8mm Forum: The Elimination of Film ....

This is topic The Elimination of Film .... in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001434

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on October 01, 2009, 09:18 AM:

This morning, I saw the advertisement for the re-re-re-re-re-re-re-release of "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" (was that enough "re's"? Probably not).

I saw the images from the restored film, and I would have to re-name it a "moving story" and not a film. I'll explain.

The term "Film" is tossed around to mean, in some circles, a story on film. That is, the term "film" means, essentially, "story". For instance, when folks say, "Lets go see a film", they mean story, and not just onberving a piece of celluloid.

In this case, however, it can't really be called a "restored FILM". There is no film in the process at all, especially in the case of this "Snow White". It is a matter of bytes of information in a computer file, and digitally copied onto blu-ray discs. The film has been completely eliminated.

In fact, from what I saw in the advertisement, there was no evidence of celluloid in the process. All grain or any evidence of film, is eliminated.

In fact, what is left, is what, perhaps, (if Disney could have had it), exactly what he would have chosen. We are down to the actual cels and painted backgrounds, along with the only part that may have vestiges of the original "film", the soundtrack, and even that is debatable.

Now as a lover of fine animation, I can understand an appreciation for this type of presentation. Personally, I also find it slightly distracting, as I see more and more of the imperfections in the original artwork. More "jitter" than was noticeable before. A sheen that just doesn't really seem to belong there.

My argument would probably fall on many a flat ear today, and that's not bad either, as we are progressively becoming a "film-less society", but I do feel that restoration can actually go too far.

I alreadsy have the two disc DVD special edition of "Snow White", and that one already had that aspect to it, but I'm sure that it will feel that much more distanced from a filmic experience.

Even with all the improvements that have been made on the film, I actually do prefer to see "Snow White" the way people saw it back in the 1930's. We certainly do not see it as they did back then .. today (on blu-ray).

Some would say, "We see it better than they did back then."

I would argue against that, personally.

What are your thoughts?

By the way, on the other side of the coin, I would rather see a digital animmated film in a digital format, instead of film.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on October 01, 2009, 09:30 AM:

Once again, I offer the "original Monet vs the digitally reproduced print of the Monet" analogy.

The print which you can buy in any high st. shop is fine if all you want to do is look at and admire what the painting is a picture of.

It shows nothing of the artistry involved in the original canvas.

[Smile]

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on October 01, 2009, 09:51 AM:

The noun "film" and the verb "to film" are both pretty abused these days, but it's kind of an uphill battle because most people don't know the difference and if they did they wouldn't care anyway.

There of course is the "digital" thing. When I studied electronics in high school, it took 'em a year and a half to get up to what "digital" was and what could be done with it. These days that word is a synonym for "better", whether it really is or not and why it is (…if it is) being kind of a mystery.

I was in polite company a few months ago and a friend’s wife said the friend had a stash of super-8 films he shot while in Vietnam and it would be neat if I would project them. When the friend came in later we asked about them and he said he'd gotten those transferred to video years ago and trashed the reels.

He said he did this because it's "better" (there's that word again!)

When in the history of the planet has a copy ever been "better" than the source material? I could almost see it if they picked and chose from the best archival material and digitally restored the image, but in this case they pulled the image in as it was and plastered it on a VHS. (-not even "digital" and still "better"!)

Not “better”, more “convenient”: OK, but not “better”.

Posted by Steven J Kirk (Member # 1135) on October 01, 2009, 10:41 AM:

As far as the language goes, I hear broadcast journalists here in the UK still refer to 'footage' when a piece of video is about to be shown. 'Amateur footage from a camera-phone' I've heard too. Er, where's the space in the phone for all that 'footage' I don't know. That's the reverse process. I think the term 'film' will probably remain for some while and is used more here in England than 'movie' anyway.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on October 01, 2009, 10:54 AM:

My favorite one takes a form something like "Amateur video from the 1950s..."

In my ears it's like fingernails on a chalkboard!

The worst part is that this is a pretty common expression on TV News broadcasts. If media professionals don't know the difference how can we expect more from everybody else?

(News People also need to stop saying "Cars were tossed around like toys" everytime a tornado passes through, but that's another story!)

Posted by John Whittle (Member # 22) on October 01, 2009, 02:58 PM:

There were a lot of problems with the original "Snow White". During the "first" restoration when Kodak first opened their restoration facility in Hollywood, we had a special SMPTE meeting there and were walked through the facility and saw the various stages that "Snow White" was undergoing. As I recall this was back in 1985 or so.

The original photography suffered from a lot a color problems from variations in photofloods used to illuminate the cells. There were a lot of cell reflections, paint problems, and lot and lots of dirt photographed in from the cells.

They were very careful at that stage to NOT take out the grain and all the dirt. In fact we saw a scene that they had redone because the technique had been "too heavy handed".

I'm looking forward to seeing the new version since we've made so many strides in restoration in the last 20 years. BTW, for what it's worth, Disney has and supplied both original cells and model sheets and color samples which were used in that restoration. So what was produced then was closer to what the artists and Disney wanted on the screen and removed the limits of the 1939 technology of Technicolor at that time.

So while this isn't the "original" film, I wouldn't take the same hard line against it until I get a chance to see it and see what they've done.

Few people will ever get the chance to Visit the Disney Archives (a hidden location BTW) and see the original art side by side with the restoration, but it's an eye opener.

One should note (and just ask George Lucas) no film is ever finished, they're just completed and released. There are always compromises and things everyone concerned with the production would want better or to change if time or money permited. Today time and money permit.

John

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on October 01, 2009, 03:43 PM:

Well the Blu Ray Snow White will be on sale here next week and I can't wait to get a copy. If its anything like the job thay did on Sleeping Beauty and Pinnochio it will be really something to see.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on October 01, 2009, 05:32 PM:

I'm certainly not against film restoration. I remember seeing the restored, (well, for what could be done at that time) with Orson Welles troubled classic "Othello". The film, shot on many continents and piece-meal (that's an understatement!) looked 100 times better than the terrible copies that existed even on 16MM.
They actually re-recorded the whole soundtrack music in dolby surround and the two, sandwiched together, (music and restored film) were outstanding. At that time, it was the best restoration I had ever seen.

Note: Worst two "restorations" ... "Hawaii" and "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" In both cases, they took terribly faded lost footage and put it right back in ... terrible! It was so obvious!

As I stated before, I would much rather see, for instance, Toy Story, in complete digital format instead of film, as then I can enjoy all the craft that went into the digital process with the absolute clarity.

I must also admit, I do like seeing a literal cel straight to digital DVD. I bought the latest restoration of Bambi on the 2 disc DVD and it did look lovely. I'm still marveling over the great leaps and strides that Disney took from even Snow White to Bambi, and in only a period of less than five years. Amazing!

Yet, I still muse and sigh at seeing the lack of grain and such distractions, as most folks today would label them.

Posted by Dan Lail (Member # 18) on October 01, 2009, 06:59 PM:

I must say John Whittle's knowledge is most appreciated and I am always enlightened when I read his posts. Thanks, John. Wish you lived in my neighborhood. [Cool]

Posted by Joe McAllister (Member # 825) on October 02, 2009, 02:49 PM:

I am a self confessed luddite when it comes to digital technology. I am often asked why I prefer vinyl to CD my answer is"Because I can tell the difference."
Similarly with film versus digital I can tell the difference and I prefer film.
Disney may have removed fingerprints inconsistent lighting etc but as any presenter of the "Antiques Road Show" will tell you if you remove the patina from an antique it becomes worthless.
But many people have watched and enjoyed movies in poor circumstances. The inability of tv to reproduce films in their original ratios or colour balance even under the best of circumstances hasn't caused general grief. Some people have even put up with illicit poorly duplicated videos and DVD's.
However for me a 200' 8mm extract from Snow White projected in a living room is more exciting and involving than a digital restoration.
As for the technical deficiencies of early technicolor whatever they might have been HD technology still lacks the colour range contrast and sharpness to present it properly.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on October 02, 2009, 03:47 PM:

Hi Joe,
I share your sentiments about Disney and Super 8mm. The Disney prints that I have are all of amazing quality, and as you say the sense of involvment is much greater when projecting film.
But I feel you are being overly harsh on DVD and Blu ray. If you have seen the incredible quality of projected Blu ray releases of Sleeping Beauty and Pinochio it is probably as good as it can ever be, and for most people its almost like seeing the film for the first time, such is the level of detail previously not apparent. So if the films have been digitally 'scrubbed and cleaned' a little I have no objection if these are the results.

Posted by Barrie Didham (Member # 1741) on October 03, 2009, 02:47 AM:

Hi all.

I often feel let down by todays tech,even if i own it myself.

The Laserdisc of Joseph M.Schencks Hallelujah,Im a Bum really out shines the DVD,but no doubt one day it will be given the Blu-Ray treatment,if any of you have seen the Laserdisc of George Lucas,s THX 1138 and then watched the DVD,you,ll understand where im coming from,sometime i think we go to far or not far enough when remastering these storys to the digital age.

But i cant help that warm fuzzy feeling i get when i see a 16mm or 8mm print with all its faults on the big screen,there is just something so alive with these formats that even my HD-Panasonic projector cant give me,even with my 100X250 inch screen.

Though with all said,HD does suck you into its massive field of view and hues of Black that are very hard to get from any other format from a home setup.

Barrie

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on October 03, 2009, 03:21 AM:

They'll have glossed it up so it looks as much like a modern computer animation as possible. Let me know if this isn't right, and if it does look like an improvement maybe then I'll take a look at it. From what I've read here though this is just another money making exercise to be avoided as I don't care for modern computer cartoons.

The original Snow White was a work of art. Why change a masterpiece?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on October 03, 2009, 09:49 AM:

John ...

I have only seen the advertisement for the yet again revamped Snow White, and that, on a ole fashioned 27 inch
Sanyo, (We don't shell out a lot for conventional TV in our house!)

What I can say for it, (and we do get a digital signal of course, so we aren't seeing it on BR), is that it really does look like its cel animation placed on top of the backgrounds, which does have it's charm and does let the artists full briliance shine through.

Paul, when you get your copy, could you per-chance put up a screen capture or two from it?

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on October 03, 2009, 12:13 PM:

Unfortunately restoration is a fact of life and unless it is undertaken many films will simply be lost. I don't think there is one film collector that doesn't have at least one faded print.
An interesting link can be found here regarding the 70mm 'Alamo'
They are even taking donations to ensure this happens...!

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/robertharris/harris032009.html

As for film being dead, the only long term archive format that studios guarantee are YCM seperation masters on fine grain 35mm B&W stock. It is the only known format to last more than a hundred years.

Looking forward to 'Snow white' and 'Wizard of Oz'. on BD.

Stuart

Posted by Christopher P Quinn (Member # 1294) on October 03, 2009, 08:11 PM:

This is a contentious issue. The restoration of most films I have seen on DVD or blu-ray has been an improvement on the last commercially available media, i.e. Video tape or laserdisc, and I say most, there are exceptions as pointed out already. What I will say is bad registration on Technicolor prints is common place; look at the DVD set of Walt Disney Treasures. The few cartoons that have been restored shine out against the un-restored mud baths of poor colour reproduction and very bad registration.

If anything has been lost through the process, then for most of us it will be the dirt, scratches, and poor reg. For those of us who look deeper it will be the romance. I think Disney and other notable cartoonists would love what has been done. I wish somebody would come and restore my film of my children to the degree that they have with Disney’s Pinocchio, I would be well pleased.

Osi, I still tape things on the TV, although it's now done through my Sky+ box. [Wink]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2