what’s on a print and what typically ends up on the home video release. An excellent example of everything mentioned here can be heard in Aladdin’s theatrical and home video versions. In the scene where the Cave of Wonders begins to fall apart, the differences in the intensity of the sound effects are night and day. Pay particular attention to the moment when the lamp shrine bursts into flames. Not even the LaserDisc audio, an otherwise fine track all around, sounds that aggressive. You can hear the DVD/35mm audio comparison here:

All this is to say yes, you will want to include the analog track— for posterity if nothing else. =)

Hard yes. Filmic, vibrant Technicolor-esque palate, and tack sharp. It’s beautiful.

Are you referring to the Gus Gus animation cel that ykarus1974 posted? Cel auction photos typically look that bright for a couple of reasons; the auctioneer usually wants to put the cel’s color density on full display and give potential bidders the best idea of the frame’s overall condition. Hence, they jack up the light over the artwork to an appropriate level. Also, and I can’t stress this next part enough, animation cels designed for Technicolor photography and photochemical processing, by themselves, rarely reflect how they actually look in the final film— especially those taken under questionable lighting conditions to make a sale. You’ll notice, for example, that Gus’ nose and shoes are a darker shade in the HDR grading than the cel photo.

Now, whether or not that shot was meant to look so conservatively lit in the original color timing is up for debate. Still, in the case of that auction photo (as well as the others shown), it’s brighter to leave little to the imagination of potential buyers, not necessarily because that’s how that scene was meant to look. Hope this helps.

ykarus1974 said:

what do you mean by “properly mapped” ?

Converted, really. This is known as HDR to SDR “tone mapping.” The long and short of it is that when you try playing HDR content on a monitor or device that can’t correctly display the REC.2020 color space (which is the color space that just about every 4K disc uses for the feature film), it spits out a gray, washed-out image. So you either do the obvious and upgrade your devices to those with HDR display capabilities or convert the HDR content in question to 8-bit standard dynamic range (SDR) video with a REC.709 color space, allowing you to watch it on just about any device with no significant display or color issues.

That latter scenario would be the solution if you want to watch, say, the newly-remastered Prince of Egypt in 4K, but on an SDR monitor because the standard 1080p Blu-ray does not carry an SDR version of the new transfer. (Which it does not.)

1998/2018 1080p Transfer

2023 4K Transfer [Tone mapped from HDR Blu-ray]

Yeah, the 4K disc doesn’t look nearly as muted. Those stills are from the HDR master, yes, but they haven’t been adjusted to be displayed on an SDR monitor. Properly mapped, this is what the new transfer actually looks like:

monks19 said:

Any fresh news on this project ?

Since the last update, I managed to get another mono IB Tech print for the project. It includes reels 1 and 4 (missing in the first mono IB Tech print) and is exceptionally clean. Also, the SP color print from 1969, which I’ve mentioned before, has been scanned as a just-in-case resource for any missing or badly damaged frames from the Technicolor prints. I’m just about covered on the visual front of this project, thank God, but there have been some fascinating developments in the sound department— particularly concerning the interstitials. For now, that’s all I can say.

monks19 said:

I’ve been able to see the last result and all I can say WOW!!! Terrific work on this. I’m looking forward for any future work/improvements on this one. The only things I think that still need some works are the parts that are still looking rough on the image (dammages and splices are quite presents at the beginning of the movie) and of course the Fantasound sound track that needs some patches and adjustmants here and there.

I think you’re referring to this release, which I had nothing to do with. The project page you’re on right now is about an entirely separate Fantasia project, the end goal of which is to present as much of the original film as possible in 4K/HDR, multi-channel surround audio, and include a much cleaner optical mono mix as well. As usual, it’s slow goings over here, but the project is still progressing nevertheless.

Yeah, the distorted ABC Family logo is enough of a tell that the YouTube clip is a 16:9 video squeezed into a 4:3 frame.

I’m pretty familiar with Return of Jafar; saw the movie dozens of times as a kid, and I can tell you straight up before making any A/B comparisons that the ABC Family clip is the same matted transfer that’s on the Blu-ray. A few examples off the top of my head: in the unmatted version, you can see the ground opening up after Jafar claps his hands, but it’s not visible in the YouTube clip. Also, in the unmatted version, there used to be plenty of room above and beneath Jafar in the shot where he explodes. In the YouTube clip, he looks cramped and awkwardly placed in that shot.

Unfortunately, I don’t think Disney had ever broadcasted an HD transfer of the original 4:3 version.

Just finished watching the video on my HDR monitor, and the dynamic range on the regraded footage looks stellar, particularly during the Powerline concert.

How did you manage to upmix the audio? If you’re ever looking to improve on that front, I highly recommend Penteo Surround Pro. To my knowledge and experience, it’s the only plugin that upmixes stereo audio without introducing additional perceptible artifacts, allowing the multichannel audio to fold back to its original format perfectly.

It’s… not cheap. The “plus” (+) variant of the plugin is even more expensive, but at the very least, the standard “Pro” version is absolutely worth it. I have the standard one, so if you ever need a cleaner upmix of the LaserDisc audio, I’d be more than happy to help.

A sample of the transition from 1.33:1 to 2.20:1.

CMGF said:

Do you, by any chance, plan to release this print regardless to the project?

I did consider it, but I may be more comfortable releasing the 1969 print for several reasons. After color correction, it looks identical to the '56 release; there isn’t a single splice throughout the print, and the original rounded corners are fully retained— it doesn’t lop anything off the edges of the image area to accommodate the stretch and animated transitions from the original aspect ratio to 2.20 the way the SuperScope release does. Moreover, the collector who loaned the SuperScope print to me is extremely particular with whom they lend it; I’m amazed I was even offered a chance to digitize it in the first place, let alone be able to go through with it. I had it preserved more for posterity and possible color reference than to share it with others, so, likely, this print will not make its rounds. But again, as beautiful as it looks, the '69 release print will look just as good— if not slightly better— by the time I get through with it, so there’s nothing to worry about.

CMGF said:
And have you already got the files of the 2nd IB tech print?

That one hasn’t even been scanned yet, but it certainly will be some time after I get the 1969 release print digitized, and that should happen sometime over the next month or two if God permits. I know I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating that we’re moving slowly, but we are moving nevertheless. Once the 1969 print is scanned, it’ll be much easier to whip up what I consider the “Version 1” of the project. Version 2 is… ambitious. There’s a lot I would love to do for Version 2, particularly on the audio front, but I’m putting the cart before the horse as of this writing. I hope to share more about what’s planned for v2 after I’ve successfully put together the first one, and that’s pretty darn close to finally happening.