The Third Man is one of my favorite films and I have the restored version. It's brilliant. For me, the thing that makes this wonderful is the passion and time that was dedicated to the project. It's not going to be a blockbuster and make hundreds of millions of Dollars for someone; it was done out of love. I find the whole restoration process stunning. Not just the artists who did the work to restore the film, but the architects of the software and hardware that was used to enable the whole process to occur (yes, I'm an electronics engineer :) ) Brilliant! Thanks!
Brilliant. These people are amazing - so knowledgeable; their professional expertise is stunning. Fascinating to observe them at work. And for me, The Third Man remains - it is all the more - the greatest film I've ever seen. And I'm old ... I've seen a lot of films over many decades.
@Lawrance Ovarabia Element usually refers to a portion of a composite. Such as when compositing a TIE Fighter into the Death Star trench, the TIE Fighter shot would be the foreground element and the moving Death Star background would be another element. All the elements combined form the completed shot.
When is this beautifully restored in 4K version of my favorite movie going to be available in the US? I went on Amazon and it is not available! Why????
I know, I've been looking all over for a 4K authentic North American copy and can't find. All sorts of dubious copies on Ebay I can find, but for this classic I want a genuine studio-release copy of the 4K remaster.
Because scaling is a bit of a science. You cannot scale 3K to 4K properly because math. But yes, it makes no sense at all to do it THAT way. Especially when it's then always called a "4K remastering".
A lot of the explanations are vague, and jeezuz, how about some editing out of the ums and ahhs and pauses and backtracking on descriptions. Great work, but could have been showcased far better in a quarter of the time it took for me to nod off halfway through watching this.
The "scanning" is the weak point. They rush it, how many frames can we get in only one second! If you understood photography, you see why this is terrible. It has to be a frame-by-frame. Shoot with low iso and in very high resolution. Digital noise such as what results from high ISO image (Speed needs high ISO) Strive for at least 4k (or much higher, reduce a copy to 1080p later. Yes it takes 10-20 times as long to scan! Who cares, you get top quality. Those doing the restoration are unaware of this, saddening.
I think the people doing the restoration are very aware of this, but they have to also take into account how much money it takes to have the scanner running for hours (you have to pay the operators), how much the storage costs. Not every film gets the money it needs, sadly. But that's because of the executives and the accountants.
Even the quick scans are much better than projection mode. I had the privilege to see four Perry Mason B&W films (50's? - 60's) that were frame scanned. It was so beautiful, I got goosebumps, they had a 3d effect. I could see the wood-grain and almost felt I could touch it.
@@TheJFGB93 just thought using IR as additional source when scanning is state of the art, check this video and the whole channel for restoration software: th-cam.com/video/G7BvQRuaBoo/w-d-xo.html
The HD remaster of "Baraka" was done wayyy better. 8K scanning with slow scans of every single frame. Sure it took 2-3 weeks to do the scanning alone but it's not like it has to be rushed out as fast as possible. And look at how absolutely gorgeous the final remastered version of "Baraka" looks.
I would like to know WHY the DVD encode was 4:3 pillarbox..... The aspect ratio of "The third man" is 4:3. The standard screen format for DVDs is 4:3 with an additional 16:9 anamorphic pixel mode for widescreen films so it doesn't have to be letterboxed like Laserdisc was. There was absolutely NO NEED to put a 4:3 picture into a 16:9 anamorphic encoded DVD encode. You actually ruined the resolution with that stupid move.... It makes sense on Blu-ray since Blu-ray is 16:9 natively anyway but NOT on DVD. So the DVD version of the remastered version is basically useless. This is something i see becoming a thing more and more with modern DVD encodes. I mostly buy and collect Blu-rays but sometimes i grab a DVD too and then have to realize the film, even thou it is 1,33:1, has been re-formated into a 16:9 encode… and the image has been robbed of resolution. -_-
People reading from idiot boards in the introduction, a woman who ummed and urred her way through the whole thing and someone talking about restoring the picture when her screen hasn't even been calibrated (the picture is straight up GREEN) Utterly ridiculous
There is so much more work going into this than I imagined. But then I guess this is such a special movie they go for maximum effort.
The Third Man is one of my favorite films and I have the restored version. It's brilliant.
For me, the thing that makes this wonderful is the passion and time that was dedicated to the project. It's not going to be a blockbuster and make hundreds of millions of Dollars for someone; it was done out of love.
I find the whole restoration process stunning. Not just the artists who did the work to restore the film, but the architects of the software and hardware that was used to enable the whole process to occur (yes, I'm an electronics engineer :) )
Brilliant! Thanks!
Brilliant. These people are amazing - so knowledgeable; their professional expertise is stunning. Fascinating to observe them at work. And for me, The Third Man remains - it is all the more - the greatest film I've ever seen. And I'm old ... I've seen a lot of films over many decades.
This is one of the most inspiring and professional videos on TH-cam for a film buff!
I can hear several audio tracks when the Arriscan operator is speaking. Thanks!
I thought I was losing my mind at this part.
It's called 'creative flair'
Never seen a better film and I have seen a lot of them.
I BROUGHT THE BLURAY A YEAR AGO SO I SHOULD BUY THE 4K DISC NOW THEY CAN SHOVE IT.
21:15 what does the “2048x1080p 24” marking on the scope indicate? Isn’t UHD 2160p?
@Lawrance Ovarabia Element usually refers to a portion of a composite. Such as when compositing a TIE Fighter into the Death Star trench, the TIE Fighter shot would be the foreground element and the moving Death Star background would be another element. All the elements combined form the completed shot.
" As the guy...", give Bernard Lee his credit.
My favorit film, Casablanca in 2nd.
The digital restoration artist at 8:50 also worked on The Beatles: One music videos.
As did the preservation archivist at 1:37 (Marie Fieldman)! It’s like a fab reunion.
@@ryankomitor7391 odd that there are no titles identifying all these people
Was the original nitrate negative not available? How did you clean the print prior to transfer to 6K
Thank you.
Thank you
When is this beautifully restored in 4K version of my favorite movie going to be available in the US? I went on Amazon and it is not available! Why????
I know, I've been looking all over for a 4K authentic North American copy and can't find. All sorts of dubious copies on Ebay I can find, but for this classic I want a genuine studio-release copy of the 4K remaster.
@@danielm8151 found it yet?
I’m looking also.
Aahh, but the wonderful music.
I'm confused about how it was digitized. So it was scanned at 3k and then up-converted to 6k. Why then was it lowered to 4k?
I didn't get that either.
Because scaling is a bit of a science. You cannot scale 3K to 4K properly because math. But yes, it makes no sense at all to do it THAT way. Especially when it's then always called a "4K remastering".
How the hell is this special featurette shot in 35mm film? Anyone else with a keen eye can notice? Such amazing work put in for an amazing movie
Where did you get that idea?
Its hilarious, it's a great featurette, but Studio Canal, is it too much to ask that you normalize all the audio? It's all over the place.
Please release this on 4K UHD Blu-ray why don't you? :-)
A lot of the explanations are vague, and jeezuz, how about some editing out of the ums and ahhs and pauses and backtracking on descriptions. Great work, but could have been showcased far better in a quarter of the time it took for me to nod off halfway through watching this.
Thank you for this.
Man, i really hate it when people mumble while giving vital info. i do understand why, but i still hate it.😬
I wish they'd show things instead of just talking about it!
The nasty people in these comments is not surprising, but always disappointing.
The "scanning" is the weak point. They rush it, how many frames can we get in only one second! If you understood photography, you see why this is terrible.
It has to be a frame-by-frame. Shoot with low iso and in very high resolution. Digital noise such as what results from high ISO image (Speed needs high ISO) Strive for at least 4k (or much higher, reduce a copy to 1080p later. Yes it takes 10-20 times as long to scan! Who cares, you get top quality. Those doing the restoration are unaware of this, saddening.
I think the people doing the restoration are very aware of this, but they have to also take into account how much money it takes to have the scanner running for hours (you have to pay the operators), how much the storage costs. Not every film gets the money it needs, sadly. But that's because of the executives and the accountants.
Even the quick scans are much better than projection mode. I had the privilege to see four Perry Mason B&W films (50's? - 60's) that were frame scanned. It was so beautiful, I got goosebumps, they had a 3d effect. I could see the wood-grain and almost felt I could touch it.
@@rickhalverson2014 Where can I watch them?
@@TheJFGB93 just thought using IR as additional source when scanning is state of the art,
check this video and the whole channel for restoration software:
th-cam.com/video/G7BvQRuaBoo/w-d-xo.html
The HD remaster of "Baraka" was done wayyy better. 8K scanning with slow scans of every single frame. Sure it took 2-3 weeks to do the scanning alone but it's not like it has to be rushed out as fast as possible. And look at how absolutely gorgeous the final remastered version of "Baraka" looks.
I would like to know WHY the DVD encode was 4:3 pillarbox..... The aspect ratio of "The third man" is 4:3. The standard screen format for DVDs is 4:3 with an additional 16:9 anamorphic pixel mode for widescreen films so it doesn't have to be letterboxed like Laserdisc was. There was absolutely NO NEED to put a 4:3 picture into a 16:9 anamorphic encoded DVD encode. You actually ruined the resolution with that stupid move.... It makes sense on Blu-ray since Blu-ray is 16:9 natively anyway but NOT on DVD. So the DVD version of the remastered version is basically useless. This is something i see becoming a thing more and more with modern DVD encodes. I mostly buy and collect Blu-rays but sometimes i grab a DVD too and then have to realize the film, even thou it is 1,33:1, has been re-formated into a 16:9 encode… and the image has been robbed of resolution. -_-
People reading from idiot boards in the introduction, a woman who ummed and urred her way through the whole thing and someone talking about restoring the picture when her screen hasn't even been calibrated (the picture is straight up GREEN) Utterly ridiculous
A waste of 24 minutes. Poorly explained and not a single before/after side-by-side illustration. (I have the Blu-ray boxset which includes this).
This is bullshit. 4K has nothing to do with the original celluloid print.
It's pointless to convert to 4k, in my opinion. It doesn't add anything to the film experience.