[REL] 36 fillette (1988)
-
- Posts: 799
- Likes: 369
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:48 am
Re: [REL] 36 fillette (1988)
I took that DVD rip and made an upscale, I toyed with 720p or 1080p - and went for the latter.
I used the HQ setting - but the DVD seems to have some temporal smoothing when scenes are in motion which motion blurs the film a bit - but anyway, here's 5 parts of 300mb:
https://mega.nz/file/cUhCwTBI#B0YhtOgMR ... Ne9Hs94emM
https://mega.nz/file/sZhADB7L#FoSHwML8M ... I9xK4ZvzhY
https://mega.nz/file/xNRTXApL#lZe5SDRIv ... n8S8JHSk4Y
https://mega.nz/file/4ZIgDYRJ#ZAkwC2EjT ... tXsf0IRQyc
https://mega.nz/file/URRSCQoD#Q0PNeQZrz ... OaBJnq1qng
And the film seems to be framed at about 1.6:1, not your typical 1.33:1 or 1.78:1 (16:9). The DVD was widescreen enhanced but then had large black borders at the left and right - it's not me screwing up the format!
I used the HQ setting - but the DVD seems to have some temporal smoothing when scenes are in motion which motion blurs the film a bit - but anyway, here's 5 parts of 300mb:
https://mega.nz/file/cUhCwTBI#B0YhtOgMR ... Ne9Hs94emM
https://mega.nz/file/sZhADB7L#FoSHwML8M ... I9xK4ZvzhY
https://mega.nz/file/xNRTXApL#lZe5SDRIv ... n8S8JHSk4Y
https://mega.nz/file/4ZIgDYRJ#ZAkwC2EjT ... tXsf0IRQyc
https://mega.nz/file/URRSCQoD#Q0PNeQZrz ... OaBJnq1qng
And the film seems to be framed at about 1.6:1, not your typical 1.33:1 or 1.78:1 (16:9). The DVD was widescreen enhanced but then had large black borders at the left and right - it's not me screwing up the format!
Re: [REL] 36 fillette (1988)
Thank you David, I am looking forward to this! Upscales from PALdvds to 1080p seem to work out well so I think you made the right choice.
The theatrical aspect ratio for "36 fillette" is 1.66, which was typical for French films shot with spherical lenses. (Anamorphically lensed films would be 2.35.) On a 1.78 widescreen TV it would correctly have black bars on the sides, so it seems that what you have is correct.
The theatrical aspect ratio for "36 fillette" is 1.66, which was typical for French films shot with spherical lenses. (Anamorphically lensed films would be 2.35.) On a 1.78 widescreen TV it would correctly have black bars on the sides, so it seems that what you have is correct.
Re: [REL] 36 fillette (1988)
Well done, David! Thank you.
I would have added some grain, but that's just a matter of personal taste. ...Me again...
I would have added some grain, but that's just a matter of personal taste. ...Me again...
-
- Posts: 799
- Likes: 369
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:48 am
Re: [REL] 36 fillette (1988)
I added grain - but only at about 0.6 and quite a small particle (about 20% on the slider) - so yeah, it's barely noticable. What setting do you use?
-
- Posts: 799
- Likes: 369
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:48 am
Re: [REL] 36 fillette (1988)
Ah, that explains it. Hopefully I got it close to 1.66:1 - though you never know how much the telecine process (converting film to digital/analogue) would crop the edges of the film - and if they'd crop it evenly.Night457 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:06 am Thank you David, I am looking forward to this! Upscales from PALdvds to 1080p seem to work out well so I think you made the right choice.
The theatrical aspect ratio for "36 fillette" is 1.66, which was typical for French films shot with spherical lenses. (Anamorphically lensed films would be 2.35.) On a 1.78 widescreen TV it would correctly have black bars on the sides, so it seems that what you have is correct.
Have you often seen that old film transfers sometimes weren't even telecined on the level - either that or text placed on screen wasn't placed on the level - sometimes it's a bit off a level bubble.
Re: [REL] 36 fillette (1988)
It always depends on the movie...What setting do you use?
Re: [REL] 36 fillette (1988)
TECH ALERT!
I did a quick check 6 days ago comparing your version to deadman's dvd.ISO. My memory from that loooong ago is not reliable ( ), but I found them to having matching aspect ratios. So you did not cut anything off.
For the professionals making a DVD or preparing a movie for TV broadcast, from a film print they could crop unevenly, as you say, or crop it more. From an original negative restoration I do believe they have to rematte it entirely from scratch. There is a very good chance that the 1.6 PAL dvd is showing a little bit more image top and bottom than the theatrically released 1.66 film did.
So very true. The best that any of us can do is match OUR source rather than the original theatrical ratio, since we do not have access to the original negative or film prints.David32441 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 12:36 pm Hopefully I got it close to 1.66:1 - though you never know how much the telecine process (converting film to digital/analogue) would crop the edges of the film - and if they'd crop it evenly.
I did a quick check 6 days ago comparing your version to deadman's dvd.ISO. My memory from that loooong ago is not reliable ( ), but I found them to having matching aspect ratios. So you did not cut anything off.
For the professionals making a DVD or preparing a movie for TV broadcast, from a film print they could crop unevenly, as you say, or crop it more. From an original negative restoration I do believe they have to rematte it entirely from scratch. There is a very good chance that the 1.6 PAL dvd is showing a little bit more image top and bottom than the theatrically released 1.66 film did.
Ha ha ha, YES!! Sometimes it is so bad that it looks they were running the film at full speed over a photocopy machine. I would love to observe traditional telecine techniques so that I could see how such errors ACTUALLY happen.Have you often seen that old film transfers sometimes weren't even telecined on the level - either that or text placed on screen wasn't placed on the level - sometimes it's a bit off a level bubble.
-
- Posts: 799
- Likes: 369
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:48 am
Re: [REL] 36 fillette (1988)
I think in the old days it was a wonky projector in front of a camcorder Probably how cheap films were transferred until recently.Night457 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 1:49 pm TECH ALERT!
So very true. The best that any of us can do is match OUR source rather than the original theatrical ratio, since we do not have access to the original negative or film prints.David32441 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 12:36 pm Hopefully I got it close to 1.66:1 - though you never know how much the telecine process (converting film to digital/analogue) would crop the edges of the film - and if they'd crop it evenly.
I did a quick check 6 days ago comparing your version to deadman's dvd.ISO. My memory from that loooong ago is not reliable ( ), but I found them to having matching aspect ratios. So you did not cut anything off.
For the professionals making a DVD or preparing a movie for TV broadcast, from a film print they could crop unevenly, as you say, or crop it more. From an original negative restoration I do believe they have to rematte it entirely from scratch. There is a very good chance that the 1.6 PAL dvd is showing a little bit more image top and bottom than the theatrically released 1.66 film did.
Ha ha ha, YES!! Sometimes it is so bad that it looks they were running the film at full speed over a photocopy machine. I would love to observe traditional telecine techniques so that I could see how such errors ACTUALLY happen.Have you often seen that old film transfers sometimes weren't even telecined on the level - either that or text placed on screen wasn't placed on the level - sometimes it's a bit off a level bubble.
There's proper giant photocopier like machines that are digital film scanners that started around the days of Jurassic Park and before, where they digitally scan the film negatives.
Re: [REL] 36 fillette (1988)
"camcorder" ≠ "old days" !!David32441 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 5:36 pm I think in the old days it was a wonky projector in front of a camcorder
Camcorders are high tech modern inventions. Well ... I would be interested in how it was done for television in the 1950s 60s and 70s, anyway. But yeah, your description is how bad it could look in the 80s and 90s.
I can imagine such a thing but I have never seen one in its entirety. I have seen brief closeups of wetgate film machines being used to scan old film to digital, but never a "how it is done" documentary showing the whole process. That is exactly the kind of nerdy thing that would fascinate me.There's proper giant photocopier like machines that are digital film scanners
Nowadays THAT film is a technological dinosaur!started around the days of Jurassic Park and before
-
- Posts: 799
- Likes: 369
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:48 am
Re: [REL] 36 fillette (1988)
There used to be a nerdy magazine from the US I think called Cinfex. It had adverts to the trade. It had lots of pictures of high end film scanners. Machines like this? http://www.digital-intermediate.co.uk/f ... anning.htm I'm sure Telecine history / digital film scanning history might lead to something?
There's big books in film shops by companies like ILM - particularly their 2nd one that is post Jurassic Park, that would talk nerdy detail about the process.
There's big books in film shops by companies like ILM - particularly their 2nd one that is post Jurassic Park, that would talk nerdy detail about the process.