Comments

It does suck and it is a shame but on the other hand I can see both sides here. I worked at a professional photo video processing center while I was in college and trying to fix time faded negatives is a real pain. Even doing it digitally is a time arduous task which we often did. Best bet is to properly HD-transfer them, color correct them, fix errors in the scans, and then archive the digital copy. Making multiple copies of said archive. Problem is how do you archive for the future. Do you archive with scans at 2k, 4k, and hope that it's good enough for when we have 16-20k machines?
I agree that it is a conundrum, I think your suggestion would be much more ideal than just letting them sit and decompose further. I don't see a reason why would not be satisfied with a properly archived film at 4k(which as you know is a higher rendering than most of the current theaters and broadcast channels will currently air) for the next 20 years or more.

I understand your point though. Once you commit to a digital rendering, and the real analog film is lost, further highest resolution rendering is impossible and you can only copy. Plus I can see how codec standards will probably evolve and change, but again there is not much we can do about that, so why not put hedge our bets and use more than one of the current top standards?

Plus, as Alex Lindsay and the TWiM guys will tell you, once you get to 4K and beyond, the improvements in performance are so marginal with each leap as to be nearly, or impossibly undetectable to the human eye.

Its kind of like music. While we might discover a standard that allows an even wider capturing of audio in a "lossless" state, there are limitations on what the average, or even the exceptional human ear can reasonably detect in a frequency range. This is why often, if we must compress, 320 kbps rendering is often suitable for most genres of music. The only form that truly suffers at that bit rate is classical and/or extreme dynamic pieces that depend upon a huge amount of headroom in the db range to explore a thematic concept more fully without fuzziness at the high end or complete loss of in the bass sub range.

I would suspect that many films will not be demanding enough on the technical side (like Harold and Maude and unlike say, 2001: A Space Odyssey) to require the absolute highest rendering possible, right?

Since you have more experience than I do in this regard, once we have the digital master, we can make more duplicate copies in order to avoid either storage failure or media degradation, right? We would just the usual backup scenarios to worry about right? And of course any changes in format standards.

I agree with ya buddy. Two important movements to do with it. One- digitally archive the movie in as wide dynamic range as currently possible and at highest raw quality currently available. Two- color correct and fix the hell out of it. Step two being the harder and more time consuming portion.

Harder part of the above is how do you determine what movies you apply this to? Knowing our luck as a society we'd probably archive "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle." but be like 'Shit we forgot about the Godfather.'

As far as music, I can tell the difference between 128k and Apple Lossless on my Home Theater but I'll be damned if I can tell the difference between 256k and Lossless. That's where I can't tell the difference--but I still like to think I can.

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

Wa

My Groups

Neighborhood

Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.

Archives