I'm such a geek for enjoying these kinds of videos! With 4k we finally have a format which lifts these old treasures into our era technically. I would LOVE to have their job!
They are improving thanks to the Paramount Presents range they are putting out. For instance, I've been waiting years for them to restore Roman Holiday in 4k & get it out on BluRay & it's finally arriving next month.
I used to own a small, independent production company. We stopped producing in the end of 2019 (after I had children), and the cameras we were using even then were shooting between 8k-12k(ish). I’m deeply concerned with the idea of the best version of a film being a digital 4k scan. It’s great now, but in the years to come, it’ll be very limiting what they’ll be able to do with those 4k scans. Film holds tremendous detail that digital can’t entirely grasp (yet) due to certain limitations. That’s why 4k films made from movies shot on film look so much better than films shot in HD that were upgraded to 4k. Granted, these negatives were deteriorating due to age, so there’s not much they could do but try to save it; However, I would beg and plead that they spend more time and resources trying to develop ways to preserve those original film cells. There HAS to be a way. Someone out there has to know how to chemically make this happen. I would even go further as to say that the best way to shoot films for future generations would be to go back to film and utilize IMAX and 65mm as the new standard. It’ll make digital scans much prettier than if they shoot exclusively through digital means. This has to do with digital cameras and how they gather data (which is limiting). Shooting on those options of film will allow us to be able to see exponential amounts of detail when we start viewing films in 20k, 40k, 100k, etc (whatever the future holds for that time).
You're absolutely right. Stopping at 4k makes about as much sense as transferring nitrate masters to VHS and burning the old film after it's done. Which, unfortunately, was the practice in the 1980s. That's why we have so many crappy film to video to DVD transfers. And 4k is already being replaced by 8k on the consumer market. It would seem to be the best move to research how best to preserve the nitrate masters indefinitely so they remain available for remastering whenever there's an upgrade in imaging technology. Technology will always advance. But original images can never be replaced.
Correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't a new master copy preserved each time a film is restored? "It's Wonderful Life" has had several restorations over the years, from DVD to Blu-ray/HD to 4K, etc. Do they really need to go back to the original negative each time? Couldn't they use a previously restored one?
For AAA titles studios usually go back to the original negatives in order to get the improvement gains of newer restoring technologies. For lesser know movies they may reuse an old scan several times.
When going back to older restorations it's clear to see they didn't use the best elements at the time. In fact, I'm not even sure the 2009 Blu-Ray was made with a brand new restoration, but rather the HD master used for the, at the time, ancient DVD.
I have a question. I know that when digitizing film, it is scanned and restored, then color graded and mastered. Is there a case of removing scratches or dust after color grading first? If that was the case, what was the reason? I think it will cause image loss and incorrect digital cinema workflow. So I think it should be avoided.
Comparing the before and after could anyone answer why the edges of the original frame are cropped out? I see this constantly with many film to digital transfers where the full image on the negative isn’t presented.
I've always guessed it's because at least one frame in that image doesn't have one of the edges alligned and misses part of the image. And the same for the opposite edge and the top and bottom ones. That's why instead of adding what's not there they take it out. But don't worry. Every time I see this videos I enjoy them but, at the same time, I know this isn't the last restoration. They'll do another one when they figure out an actual scanner that can replicate film's dynamic range, color and resolution almost to a 100%. The only point where they are close enough nowadays is with resolution. The others they are still far. I saw a non restored first generation print from the original negative of Charade in the Cinematheque in France and the images (even with the spots and dirt that come from its age) looked a million times better than the restoration you can buy for home video. The colors that the print has (and it's not even the original), the detail, the dynamic range... Digital scanners are still far away from capturing film properly
@@Pauldjreadman I pinched this from the internet.........Silver lenticular (vertically ridged) screens, which are made from a tightly woven fabric, either natural, such as silk, or a synthetic fiber, were excellent for use with low-power projector lamp heads and the monochromatic images that were a staple of early projected images. Other silver screens are made by taking normal matte sheets and adhering silver dust to them; the effect is the same.
True silver screens, however, provide narrower horizontal/vertical viewing angles compared to their more modern counterparts because of their inability to completely disperse light. In addition, a single projection source tends to over-saturate the center of the screen and leave the peripheries darker, depending on the position of the viewer and how well adjusted the lamp head is, a phenomenon known as Due to these limitations and the continued innovation of screen materials, the use of silver screens in the general motion picture exhibition industry has mostly been phased out.
Silver lenticular screens, while no longer employed as the standard for motion picture projection, have come back into use as they are ideally suited for modern polarized 3-D projection. The percentage of light reflected from a non-metallic (dielectric) surface varies strongly with the direction of polarization and the angle of incidence; this is not the case for an electric conductor such as a metal (as an illustration of this, sunlight reflected from a horizontal surface such as a reflective road surface or water is attenuated by polarized sunglasses relative to direct light; this is not the case if the light is reflected from a metallic surface). As many 3-D technologies in use today depend upon maintaining the polarization of the images to be presented to each eye, the reflecting surface needs to be metallic rather than dielectric
Aluminized Screen: Similar to a silver screen, but using aluminium to coat the surface. Used for 3-D films for the same reason as silver screens. Pearlescent Screen: Similar to a silver screen, this screen has narrow viewing angles and a higher gain (the measure of reflected light), but it does suffer from color-shifts to red and a tendency to hot spot. Glass Beaded Screen: This screen type also has a higher gain; however, the nature of its construction results in limited viewing angles and a loss of resolution since glass-beaded screens are retro-reflective, that is, their reflection is directed back toward the light source. The glass-beaded surface can develop noticeable dark spots with age or mishandling as the beads can wear off. It is popular in the amateur market.
Please don't dnr degrain old films. That is very distinctive to old cinema even if it distorts some details. Don't want it perfect so much as a perfect simulation of what it might have looked like projected fresh.
@@wright96d thank you. Recently saw a remastered show from 1960s it looked too good. A lot of stuff is saturated up enhanced and refrained and technically it looks great almost like shot yesterday but it's not how it would have originally looked. I remember films from my childhood looking much grainier than today. Between digital compression and the near flawlessness of modern video, not sure audiences would go for a straight showprint from negative look in an old movie.
@@michaelcooney9368 A film you saw in your childhood looked grainy because the theatrical print was a copy of a copy of a copy of the original camera negative. The filmmakers weren't necessarily going for a grainy look. The grain was a limitation of the duplication process of the time. Remastering from the camera negative bypasses all those generations of optical copying, and that's what provides most of the reduction in grain. It's not that they are being too heavy-handed with noise reduction. (Well, sometimes they are.) I, for one, am happy to see a film closer to the way it was captured than to how audiences saw it decades ago.
@@jbalazer probably overreacted a bit. TH-cam terribly compresses and wipes out grain and also all low contrast detail, even at 4k. That said, old movies, the light sensitivity was way way less, film had more grain, and black and white film, it can be a contrastier format, silver can get black, dyes in color film not as much.
@@goregrindisthebestgenre good to know! Sorry if I sounded mean, it’s likely an hdr down-conversion issue or a TH-cam problem, it just seems a pervasive problem these days with hdr uhd content, I guess I need a newer brighter screen
Stop the presses! Im all in favor of preserving and even enhancing and cleaning up motion pictures, and they should continue to do so....however....we the viewers should get an option to toggle through different FILTERS, ones that are the orginal grainy film look, to colorized and restored hd filters....and the companies can make those filters special depending on the film. I dont hear much of anyone speaking this point. Theres a beauty to the low definition , in certain cases, to these films.
Help me out here. Are you saying you want the option to view the version with scratches, film damage, uncorrected contrast, and all? If not, and this is in reference to the quick mention of grain control in the second generation sections, a quick trip to capsaholic will prove they did no denoising at all to the majority of the film. It's one of the grainiest movies I've ever seen.
@@wright96d ya i like viewing options. Because theres something special about watching it the way original audiences watched a film. But the work they did with this 4k enhancement was excellent
@@nikosvault It's not necessarily HDR on a PC. The featurette looks like this on the Blu-Ray as well. It's just poor SDR conversation across the board. Edit: And watching this on my phone, it looks like they put the SDR version of the movie in an HDR timeline because even in HDR the film clips look dark.
Well...i notice that they are turning down the contrast to the "Before" picture--which isn't there at all in the "Before" picture--to try to impress us. Try it on the company, but you don't fool me!
@@Xighor The problem with colourization is that black and white films were shot and lit for black and white. It will never look quite right when coloured. Not to mention, black and white cinematography is gorgeous. I honestly don't know why people like colourizing movies, anyway.
Yeah, and they could make silent films sound with dubbing and sound effects, all black and white into colour, maybe even trim the top and bottoms to have wide-screen (as they did with 'The World at War' and 'Kung Fu'), cut epics to 90 minutes for easy tv slotting. Add CGI effects. And throw the negative away too, in case they find out what happened.
Yes, and please in smooth 60fps motion and of course 3D. And while we are at it, an option where you can replace the faces of the actors with deepfakes.
With all due respect, what are these two ladies doing here? They clearly know nothing. In one part one of the women is asking "can you play frame by frame" and she explains later "he did this, he did that.. bla bla bla". Okay, let's listen to the real people who worked on this: men and they used DaVinci Resolve! Are you kidding me?
I'm such a geek for enjoying these kinds of videos! With 4k we finally have a format which lifts these old treasures into our era technically. I would LOVE to have their job!
Same, it's been a dream job for a long time.
Same like it would be so cool to see how they restore classic movies from reels into 4K hd
Yeah, it would be amazing but I could never live in California…
If only Paramount spent as much money, time and care on all their classic film releases...
They are improving thanks to the Paramount Presents range they are putting out. For instance, I've been waiting years for them to restore Roman Holiday in 4k & get it out on BluRay & it's finally arriving next month.
I really wanna see more videos on restoring movies.
There are many in TH-cam. Just search "film restoration"
@@wright96d I know, that's why I want to see more
@@Mayala285 OK good
I’m finally going to see this newly restored presentation this holiday season on the big screen.
This was absolutely brilliant. Thank you!
i really hope they restore Rebel Without A Cause! That blu-ray left so much more to be desired.
thank you for this. I've been searching for days and didn't find it. I was really hoping that someone would post it here...
This is why I enjoy what new project goes thru Criterion
Seems like having a pin-less system will help make restoration take less time thus allowing more films to be restored.
DaM' GooD Luck Man for Ur Future, Great Contents & Don't Forget to Keep Up Loving it Maa Fantastic Fella! ❤️❤️✌️😗🎉
6:09 that sounded super trippy
if only star wars was restored like this.
I used to own a small, independent production company. We stopped producing in the end of 2019 (after I had children), and the cameras we were using even then were shooting between 8k-12k(ish). I’m deeply concerned with the idea of the best version of a film being a digital 4k scan. It’s great now, but in the years to come, it’ll be very limiting what they’ll be able to do with those 4k scans. Film holds tremendous detail that digital can’t entirely grasp (yet) due to certain limitations. That’s why 4k films made from movies shot on film look so much better than films shot in HD that were upgraded to 4k.
Granted, these negatives were deteriorating due to age, so there’s not much they could do but try to save it; However, I would beg and plead that they spend more time and resources trying to develop ways to preserve those original film cells. There HAS to be a way. Someone out there has to know how to chemically make this happen.
I would even go further as to say that the best way to shoot films for future generations would be to go back to film and utilize IMAX and 65mm as the new standard. It’ll make digital scans much prettier than if they shoot exclusively through digital means. This has to do with digital cameras and how they gather data (which is limiting). Shooting on those options of film will allow us to be able to see exponential amounts of detail when we start viewing films in 20k, 40k, 100k, etc (whatever the future holds for that time).
Who cares, you can sit in the basement right now and watch this movie on an old VHS tape on an old TV and it would still be just as good
You're absolutely right.
Stopping at 4k makes about as much sense as transferring nitrate masters to VHS and burning the old film after it's done.
Which, unfortunately, was the practice in the 1980s. That's why we have so many crappy film to video to DVD transfers.
And 4k is already being replaced by 8k on the consumer market.
It would seem to be the best move to research how best to preserve the nitrate masters indefinitely so they remain available for remastering whenever there's an upgrade in imaging technology.
Technology will always advance. But original images can never be replaced.
I wish they would colorize it too. I know, I know, don't even... I still like it.
They did ….
Correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't a new master copy preserved each time a film is restored? "It's Wonderful Life" has had several restorations over the years, from DVD to Blu-ray/HD to 4K, etc. Do they really need to go back to the original negative each time? Couldn't they use a previously restored one?
For AAA titles studios usually go back to the original negatives in order to get the improvement gains of newer restoring technologies. For lesser know movies they may reuse an old scan several times.
When going back to older restorations it's clear to see they didn't use the best elements at the time. In fact, I'm not even sure the 2009 Blu-Ray was made with a brand new restoration, but rather the HD master used for the, at the time, ancient DVD.
I have a question.
I know that when digitizing film, it is scanned and restored, then color graded and mastered.
Is there a case of removing scratches or dust after color grading first? If that was the case, what was the reason?
I think it will cause image loss and incorrect digital cinema workflow. So I think it should be avoided.
mfs in the comments took one online class on film preservation and think they know more and can do better than these people lmao
The Blu Ray from a couple years ago - did is use this restoration?
No.
Record-ology Well this is a newer restoration so of course it would not have had the 4k restoration that only came out last year.
I think I'll wait for the 8K restoration.
8K probably will never happen.
I'm confused. What's the difference between a remaster and a restoration. I noticed both terms used interchangeably in some circles.
Comparing the before and after could anyone answer why the edges of the original frame are cropped out? I see this constantly with many film to digital transfers where the full image on the negative isn’t presented.
I've always guessed it's because at least one frame in that image doesn't have one of the edges alligned and misses part of the image. And the same for the opposite edge and the top and bottom ones. That's why instead of adding what's not there they take it out. But don't worry. Every time I see this videos I enjoy them but, at the same time, I know this isn't the last restoration. They'll do another one when they figure out an actual scanner that can replicate film's dynamic range, color and resolution almost to a 100%. The only point where they are close enough nowadays is with resolution. The others they are still far. I saw a non restored first generation print from the original negative of Charade in the Cinematheque in France and the images (even with the spots and dirt that come from its age) looked a million times better than the restoration you can buy for home video. The colors that the print has (and it's not even the original), the detail, the dynamic range... Digital scanners are still far away from capturing film properly
"Silver screen" describes the projection screen. It has nothing to do with the silver in the film emulsion.
According to videos from film historians I have been seeing, they say the exact opposite. There is Silver the film and it makes the film shine.
@@Pauldjreadman I pinched this from the internet.........Silver lenticular (vertically ridged) screens, which are made from a tightly woven fabric, either natural, such as silk, or a synthetic fiber, were excellent for use with low-power projector lamp heads and the monochromatic images that were a staple of early projected images. Other silver screens are made by taking normal matte sheets and adhering silver dust to them; the effect is the same.
True silver screens, however, provide narrower horizontal/vertical viewing angles compared to their more modern counterparts because of their inability to completely disperse light. In addition, a single projection source tends to over-saturate the center of the screen and leave the peripheries darker, depending on the position of the viewer and how well adjusted the lamp head is, a phenomenon known as Due to these limitations and the continued innovation of screen materials, the use of silver screens in the general motion picture exhibition industry has mostly been phased out.
Silver lenticular screens, while no longer employed as the standard for motion picture projection, have come back into use as they are ideally suited for modern polarized 3-D projection. The percentage of light reflected from a non-metallic (dielectric) surface varies strongly with the direction of polarization and the angle of incidence; this is not the case for an electric conductor such as a metal (as an illustration of this, sunlight reflected from a horizontal surface such as a reflective road surface or water is attenuated by polarized sunglasses relative to direct light; this is not the case if the light is reflected from a metallic surface). As many 3-D technologies in use today depend upon maintaining the polarization of the images to be presented to each eye, the reflecting surface needs to be metallic rather than dielectric
Aluminized Screen: Similar to a silver screen, but using aluminium to coat the surface. Used for 3-D films for the same reason as silver screens.
Pearlescent Screen: Similar to a silver screen, this screen has narrow viewing angles and a higher gain (the measure of reflected light), but it does suffer from color-shifts to red and a tendency to hot spot.
Glass Beaded Screen: This screen type also has a higher gain; however, the nature of its construction results in limited viewing angles and a loss of resolution since glass-beaded screens are retro-reflective, that is, their reflection is directed back toward the light source. The glass-beaded surface can develop noticeable dark spots with age or mishandling as the beads can wear off. It is popular in the amateur market.
10:55 what’s the “top secret” reel?
Is this restoration video in a log colorspace?
The Video was encoded using HDR10 and BT2020 colour space.
Please don't dnr degrain old films. That is very distinctive to old cinema even if it distorts some details. Don't want it perfect so much as a perfect simulation of what it might have looked like projected fresh.
They didn't...
@@wright96d thank you. Recently saw a remastered show from 1960s it looked too good. A lot of stuff is saturated up enhanced and refrained and technically it looks great almost like shot yesterday but it's not how it would have originally looked. I remember films from my childhood looking much grainier than today.
Between digital compression and the near flawlessness of modern video, not sure audiences would go for a straight showprint from negative look in an old movie.
@@michaelcooney9368 What show are you in referring to? I don't know of any shows from the 60s that were heavily DNRed.
@@michaelcooney9368 A film you saw in your childhood looked grainy because the theatrical print was a copy of a copy of a copy of the original camera negative. The filmmakers weren't necessarily going for a grainy look. The grain was a limitation of the duplication process of the time. Remastering from the camera negative bypasses all those generations of optical copying, and that's what provides most of the reduction in grain. It's not that they are being too heavy-handed with noise reduction. (Well, sometimes they are.) I, for one, am happy to see a film closer to the way it was captured than to how audiences saw it decades ago.
@@jbalazer probably overreacted a bit. TH-cam terribly compresses and wipes out grain and also all low contrast detail, even at 4k. That said, old movies, the light sensitivity was way way less, film had more grain, and black and white film, it can be a contrastier format, silver can get black, dyes in color film not as much.
The choice to crush out the shadows was disappointing
Courtesy of Paramount Pictures (Melange Pictures, LLC. / Republic Pictures) and Paramount Home Entertainment.
It’s a little dim, needs a more aggressive curve
This video isn’t how the actual 4K looks, trust me. Very very different!
@@goregrindisthebestgenre good to know! Sorry if I sounded mean, it’s likely an hdr down-conversion issue or a TH-cam problem, it just seems a pervasive problem these days with hdr uhd content, I guess I need a newer brighter screen
I doing this type job Last 10 year
It looks really dark
Stop the presses! Im all in favor of preserving and even enhancing and cleaning up motion pictures, and they should continue to do so....however....we the viewers should get an option to toggle through different FILTERS, ones that are the orginal grainy film look, to colorized and restored hd filters....and the companies can make those filters special depending on the film.
I dont hear much of anyone speaking this point. Theres a beauty to the low definition , in certain cases, to these films.
Help me out here. Are you saying you want the option to view the version with scratches, film damage, uncorrected contrast, and all? If not, and this is in reference to the quick mention of grain control in the second generation sections, a quick trip to capsaholic will prove they did no denoising at all to the majority of the film. It's one of the grainiest movies I've ever seen.
@@wright96d ya i like viewing options. Because theres something special about watching it the way original audiences watched a film. But the work they did with this 4k enhancement was excellent
@@DragonPop64 On the film's first showing there were no scratches and dirt. I think the word enhancing is wrong also, it's restoring.
Just my own opinion but this version is waaay too dark.
This is not how the movie actually looks. I'm not sure why it looks so dark in this featurette. The Blu-Ray is much brighter.
@@wright96d HDR on a PC. a mess
@@nikosvault It's not necessarily HDR on a PC. The featurette looks like this on the Blu-Ray as well. It's just poor SDR conversation across the board. Edit: And watching this on my phone, it looks like they put the SDR version of the movie in an HDR timeline because even in HDR the film clips look dark.
Why they went with B&W rather than colour?
A documentary about restauration unwatchable due to it's contrast levels. Is this a joke? Take this thing down. Fix it and re post.
It's a direct rip from the official Blu-ray 4K, levels are OK on my LG CX, maybe something is wrong on your side.
@@SquallMX Nah, I'm watching this on a rather vibrant Sony TV, and it feels like I'm watching this through sunglasses.
@@SquallMX I must say, it does look a tad too dark, I own the Bluray.
@@TylerHartman If it's too dark you should adjust the settings on your Blu-ray player and tv accordingly.
Well...i notice that they are turning down the contrast to the "Before" picture--which isn't there at all in the "Before" picture--to try to impress us. Try it on the company, but you don't fool me!
The video itself isn’t right.
Now I want a 4k colour version
Gross.
@@Rilumai they msybe could make it great, why HDR in Black and White lol
@@Xighor The problem with colourization is that black and white films were shot and lit for black and white. It will never look quite right when coloured. Not to mention, black and white cinematography is gorgeous. I honestly don't know why people like colourizing movies, anyway.
Yeah, and they could make silent films sound with dubbing and sound effects, all black and white into colour, maybe even trim the top and bottoms to have wide-screen (as they did with 'The World at War' and 'Kung Fu'), cut epics to 90 minutes for easy tv slotting. Add CGI effects. And throw the negative away too, in case they find out what happened.
Yes, and please in smooth 60fps motion and of course 3D. And while we are at it, an option where you can replace the faces of the actors with deepfakes.
With all due respect, what are these two ladies doing here? They clearly know nothing. In one part one of the women is asking "can you play frame by frame" and she explains later "he did this, he did that.. bla bla bla". Okay, let's listen to the real people who worked on this: men and they used DaVinci Resolve! Are you kidding me?
Screw off