True Lies HDTV (Film4 HD) Preservation

[Beber]

So many 90s movies are plagued with red push on video!

[spoRv]

Huh, what's "filmized"? Regraded to 35mm?

No offense intended, but that sky looks terrible, as does the "grain".

Edit: The colors and toning look OK though.

Yep! And pay respect, it took a respectable time of five minutes (maybe four) to do that, so... OK, grain is a bit coarse, but what's the problem with the sky?

[deleted user]

Huh, what's "filmized"? Regraded to 35mm?

No offense intended, but that sky looks terrible, as does the "grain".

Edit: The colors and toning look OK though.

Yep! And pay respect, it took a respectable time of five minutes (maybe four) to do that, so... OK, grain is a bit coarse, but what's the problem with the sky?

Haha, no disrespect intended, I know all about your mad skillz! 

The bad thing about the grain is that it has absolutely zero high frequency detail and seems blurred by some terrible algorithm (almost looks like some kind of box blur), looking very digital and artificial. 

The sky is discolored / too cold, probably because of clipping in the source (I haven't checked in Photoshop). You can see how it's wrong when you look at the edges of the trees, which have a kind of red glow, but the sky is not red at all and neither does it have any definition. In the original image the trees transition smoothly into the sky, but in your version there's a weird issue, if you can see what I mean. Just looks awkward, like an attempt to white balance an overexposed JPEG. (which is kinda what happened I think). As a result of that, there is also too much grain in the sky. Think about a film print. When there is a very bright part, that means the print is (close to) transparent in that place ... means, there is no dye ... when there is no dye ... where should grain come from?

[spoRv]

Coarse Vs fine grain: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/127210

[deleted user]

Coarse Vs fine grain: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/127210

Well ... that definitely looks better. But why either-or. How about like 30% of coarse grain (but one that looks better) and 70% of the fine one. Or rather, coarse grain doesn't really bother me as long as it has the fine detail, know what I mean? After all, grain has a kind of "structure" so even a coarse grain has some finer microstructure, even if its not actual image detail. It looks kinda organic.

[spoRv]

It is just a quick'n'dirt test made on two pics... in motion would look better/worse, who knows?

[deleted user]

Yah who knows. But let's not fool ourselves, we're both pixel peepers.

[Stamper]

I like it but what about keeping the HDTV color and just adding the grain?

Or in reverse, color match the 35mm to the HDTV?

I love the 35mm but clearly the colors aren't 100% right due to it being a scan and not shown through a projector. It has that grey look all 35mm releases have, like watching the film projected from behind on a grey screen.

[deleted user]

I like it but what about keeping the HDTV color and just adding the grain?

Or in reverse, color match the 35mm to the HDTV?

I love the 35mm but clearly the colors aren't 100% right due to it being a scan and not shown through a projector. It has that grey look all 35mm releases have, like watching the film projected from behind on a grey screen.

The grey look is a necessary evil I think. Surely you've seen some cams in your lifetime and noticed the extreme contrasts that make it barely watchable. 35mm film has a wider dynamic range than normal computer displays, so you have to kinda "squeeze" the movie's look into a narrower dynamic range, resulting in a lowered contrast and saturation compared to the real thing. A normal consumer camera is unable to (or programmed not to) capture the whole dynamic range, hence you get crushed blacks and blown out highlights. This is why stuff always kinda looks weird on a computer screen compared to the actual slide/film cell. You can push up the saturation, but it's not really faithful. But neither is the grey of course. The screen just cannot display it properly, so you have to find some kind of compromise I guess. This will probably change with HDR. In 5 to 10 years we will probably be able to scan all this stuff in HDR colorspace and have it actually look like the print.

I think the grey look is still the best choice, as it can theoretically be later expanded to the full color space without introducing even more error.

[Stamper]

I meant just as caps experiment.

You can actually now color time in HDR with resolve (not sure if you need the priced version or not), and export either in HDR or Rec709.
But to be completely at ease when scanning a print, you would need to shoot your telecine in RAW format. Then, you will be able to reproduce all the dynamic range of the print, as whatever exposure you will have set on your camera, you will have several full stops of dynamic range to adjust, either bringing back the highlight, pushing the contrast etc.

If those prints are captured using just AVC encoding or Prores, then you limit how you can post adjust them after the fact. If they are scanned, then the image should be in raw, even if it takes 10mb by shot.

Not that I'm complaining, those releases are awesome. But the free tools are at disposal now to make them look totaly like they would in a theater.