4K scans of older films....

[Tom Lowe]

This recent 4K restoration of Dr. Strangelove, and the fact that Landmark is actually going to project it at 4K, has me really intrigued with the whole notion of restoring and scanning classic films at 4K.

The other night I watched The Searchers for the first time ever, and I was blown away by the outdoor location cinematography. That opening shot coming out of the cabin shows off such awesome latitude, I was instantly on IMDB trying to figure out what format it was shot in. The answer is Vista Vision, a horizontal 35mm format with a huge negative, about two and half times the size of standard cinema 35mm negs. It seems to me that some of these older films shot in larger formats like Vista Vision would be ideal candidates for 4K scans.

Then again, any film shot in anything 35mm and up, and kept in decent condition, should also be candidates for a 4K scan. What films do you guys think would benefit most from a 4K scan and 4K projection?

If anyone happens to know about any ongoing projects in 4K scanning, I'd be interested to hear about it.

Also, if this catches on and more films are scanned at 4K, and if 4K LCDs from RED and Dell come out in the near future, what type of media could be sold to consumers for watching such movies at home? Could they fit a 4K feature onto a Blu-Ray disc, for example? Two Blu-Ray discs?

[Thomas Mathai]

Wizard of Oz had a 4k restoration with the 3 strip Technicolor. Saw it 2 years ago, and even the HD projection of it was great.

It's up to the studios to decide what films are worth spending money on for a 4k restoration.

[Tom Lowe]

Was it a 4K projector?

[krd]

She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, which I saw on 35mm last week, is another spectacular Ford restoration (UCLA Film Archive, Robert Gitt), and unlike "The Searchers", "She Wore...." used the 3-strip technicolor process. The color reproduction is stunning - almost beyond belief. And since the release stocks are much sharper today than in 1949, the prints have greater clarity and detail than what the original audience ever saw.

4K or not? Couldn't find any information. But, if anything, maybe it was a little too sharp. The DVD from the restored negative is also said to be of very high quality.

[Tom Lowe]

To me, the interesting thing about 4K scans and 4K projection (the two things going hand in hand) is that, in theory, you are seeing resolution on the screen far beyond anything projected at 35mm. This would go for 4K LCDs even more so, I would imagine. I have seen people say that 4K scans projected at 4K is similar to watching a pristine 70mm projection.

[Justin Kirchhoff]

Sounds interesting. I know they did a 2k scan of Metropolis back in 2001...I'd love to see it in 4k. Great move. Fritz Lang is a genius.

[krd]

I have seen people say that 4K scans projected at 4K is similar to watching a pristine 70mm projection.

FWIW, I've seen a 4K scan of a 65mm negative (excerpts from The Sound of Music), projected at 4K (Sony), and that one looked much more like 70mm projection, than anything I've ever seen on 35mm, although it's not quite film and it's not video either -- something in between. Whether viewers consider 4K an idealization of film projection or not probably depends on taste.

However, lots of people feel that modern coated lenses and current film stocks produce images which are too sharp on 35mm release prints, at least for certain kinds of dramatic content. So it's hard to know how all this will settle.

[Tom Lowe]

I've never really heard that. 35mm prints shown at multiplexes too sharp? That's the first time I've heard that.

[krd]

DPs often choose to use older lenses, and not always for "period" work. Why would they do so, if not to avoid the sharpness of modern lenses ?

David Mullen is the best one to comment here, but check back issues of American Cinematographer, and discussions of lens choice. Some love the latest Primos, etc., and can't find a lens that's too good. But others go looking for the older ones. This assumes the print is in focus at the multiplex.

[Tom Lowe]

I understand about wanting to diffuse the look of film for certain aesthetic reasons, under certain circumstances, but I really don't think many people feel that theater projection of 35mm prints are too sharp. Most of the discussion actually revolves it being too soft -- with tests showing only around 1000 horizontal lines of resolution in most average multiplexes.

4K scans, though, projected at 4K, would in theory have much higher resolution than 35mm prints projected at 35mm.

David might correct me, but I believe, generally speaking, that this is the case.

[krd]

I haven't heard any outcry from audiences that 35mm release prints aren't sharp enough -- assuming, of course, the prints are in focus and in decent condition. If anything, I'd argue that audiences would (and do!) tolerate far lower resolution, and without any diminution of their "viewing pleasure", in the same way people are perfectly content to listen to MP3 files.

That aside, where did this idea come from that ever greater resolution equals greater beauty, or greater audience involvement in the drama? Everything we know about art argues for the opposite -- literal representations of reality tend to lack power. I realize there are all kinds of movies, and some might no doubt benefit from very high resolutions (65mm classics come to mind). For everything else, 4K origination is grand, because it should offer freedom in post, but as for projecting it in its full resolution -- where is the evidence that these higher resolutions will give greater pleasure or create more interest? Is it a claim to be taken on faith?

The relationship of films to dreams could in fact mean the opposite is true. 4K may be just too damn real, without diffusion or softening of some kind, or even building in projection irregularities. If reproducing "reality" is our measure of quality, why do most folks intend to shoot 24p, when 30p or 60p are so much "better"?

But I've had this argument before with people here, and I'm not convincing anyone. We'll never know the answer until 4k origination/finishing is in the theaters, projected 4k. Even then, it may be impossible to establish a clear and enduring audience preference. Time to move on!

[David Mullen ASC]

There are all types of movies with all levels of sharpness, saturation, etc. -- the nice thing about 4K origination and projection is when you want that clarity, you can get it. It's always easier to reduce sharpness than to add it.

The danger is all movies reduced to a generally mediocre level of resolution which is fine for a run-of-the-mill drama or romance, but there might be certain projects where clarity would be visually interesting -- like it is in movies like "2001", "Lawrence of Arabia", "Baraka". Or even sharp 35mm anamorphic movies like "The Thin Red Line".

Although perhaps this is an age-related thing -- I can recall the days of 70mm releases of movies, and have seen "Lawrence of Arabia" and "2001" in 70mm prints several times. But someone who has only been seeing modern 35mm movies, they might not know what they are missing.

But one reason why movies lately have had IMAX releases -- like "300", "Batman Begins", "Harry Potter", etc. -- is that they do well at the box office, selling more tickets than the 35mm presentations when there is a choice for the viewer. Otherwise the studios wouldn't be bothering with the extra expense.

[Tom Lowe]

krd, I just totally disagree that audiences are happy with lower resolution. Ask anyone who has watched a movie on a bigscreen 1080p HDTV if they are willing to go back to standard def.

David, funny you should mention Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm... because I had a chance to see it projected on a beautiful 70mm print last night in LA!!! All I can say is, WOW! And to top it off, this was the first time I have ever seen the movie at all. I have been waiting many years to see it, because I wanted to see it on the big screen the first time.

I have to say, this was one of the best cinema experiences of my life. The American Cinematheque audience is very enthusiastic and knowledgeable. I knew this was a different type of movie-going experience when the audience started cheering the name of the cinematographer as it appeared in the opening credits... then they cheered the "Presented in 70mm" title card... lol!

Watching a movie in 70mm is kind of like going from DVD to 720p.... the resolution is pretty striking.

The guy who runs the Aero told me Baraka was probably back in September, so I guarantee I will be in the audience for that one! And obviously 2001. I'm going to be keeping my eye on American Cinematheque's schedule more closely now, since this was such a great experience.

[Thomas Mathai]

People are willing to compromise on resolution if they like what they see.

This explains the success of YouTube,etc.

If something is cool, they want to see it, even if it's not high quality. They may prefer it to be higher quality and may seek out a higher quality version.
But I don't see resolution being that big a deal breaker.