Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   2001: A Space Odyssey can no longer be screened in Cinerama, and antique films like Miller's Crossing and Barton Fink have no existing 35mm prints. Oh yes, and laser projectors will make today's digitized movie theaters obsolete in 5 years   (theatlantic.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, A Space Odyssey, Barton Fink, Miller's Crossing, Cinerama, John Turturro, movie theaters, laser projectors, Lawrence of Arabia  
•       •       •

4565 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 25 Nov 2012 at 2:37 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-11-25 09:26:45 AM  
subby, Barton Fink and Miller's Crossing are not antique films.

You can even watch Fink on Netflix.

Fail.for you.
 
2012-11-25 09:30:23 AM  

cirby: In other words? Those hundred or so recordings (including things like the Alvin Ailey dance troupe from the early 1960s and a bunch of jazz artists playing live sessions) are never going to be played back. As far as I know, they're still sitting in the film storage room.


Wow. Imagine how the kids today would enjoy watching the Alvin Ailey dance troupe! Would give Gangnam Style a run for it's money.

(is someone on your lawn now?)
 
2012-11-25 09:30:51 AM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: but this is not the exact make, model, or even for all I know, manufacturer. I took the tape to a guy in Minneapolis who thought he could recover something, but he didn't have the right format. Any and all suggestions would be appreciated. I'd love to hear my father's voice again.


1960s dictaphone tape, looks like. If it is standard 1/4" tape, you should be able to get something off of it with a regular reel-to-reel. The tape speed will be off, even on the slowest setting, but if you could get the output as a .wav file you should then be able to use audio processing software to slow down the playback.
 
2012-11-25 09:31:00 AM  
HandBanana and farkeruk, thanks! I'm composing an email to CUPS 'N STRINGS right now, to see if they can help. I'm also checking out EBay, but the player used to make the recording was pretty obscure I'm guessing, as I can't find anything truly like it. Regardless, your help is much appreciated, and if I succeed in getting an audible copy, I'll let you know. Y'all rock!
 
2012-11-25 09:35:21 AM  

ko_kyi: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: but this is not the exact make, model, or even for all I know, manufacturer. I took the tape to a guy in Minneapolis who thought he could recover something, but he didn't have the right format. Any and all suggestions would be appreciated. I'd love to hear my father's voice again.

1960s dictaphone tape, looks like. If it is standard 1/4" tape, you should be able to get something off of it with a regular reel-to-reel. The tape speed will be off, even on the slowest setting, but if you could get the output as a .wav file you should then be able to use audio processing software to slow down the playback.


I could try that, as I have an old TEAC deck in storage. I'm just afraid of ruining the tape by my own ham-handed efforts. Seriously, I could break an anvil.
 
2012-11-25 09:45:44 AM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I could try that, as I have an old TEAC deck in storage. I'm just afraid of ruining the tape by my own ham-handed efforts. Seriously, I could break an anvil.


use ebay, craigslist, or whatever means necessary to get similar tapes that you DON'T care about, and use them as tests to refine your process. Then you can experiment until you have a method you are confident in.

I can't really think of a risk-free way to try it. Back when I had audio tape editing chops, I would sometimes lay an old brittle tape back-side down on scotch tape in order to reinforce it, then carefully trim away the excess scotch tape with an exacto knife.
 
2012-11-25 09:47:13 AM  
Let's just stop making technology so some idiot can feel nostalgic
 
2012-11-25 09:50:11 AM  

Great_Milenko: WhyteRaven74: Darth_Lukecash: Apparently we've lost 90% of cinema history already. Only a fraction of the silent films still exist.

that's because a lot of it was shot on film stock of dubious quality and no one bothered to preserve it. Also a lot of it was stored with no records kept or anything.

That was back in the day when every B movie wasn't considered some sort of cult masterpiece that must be preserved for the ages. Most films were commodity items, not some sort of high art.

Trust me, the future will not be diminished if no one 100 years from now gets to see a painstakingly restored print of Eegah!

And besides, people already biatch that copyright is held too long. Isn't this just another way of moving forward with new art?


"Eegah like get caught in rain."
 
2012-11-25 09:53:16 AM  
From the article:

"For film distributors, it's hard to justify the $50,000 it now costs to print a 35mm black-and-white feature."

"Digital archiving is also more expensive than film. One study found that a 2K scan of a feature film would require just under two terabytes to store. In fact, digital archiving is so difficult and costly that Kodak has just announced film specifically designed for archiving digital formats."


I gather that someone is missing some info here.

2TB drives are around 100$. Add in the processing to digitize/scan and such, I doubt that it would come close to $50,000.

And once digitized, making perfect backup copies would be another 100$ for another drive and a couple of hours to transfer over. so even if the scanning would cost $10,000, the hardware (drives) would be 100$ per copy, would be perfect copies, and let's say they want to ensure enough backups... let's say 5, then 500$, for a grand total of under 1/5th of the price.

Am I missing something here?
 
2012-11-25 09:54:12 AM  

ko_kyi: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I could try that, as I have an old TEAC deck in storage. I'm just afraid of ruining the tape by my own ham-handed efforts. Seriously, I could break an anvil.

use ebay, craigslist, or whatever means necessary to get similar tapes that you DON'T care about, and use them as tests to refine your process. Then you can experiment until you have a method you are confident in.

I can't really think of a risk-free way to try it. Back when I had audio tape editing chops, I would sometimes lay an old brittle tape back-side down on scotch tape in order to reinforce it, then carefully trim away the excess scotch tape with an exacto knife.


I used to splice old 4-track and 8-track tapes like that. I found an old Valiant tape player made in Japan,on EBay that I'm going to purchase. It isn't the exact model, but I think it is the same manufacturer as it has similar styling cues, and I believe my father purchased his recorders in Okinawa. Again, thank you for your help. I'll let you know if this works out. My entire family is hoping for success.
 
2012-11-25 09:56:08 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: cirby: In other words? Those hundred or so recordings (including things like the Alvin Ailey dance troupe from the early 1960s and a bunch of jazz artists playing live sessions) are never going to be played back. As far as I know, they're still sitting in the film storage room.

Wow. Imagine how the kids today would enjoy watching the Alvin Ailey dance troupe! Would give Gangnam Style a run for it's money.

(is someone on your lawn now?)


I didn't realize the cultural and historical importance of early films depended on whether kids would enjoy them. I guess we better call the Library of Congress and tell them to start throwing out all that boring stuff they've saved up. We need the space for great cultural masterpieces like Gangnam Style.
 
2012-11-25 10:11:16 AM  
This is why I enjoy playing Fallout.

I just know that someday I'll be climbing through piles of old media amidst super-mutants, pining for the days when 35mm film and magnetic tape were kings, because all my favorite stuff will be unplayable after the apocalypse since it's all been converted to digital.
 
2012-11-25 10:18:54 AM  
sooooo...what about the negative cuts? Who scans a print?

/Offline/Online Editor. I'm over 30. I do not fear change, I deal with it.
 
2012-11-25 10:20:34 AM  
tbriggs:
I don't think we will be able to get the full resolution of the old Super Panavision projections until we get up to at lest an 8K image. Classics like Lawrence or 2001 had such a great image you needed to turn your head to take in all the action and it was tack sharp all the way to the frame corners. I have yet to see this replicated digitally.

I have. This sort of thing is reasonably common in the events industry. Huge curved screens with multiple high-res projectors, running synced signals off of multiple computers is one of the "big cool things" we do nowadays. The biggest I've worked on was a bit over 8000 pixels wide by 1200 or so pixels tall, but higher resolutions are easy enough to pull off. I know of at least one 15,000 pixel by 1400 pixel video wall... yes, that's over 21 megapixels. They've also done full 360 degree surround shows at very high resolutions. Yes, this is with off-the-shelf hardware.

...and yes, you can easily (relatively) do something like three-strip Cinerama with a rig like that.

In some ways it's easier - you can do this with a available gear, and use digital processing to fit the screens accurately without having to have specially-made projection lenses and projectors.

Admittedly, it takes a lot of very expensive gear to do it, and you're not going to see it in theaters soon, but projection tech is moving pretty fast. With a little work, someone could make a "home Cinerama" rig with three small HD projectors and three synced computers (or one fast computer with three very good video cards).
 
2012-11-25 10:35:15 AM  
farkeruk:
The main problem is the term of copyright. It should be 25-30 years. I doubt any movie investment is calculated over a longer period, so it won't affect creation, but we get more into our culture earlier.

I'm holding out for a "public availability" amendment. If you hold copyright to something, but it just sits in your vault and is never seen by anyone outside of your company, the copyright lapses. Make it so they have to show or broadcast a film/video (in the source format), or print a book - at least once every five years or so. If they fail to show possession of an item, it falls to public domain. I heard there are some fairly recent movies (60s and 70s) where the "rights holders" don't actually own an original print - just the copyright paperwork and (maybe) a videotape copy.

That'll weed out the "stick it in a vault and forget about it" situations, along with cases like "Song of the South," where the content is too embarrassing for current tastes. It'll also free up a lot of those 80s and 90s TV shows and movies that are tied up in convoluted rights cases - "either come to an agreement, or it's not your any more."
 
2012-11-25 10:37:58 AM  
I'm still angered over the decline of flip books, especially the ones with naked ladies.
 
2012-11-25 11:00:42 AM  

Skyfrog: tenpoundsofcheese: cirby: In other words? Those hundred or so recordings (including things like the Alvin Ailey dance troupe from the early 1960s and a bunch of jazz artists playing live sessions) are never going to be played back. As far as I know, they're still sitting in the film storage room.

Wow. Imagine how the kids today would enjoy watching the Alvin Ailey dance troupe! Would give Gangnam Style a run for it's money.

(is someone on your lawn now?)

I didn't realize the cultural and historical importance of early films depended on whether kids would enjoy them. I guess we better call the Library of Congress and tell them to start throwing out all that boring stuff they've saved up. We need the space for great cultural masterpieces like Gangnam Style.


Check your lawn, I bet there are people dancing on it.
Go yell at clouds. You will feel better.
 
2012-11-25 11:08:17 AM  

Great_Milenko: Trust me, the future will not be diminished if no one 100 years from now gets to see a painstakingly restored print of Eegah!


I think the people of the future may very well want the opportunity to gawp at every single feature of Arch Hall, Jr's bizarre face.
 
2012-11-25 11:25:34 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Skyfrog: tenpoundsofcheese: cirby: In other words? Those hundred or so recordings (including things like the Alvin Ailey dance troupe from the early 1960s and a bunch of jazz artists playing live sessions) are never going to be played back. As far as I know, they're still sitting in the film storage room.

Wow. Imagine how the kids today would enjoy watching the Alvin Ailey dance troupe! Would give Gangnam Style a run for it's money.

(is someone on your lawn now?)

I didn't realize the cultural and historical importance of early films depended on whether kids would enjoy them. I guess we better call the Library of Congress and tell them to start throwing out all that boring stuff they've saved up. We need the space for great cultural masterpieces like Gangnam Style.

Check your lawn, I bet there are people dancing on it.
Go yell at clouds. You will feel better.


3/10, only because you got some nibbles.

Uncreative troll is uncreative.
 
2012-11-25 11:46:51 AM  
Film archivists face additional problems. Digital has turned out to be a fragile archiving format. Information can be lost if hard drives aren't maintained properly. Data has to be transferred, or migrated, as hardware specs and software change.

Digital archiving is also more expensive than film. One study found that a 2K scan of a feature film would require just under two terabytes to store. In fact, digital archiving is so difficult and costly that Kodak has just announced film specifically designed for archiving digital formats.


2TB? Even if you used 2 1TB SSD drives, that's only $5000. How do you get from there to being more expensive than $50000 for a film?

Data has to be transferred, or migrated, as hardware specs and software change.

LOL WUT? Transferred? map a network drive, type "Copy \\source\filename \\destination". wait a few minutes. Job done. Or hey, you could even automate the process, like I did for a CG company.
 
2012-11-25 12:04:22 PM  

farkeruk: LOL WUT? Transferred? map a network drive, type "Copy \\source\filename \\destination". wait a few minutes. Job done. Or hey, you could even automate the process, like I did for a CG company.


It's a bit more complicated than that. File formats change and become obsolete, the files have to be updated to newer formats as time goes by (and in the case of video you would want to go back to the source when transferring to a new format rather than converting).
 
2012-11-25 12:17:46 PM  
farkeruk:
2TB? Even if you used 2 1TB SSD drives, that's only $5000. How do you get from there to being more expensive than $50000 for a film?

When I see those high numbers, it's almost always for a high-end, top-talent restoration project. Pristine archival print to start, frame-by frame scans, retouching each damaged frame, color matching, the whole works.

Of course, what they don't mention is that, once it's done, it doesn't have to be done again in twenty years. A raw digital copy of the film will be available for future use.

What's needed? A fully-automated 4K or 8K 36-bit color (12 bits per color) film scanner with redundant scans and frame matching. Scan three frames at a time, shift them one frame, scan again, repeat - then compare the three copies of each frame and pick the two that agree "best." With current tech, they should be able to run the things in real time, but probably should go slower to minimize the wear on the original film.
 
2012-11-25 12:40:26 PM  
Hand Banana:
It's a bit more complicated than that. File formats change and become obsolete, the files have to be updated to newer formats as time goes by (and in the case of video you would want to go back to the source when transferring to a new format rather than converting).

The solution to that is to use a full, linear, uncompressed original file format, with plaintext instructions in the header to tell the end-user what it is. The only time I've seen file format issues was when the original file was recorded in some funky proprietary format. An uncompressed (or even compressed) .MOV file will probably still be readable in a thousand years, given decent archiving practices (multiple compared copies, frequent backups). Large-but-simple file formats are pretty much always going to be readable. I have 30 year old "obsolete" digital files that are easily readable, that have lived on a dozen or so different floppy or hard drives.

Hell, for full redundancy, record the whole thing as a mess of single frames, named consecutively. 8192 x 2048 pixels, 40 bit sampling (5 bytes per pixel) = 84 megabytes per frame, more or less. A three hour, 24 FPS film is about 260,000 frames. This uncompressed, crazy-huge set of files would be about 21 terabytes. We'll be able to stick that on a $100 hard drive in about ten years. There are also some "archive" storage media types in development that would easily hold that sort of file size for extended (100+ year) times.
 
2012-11-25 12:52:48 PM  

Hand Banana: Gyrfalcon: Anything that was saved on 5.25 floppy disk and was never converted is now gone, of course, as is anything you put on 3.5 floppy disk, just in case you were wondering...

All of my 5.25" disks still work fine, though I don't have anything important on them of course. I still have a 3.5" floppy drive in my newest PC and USB floppy drives are easy to get. Now if you have something stored on 8" floppy disks or something more obscure like Floptical that might be a problem.


Very likely those 5.25" disks have deteriorated to a useless state. You just never checked them to notice.
 
2012-11-25 12:57:30 PM  

cirby: An uncompressed (or even compressed) .MOV file will probably still be readable in a thousand years,


You lost credibility with this...MOV. is the crappiest piece of crap that's barely compatible with stuff now. It's overbloated, and truly annoying

Using an AVI container with an uncompressed MPEG with a FFmpeg MPEG4 codec would probably be the best choice for compatibility for years to come, and prevent any proprietary issues..
 
2012-11-25 01:25:36 PM  

imfallen_angel: 2TB drives are around 100$. Add in the processing to digitize/scan and such, I doubt that it would come close to $50,000.

And once digitized, making perfect backup copies would be another 100$ for another drive and a couple of hours to transfer over. so even if the scanning would cost $10,000, the hardware (drives) would be 100$ per copy, would be perfect copies, and let's say they want to ensure enough backups... let's say 5, then 500$, for a grand total of under 1/5th of the price.

Am I missing something here?


Yeah, you think they use consumer hardware (HDDs) for this stuff?
 
2012-11-25 01:25:54 PM  
We need to make sure that every mediocre piece of media we as a society have ever made is fully digitized and preserved so that future generations can experience Chu Chu and the Philly Flash starring Alan Arkin and Carol Burnett.
 
2012-11-25 01:27:52 PM  

Kyosuke: If the popularity of Bittorent has done anything, it's proven that the most important aspect of film entertainment is the storytelling, not the goddam image resolution that people will download anything as long as it's free.


FIFY

You can bet those pirates are going to want the best possible quality once (gasp!) they have to start paying for it.

$19.99? Better be 1080p and have lossless audio!
 
2012-11-25 01:36:14 PM  

kim jong-un: Hand Banana: Gyrfalcon: Anything that was saved on 5.25 floppy disk and was never converted is now gone, of course, as is anything you put on 3.5 floppy disk, just in case you were wondering...

All of my 5.25" disks still work fine, though I don't have anything important on them of course. I still have a 3.5" floppy drive in my newest PC and USB floppy drives are easy to get. Now if you have something stored on 8" floppy disks or something more obscure like Floptical that might be a problem.

Very likely those 5.25" disks have deteriorated to a useless state. You just never checked them to notice.


Nope, I actually still have my Zenith 286 hooked up and use it to play old games now and then. I have had a few disks become unreadable, but that was true even when they were new. The majority still work just fine though.
 
2012-11-25 01:38:07 PM  
The reality is that non encrypted digital formats will be readable forever as long as the data is maintained on an accessible medium used by the time period.

Even if all knowledge of the decoding process is lost, it is possible to reverse engineer the process to convert the data into an accessible format.

We may lose semantic information. (A recording of a long dead language for example) but the ability to decode the data which represents that format will always be possible as long as that data is preserved in an accessible format.

Encryption however, may render the data inaccessible if the keys are lost.
 
2012-11-25 01:40:40 PM  

Hand Banana: kim jong-un: Hand Banana: Gyrfalcon: Anything that was saved on 5.25 floppy disk and was never converted is now gone, of course, as is anything you put on 3.5 floppy disk, just in case you were wondering...

All of my 5.25" disks still work fine, though I don't have anything important on them of course. I still have a 3.5" floppy drive in my newest PC and USB floppy drives are easy to get. Now if you have something stored on 8" floppy disks or something more obscure like Floptical that might be a problem.

Very likely those 5.25" disks have deteriorated to a useless state. You just never checked them to notice.

Nope, I actually still have my Zenith 286 hooked up and use it to play old games now and then. I have had a few disks become unreadable, but that was true even when they were new. The majority still work just fine though.


Right, but it isn't a stable format. As you said, some turn out unreadable. It's like a radioactive half life. No guarantee that a specific disk will be gone or intact, but a certainty that given time a nonzero amount of data will be lost.
 
2012-11-25 01:43:37 PM  

kim jong-un: Hand Banana: kim jong-un: Hand Banana: Gyrfalcon: Anything that was saved on 5.25 floppy disk and was never converted is now gone, of course, as is anything you put on 3.5 floppy disk, just in case you were wondering...

All of my 5.25" disks still work fine, though I don't have anything important on them of course. I still have a 3.5" floppy drive in my newest PC and USB floppy drives are easy to get. Now if you have something stored on 8" floppy disks or something more obscure like Floptical that might be a problem.

Very likely those 5.25" disks have deteriorated to a useless state. You just never checked them to notice.

Nope, I actually still have my Zenith 286 hooked up and use it to play old games now and then. I have had a few disks become unreadable, but that was true even when they were new. The majority still work just fine though.

Right, but it isn't a stable format. As you said, some turn out unreadable. It's like a radioactive half life. No guarantee that a specific disk will be gone or intact, but a certainty that given time a nonzero amount of data will be lost.


True, I mean I wouldn't trust anything important to them, not even new ones. Still saying that anything stored on them is gone now is overreacting a bit. I've had brand new hard drives go bad too, it happens with any type of storage device. Eventually they will all become unreadable but I think most of them have at least a few more decades left.
 
2012-11-25 01:48:08 PM  

peterthx: imfallen_angel: 2TB drives are around 100$. Add in the processing to digitize/scan and such, I doubt that it would come close to $50,000.

And once digitized, making perfect backup copies would be another 100$ for another drive and a couple of hours to transfer over. so even if the scanning would cost $10,000, the hardware (drives) would be 100$ per copy, would be perfect copies, and let's say they want to ensure enough backups... let's say 5, then 500$, for a grand total of under 1/5th of the price.

Am I missing something here?

Yeah, you think they use consumer hardware (HDDs) for this stuff?


Also the assumption that copying from one HD to another results in a perfect copy.
 
2012-11-25 01:52:30 PM  

cirby: farkeruk:
2TB? Even if you used 2 1TB SSD drives, that's only $5000. How do you get from there to being more expensive than $50000 for a film?

When I see those high numbers, it's almost always for a high-end, top-talent restoration project. Pristine archival print to start, frame-by frame scans, retouching each damaged frame, color matching, the whole works.

Of course, what they don't mention is that, once it's done, it doesn't have to be done again in twenty years. A raw digital copy of the film will be available for future use.

What's needed? A fully-automated 4K or 8K 36-bit color (12 bits per color) film scanner with redundant scans and frame matching. Scan three frames at a time, shift them one frame, scan again, repeat - then compare the three copies of each frame and pick the two that agree "best." With current tech, they should be able to run the things in real time, but probably should go slower to minimize the wear on the original film.


hell, keep all three copies
 
2012-11-25 01:56:44 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Also the assumption that copying from one HD to another results in a perfect copy.


checksums
multiple redundancy file formats
Reed-Solomon error correction coding and what not
 
2012-11-25 01:59:29 PM  
imfallen_angel:
You lost credibility with this...MOV. is the crappiest piece of crap that's barely compatible with stuff now. It's overbloated, and truly annoying

Lost credibility? For what? I wasn't pushing it as a preferred alternative. I brought it up because it's commonly available, and is the basis for a helluva lot of video in the world right now. There will still be readable .mov files a loooong time from now. Look at my other posts for the sort of thing I was actually proposing.

There are many other file formats available, and with minor precautions, most of them will be readable as long as people can actually keep copies of the files.

Using an AVI container with an uncompressed MPEG with a FFmpeg MPEG4 codec would probably be the best choice for compatibility

Only if you were determined to play the resulting file back on a mainstream PC of current vintage. For a start, don't wrap it in an AVI container - that has some restrictions that will get in the way.

For long term archiving, probably better to use something like .mkv. Open source, has some solid technical advantages for long term archiving.
 
2012-11-25 02:39:47 PM  

namatad: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Also the assumption that copying from one HD to another results in a perfect copy.

checksums
multiple redundancy file formats
Reed-Solomon error correction coding and what not


It will never result in a perfect copy no matter how good your error correction is.
 
2012-11-25 02:54:44 PM  

Darth_LSameukecash: This isn't the first time a change has destroyed cinema history.

From silent to sound, from black and white to color...

Apparently we've lost 90% of cinema history already. Only a fraction of the silent films still exist.


Same with music.
 
2012-11-25 03:02:49 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: It will never result in a perfect copy no matter how good your error correction is.


You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

I have copied numerous digital files of well over 15GB from one drive to another and they copy perfectly. There's all sorts of checks within the operating systems like parity checks on each byte to block size checks. And then if you really want to be sure, you run something like an SHA256 checksum check for a file hash on both files, something that is damn hard to deliberately beat, let alone by accident.

But, I'm sure you know better than the PhDs at the NSA.
 
2012-11-25 03:21:58 PM  

ultradeeg: sooooo...what about the negative cuts? Who scans a print?


DVD production is done with prints, not negatives. With the facilities to make prints being closed down, there is be no way to create new prints for old movies to digitize.

This is one reason I contribute to the Film Noir Foundation, a group dedicated to preserving older movies as 35mm prints.
 
2012-11-25 03:27:33 PM  
Maybe it's time we moved back to cave paintings. They've been around for thousands of years and we can all still enjoy those, right?
 
2012-11-25 03:28:03 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Also the assumption that copying from one HD to another results in a perfect copy.


You know of something that the rest of the world doesn't?
 
2012-11-25 03:31:12 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: It will never result in a perfect copy no matter how good your error correction is.


You're confusing video encoding with copying a media file.

And you sound like an idiot.
 
2012-11-25 03:33:49 PM  

peterthx: optikeye: peterthx: 2001 wasn't made in Cinerama, but was a 65MM conversion anyway.

There was "Three strip" cinerama...and only a handful of movies where made with that....it required three projectors. (and frankly looked like crap..because of the blurr lines between the projectors).
The single projector conversion process allowed 70MM movies (no matter how they got to 70MM)...to be shown in the curved cinerama screen.
Yes, they're a lot of formats.

Yes, there were also 65MM Ultra Panavision (anamorphic, like It's A Mad Mad Mad World) and regular "flat" which 2001 was.

It still was a cheat...like most "IMAX" showings of films today, or 70MM prints of 35MM features in the 70s and 80s.


I have no idea what is actual IMAX footage on Bluray and and what is old formats converted for showing in IMAX theatres then released on Bluray for home viewing.

I would make an IMAX of me shaking my fist at Bluray sellers but the pores on my nose would look like starfish invading prominent coral colony. I just don't like buying IMAX Blurays that aren't IMAX. I think I'll do my shopping at the IMAX internet store.
 
2012-11-25 03:33:59 PM  

kmmontandon: Miller's Crossing is "antique"?

Subby, please don't post before you have some hair on your balls. Or after, preferably.


I'm afraid there isn't a sarcasm meter in the world that can help you. You're hopeless.
 
2012-11-25 03:38:22 PM  

Blackbrain: ultradeeg: sooooo...what about the negative cuts? Who scans a print?

DVD production is done with prints, not negatives. With the facilities to make prints being closed down, there is be no way to create new prints for old movies to digitize.

This is one reason I contribute to the Film Noir Foundation, a group dedicated to preserving older movies as 35mm prints.


Link
+
(next week) Link 

Give them some business.
 
2012-11-25 03:44:47 PM  
the BEST cinerama theater anywhere!

torn down by a Nebraska Methodist Health Systems for a parking lot that is never used

/never forget. no, not ever.

www.cardcow.com
 
2012-11-25 03:50:01 PM  
Q: How long and expensive is it to back up these prints at maximum quality in today's uber tech world of terabyte hard disks? Perhaps use military grade devices to reduce the risk of data corruption to virtually zero.
 
2012-11-25 04:37:01 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Fail.for you.


You must be bored to be trolling in a film thread. Still haven't gotten over the adrenaline rush of the campaign? Hopefully that'll subside over a few weeks.
 
2012-11-25 06:05:22 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: HandBanana and farkeruk, thanks! I'm composing an email to CUPS 'N STRINGS right now, to see if they can help. I'm also checking out EBay, but the player used to make the recording was pretty obscure I'm guessing, as I can't find anything truly like it. Regardless, your help is much appreciated, and if I succeed in getting an audible copy, I'll let you know. Y'all rock!


Speeds are pretty standardized for tape recorders, multiples (or in this case, fractions) of 15 inches per second.

15, 71/2, 33/4, 17/8

15 inches were used for professional studio recordings. 71/2 inches for hi-fi home equipment. slower speeds were used for spoken word and battery operated portables.

The hard thing to explain is track width. Hi-fi is two sided stereo, which means four tracks, two tracks in one direction, then you flip the tape over and record two more tracks in the other direction. Mono recordings (again, spoken word and battery operated portables) are one track in one direction, and another track in the other direction when you flip the tape. The stereo side two tracks overlap onto the side one mono tracks.

What does this mean? If you play a spoken word recording on hi-fi stereo equipment, it will sound like a chipmunk possessed by Satan, speaking backwards very fast.

Thanks to digital technology, there are fixes for that. Or, go on eBay, and find a battery operated portable capable of 17/8 tape speeds. Something like this might do the trick, except for one small problem: these things use rubber drive belts, and whatever drive belt it presently has is, if original equipment, over forty years old. Radio Shack stopped carrying portable open reel recorders in the mid-70s. A tape recorder with a broken drive belt won't rewind or fast-forward, and playing may be a problem in some cases as well.

If you are willing to take a chance, and can find someone who can assist in finding you a compatible drive belt, well...

Yeah, the idea of getting pros to digitize the file for you (they may find they get better quality by playing the tape backwards), and then tweak it to make it listenable. Assuming there is still something to play. Depending on how the tape was stored, and the quality of the tape used, there may not be much there to listen to in any case.

Vintage technology can be a pain in the ass. Good luck...
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report