Ghost in the Shell

[CSchmidlapp]

GITS was scanned and composited Digtal.

I wonder where all the noise came from on the home video master's? The original scan composites should be clean to the point you can see brush strokes lol.

Makes me not only question the resolution it was created at, but the transfer process also?

[zoidberg]

I'd be surprised if the original digital files exist anymore, even if they did they might not be any use. Depending on the quality of the original scan/render/filmout all sorts of stuff might be baked into the o-neg.

[CSchmidlapp]

I'd be surprised if the original digital files exist anymore, even if they did they might not be any use. Depending on the quality of the original scan/render/filmout all sorts of stuff might be baked into the o-neg.

So they would of created a negative and not straight to an IP from the Digital Master?
I'm assuming the whole film was created Digitally, editing and all, to a finished movie.
I'm using this chart as reference and figured the Digital Composite would replace the O-Neg.

https://fanrestore.com/thread-1415-post-...l#pid27927

I also figured the video masters would of come straight from the Digital Master.

[Doctor M]

I'm going to disagree. I seriously doubt they digitally mastered this in 1995. It's likely the GitS 2.0 was, but not the original theatrical version. If they remastered it digitally at some point, that could be where the softness was introduced.

Checking imdb's specifications it's possible the original was square (35mm) and cropped to 1.85:1.

[CSchmidlapp]

I'm going to disagree.  I seriously doubt they digitally mastered this in 1995.   It's likely the GitS 2.0 was, but not the original theatrical version.  If they remastered it digitally at some point, that could be where the softness was introduced.

Checking imdb's specifications it's possible the original was square (35mm) and cropped to 1.85:1.

Probably worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN5ej4bypa4

It's the English version as opposed to the Japanese version linked earlier in the thread.

[BronzeTitan]

Probably worth a watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN5ej4bypa4 It's the English version as opposed to the Japanese version linked earlier in the thread.

Anyone getting a snarky YouTube "This video contains content from Starz Media LLC, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds. Sorry about that." can go watch it here . .

DaliyMotion -- Making Of Ghost In The Shell HQ English (1995) Production Report

[BronzeTitan]

More interesting info with screen-caps . .

Ghost in the Shell -- der richter on July 7, 2013

This release uses a HDTV stream as source instead of BluRay. ... This is not my own encode, it is quite an old raw that uses WMV9 as video codec. ...

Video: 1920×1040 WMV9

[Doctor M]

It's always possible to use Judgment for the borders, and overlay the BD for the center part; I usually do that when mix-n-match various HDTV sources, and, if perfectly aligned and with very close matching colors, nobody would ever guess the borders are from another source!

I'm going to disagree.  I seriously doubt they digitally mastered this in 1995.   It's likely the GitS 2.0 was, but not the original theatrical version.  If they remastered it digitally at some point, that could be where the softness was introduced.

Checking imdb's specifications it's possible the original was square (35mm) and cropped to 1.85:1.

Probably worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN5ej4bypa4

It's the English version as opposed to the Japanese version linked earlier in the thread.

Gotcha. They scanned the cells, composited it with effects and other material, and edited it in an AVID system (looks like an old Mac).
From the computer they printed it to film. This is probably similar to Disney's CAPS.
Good info.
Still, there should either be a master on a computer somewhere, or at the very least a pristine film transfer from it.

[CSchmidlapp]

More interesting info with screen-caps . .

Ghost in the Shell -- der richter on July 7, 2013

This release uses a HDTV stream as source instead of BluRay. ... This is not my own encode, it is quite an old raw that uses WMV9 as video codec. ...

Video: 1920×1040 WMV9

This was my first introduction to the Judgment release

It did/does look great, and was originally my go to version before I color corrected it to my preference.
Which in turn gave me more artifects and a closer look at some of it's inherent problems.
I went with the UK BD because of this, at the expense off some of the detail, which mattered less as I was crushing the blacks alittle.

Gotcha. They scanned the cells, composited it with effects and other material, and edited it in an AVID system (looks like an old Mac).
From the computer they printed it to film. This is probably similar to Disney's CAPS.
Good info.
Still, there should either be a master on a computer somewhere, or at the very least a pristine film transfer from it.

It looks that way
The whole process is not shown but it's definitely alluded to. Im not an expert on animation techniques to begin with.

If it was indeed all created digitally, what would the resolution of such a project be?
What we're the digital effects shots in 'Hollywood' films of that era, 2K?

[spoRv]

There's still obviously a fair bit of issues with the image still, but overall I think it's a great step in the right direction.

Using "making of GITS" for some shots could even improve the whole work, IMHO.