Criterion and Restoration

[Cinephrenic]

Not sure if many of you seen this article, but it's about restoration at Criterion.

http://www.creativemac.com/articles/vie ... p?id=26897

[godardslave]

Lee Kline looks like a zombie:

Criterion of the Dead.

[Gordon]

A crew-cut spoils many a pretty face, says I. Avoid them unless your hairline has receded substanially.

Excellent article. I had been wondering about the restoration work recently, as the standards over the last year have been amazing.

The Mathematical Technologies Incorporated (MTI) Digital Restoration System really is something, isn't it? It has been refined over the years to the point where one assumes it couldn't get more accurate... yet does!

"We've found that there's no tool out there that truly removes scratches very well, especially continuous vertical scratches, which are hard for all tools at the present." - Kline

I assumed this was the case, however. Warner's 2-disc SE of Goodfellas had a scene where there was a bad verticle scratch. This is probably on the negative. I heard some griping about this and it was hard to explain to some people that damage like this is hard to fix, because the previous and forthcoming frames will all have this damage and the algorithms won't recognise the line as 'defect'. The alternative is to 'manually' 'paint-over' the line in the digital domain and this would have taken weeks to achieve. It doesn't spoil the scene, I feel.

MTI is often credited in the "About the Transfer" yet Digital Vision's Noise Reduction System and Advanced Scratch Concealer is not. Why is this?

Criterion's transfer process is second to none. Facets ought to take note. They have been around as long as Criterion, yet they seem to have learned NOTHING in that time. Do they do ANY work on the 6th generation ran-though-the-projector-fifty-times prints they happen to lay their hands on? And their prices aren't low either. What's wrong with this picture - literally?

[Anonymous]

1. It is surprising that Criterion has six Suzuki films and not a single Mizoguchi or Naruse (not to even mention great non-Japanese directors). I suspect this is entirely due to politics. The Suzuki's might be something of a now or never opportunity, or perhaps it is a matter of getting cooperation from the director while he's still alive, or perhaps they are simply available for release (and Criterion clearly doesn't mind putting these out in near-barebones editions) while the Mizoguchis and Naruses are not (they probably need significant restoration, and Criterion, as far as I know, doesn't do restorations -- they only do digital cleanups).

What is the difference between a 'restoration' and a 'digital clean up' (to use your terms)? I'm not sure I understand when you compare the digital clean-up work Criterion has done in the past vs. the old-fashioned art of film-based restoration that's traditionally been used for decades. You seem to assume that one is somehow more thorough than the other, when, from what I understand, many restoration technicians would agree that the wide variety of digital clean-up tools available to them today, and the precision with which they can be employed to touch of extremely minute imperfections as well as glaring bits of damages (like holes punched right through the frame) is far more flexible and effective than any photochemical, so-called wet-gate process they've had to use in the past. In fact, all the most common problems found in old, ill-kept film prints, such as scratches, unsteady frames and faded colors are a nightmare to fix in any way other than by digital means, and even then it�s not as simple as pushing a button on a machine. In fact, as you probably well know, digital anything in regard to film is faster, cheaper (though still quite expensive) and far more flexible than traditional film-based techniques of past: Think color balancing, audio mixing and all manner of special effects. If you're an American Cinematographer reader, you may have caught on that over the past few years the biggest complaint about restoring digitally is that the original film elements themselves are left to rot. Not a happy situation, since those elements, once restored themselves, should ideally have a sharper image than current digital imaging allows, not to mention have that special 'film' look, which I think is really digital restoration's one big drawback. However, for a home video company like Criterion, that should hardly be an issue, since our best practical home video format, DVD, is such a relatively low resolution, and is compressed to boot. Their enthusiasm for the medium of film aside, from a purely business-operational standpoint Criterion shouldn't have to worry about the future of the original film elements; that's not their business. So, I'm wondering why you think they would need to wait for some outside entity to do a traditional, film-based restoration in order to release films by Mizoguchi and Naruse when their own restoration work has been fairly exceptional when it comes to even some of the nastiest of film damage. (They don't include those restoration demos on some of their discs for nothing, after all) What does a traditional photochemical restoration achieve that a digital clean-up does not (in terms relevant to a home video company)?

[Steven H]

You can't obtain information digitally unless it is there already. In other words, if there is detail that is lost with a non restored print, then digital cannot "add" it. It can merely clean up what is already there. Hence, a restored "film" means *much* more than a film that's merely cleaned up digitally.

[Anonymous]

You can't obtain information digitally unless it is there already. In other words, if there is detail that is lost with a non restored print, then digital cannot "add" it. It can merely clean up what is already there. Hence, a restored "film" means *much* more than a film that's merely cleaned up digitally.

If this is true, what exactly does a full, photochemical restoration entail? As far as I know, once information is lost from the film frame, it's gone for good. Lost information is lost information, and there's no amount of photochemical or digital work that's going to get it back. That said, digital tools offer a lot more options in terms of synthesizing picture information on a virtually granular level in order mend scratches, tears, etc. in the film print. I don't think "cleanup" is really a technical term anyway, just one that Jun-Dai has used, and I've gotten confused by his semantics. (After all, someone restoring a film might very well say that they're "cleaning it up" to its proper state)

[zedz]

If this is true, what exactly does a full, photochemical restoration entail? As far as I know, once information is lost from the film frame, it's gone for good.

I think that the big difference is that a full restoration, if done properly, will entail a search for the best elements, could involve the striking of a new master from the negative (if we're lucky), and involves the possibility of compiling material from multiple sources in order to get the best overall effect. The outcome will thus be a better print than was previously available.

A digital clean-up can rectify remaining flaws, but on its own, it's just dealing with the print that's available (and not necessarily the best print available - see Criterion's Scarlet Empress for a good example). Working digitally from the best currently available prints for many key Japanese titles (including, I believe, quite a bit of Mizoguchi) would yield mediocre results. If there's the chance that a much better print is in the pipeline, then it makes sense to wait so that the digitally cleaned-up version can be even better. The key is starting from the best possible (i.e. restored) print, then making the most of it by employing the best transfer and digital clean-up.

[Jun-Dai]

The concern that a photochemical restoration should take place before Criterion works on a film is probably not Criterion's, or not just Criterion's. The main point, I think, is that without a photochemical restoration, Criterion would be unable to work on the best elements possible. Those would exist, awaiting a photochemical restoration, and once that had taken place, Criterion would create a master off of a copy of that, or off of the now-much-more-stable best source of the film. The problem is that without the restoration/preservation efforts, Criterion has simply used the best sources, damaging them irreparably in the process, and contributed little to the long-term health of the film. An HD master is not yet high quality enough that it should be considered a good substitute for a well-preserved negative.

[Anonymous]

The problem is that without the restoration/preservation efforts, Criterion has simply used the best sources, damaging them irreparably in the process, and contributed little to the long-term health of the film. An HD master is not yet high quality enough that it should be considered a good substitute for a well-preserved negative.

How does Criterion damage them irreparably in the process of digitally restoring them? What process are you talking about exactly? Every time film gets run through a projector or scanner, it accumulates blemishes, like scratches, to a greater or lesser extent depending on the quality and upkeep of the projector in question. Wouldn't a fully restored print of a film, assembled from all the best elements that could possibly be found also be irreparably damaged in this process you speak of? (shouldn't wet-gate polishing clean-ups be applied to the film *after* a company like Criterion works on them?)

[kschell]

The problem is that without the restoration/preservation efforts, Criterion has simply used the best sources, damaging them irreparably in the process, and contributed little to the long-term health of the film. An HD master is not yet high quality enough that it should be considered a good substitute for a well-preserved negative.

How does Criterion damage them irreparably in the process of digitally restoring them? What process are you talking about exactly? Every time film gets run through a projector or scanner, it accumulates blemishes, like scratches, to a greater or lesser extent depending on the quality and upkeep of the projector in question. Wouldn't a fully restored print of a film, assembled from all the best elements that could possibly be found also be irreparably damaged in this process you speak of? (shouldn't wet-gate polishing clean-ups be applied to the film *after* a company like Criterion works on them?)

I agree with you. I don't see how digitally restoring a film damages the original negative, nor precludes it from being preserved.

On the contrary.

What I see occurring is that companies such as Criterion, by digitally cleaning up a transfer, are raising the bar for the expectations we all have when we see a film. Having seen beautifully transfers, digitally restored DVDs, will audiences continue to put up with the murky prints that have been floating around of some classic films?

[Ted Todorov]

I agree with you. I don't see how digitally restoring a film damages the original negative, nor precludes it from being preserved.

On the contrary.

What I see occurring is that companies such as Criterion, by digitally cleaning up a transfer, are raising the bar for the expectations we all have when we see a film. Having seen beautifully transfers, digitally restored DVDs, will audiences continue to put up with the murky prints that have been floating around of some classic films?

Digitally restoring the film obviously can't damage the source elements. What can damage them, is the telecine -- the process of digitizing the celluloid, which obviously must be done as the first step of any transfer.

So far as murky film prints, my experience has been exactly the opposite. I have seen a ton of pristine prints (in places like the Film Forum and Walter Reade) for films with awful DVDs.

Examples: Wellspring produced beautiful new prints for Eric Rohmer (and plenty other directors') films in recent years. Their Rohmer, etc. DVDs on the other hand are just awful. And Wellspring is hardly unique in this department.

And even many new Criterions are preceded by screenings of beautiful prints of the films in question at the Film Forum, which by virtue of being 35mm film are clearly superior to the DVDs.

Ted

[Faux Hulot]

Criterion's transfer process is second to none. Facets ought to take note. They have been around as long as Criterion, yet they seem to have learned NOTHING in that time. Do they do ANY work on the 6th generation ran-though-the-projector-fifty-times prints they happen to lay their hands on? And their prices aren't low either. What's wrong with this picture - literally?

Nothing that can't be explained by run-of-the-mill greed and indifference. I've never worked for Facets but many of my friends have, and they all tell the same story about owner Milos Stehlik -- namely, that even though he has a genuine passion for cinema, he barely gives a rat's ass about quality or implementation so long as he makes a buck and keeps his doors open. I understand the plight of the long-struggling businessman, but it's a real shame that he can't understand the long-term repercussions of his actions.

One filmmaker I know was so angry at Facets' poorly handled DVD transfer of his films that he's never worked with them since. I don't mention any of this because I have any personal grudge or vendetta with Milos (despite a couple of arguments at his theater regarding their notoriously piss-poor projection); I just wish there was enough public outcry abut his methods that it would embarrass him into cleaning up his act vis-a-vis being custodian of some very valuable cinematic assets.

[kschell]

So far as murky film prints, my experience has been exactly the opposite. I have seen a ton of pristine prints (in places like the Film Forum and Walter Reade) for films with awful DVDs.

Ted,

Actually I think we're agreeing.

My point wasn't that *all* films released on DVD are well-mastered... (far from it)

Rather, the fine work by Criterion and a few other companies has raised our expectaions for both DVDs and for screen films. It's made us all more aware of image quality (or lack of it). It's made us less willing to put up with a mediocre image, on screen or DVD.

Cheers

Ken

[colinr0380]

Yes I guess it was very difficult to even see the films unless some cinema or TV scheduler decided to put it on and I remember being so glad to even get to see some films that I both overlooked the shoddy quality at a showing (or all the 1.85:1 croppings of 2.35:1 films and advert breaks on television) and then looked back on it very fondly as a very successful showing! A number of the films that I saw in different ways have suprised me by how the restoration improved them, so I think it is a testament to the quality of some films that they can shine through terrible transfers!

I'm still constantly amazed by being able to get a beautiful paused image, cycle through the film faster than I ever could with VHS, remove or change the language of subtitles whenever I wish and get 5.1 and DTS sound if appropriate! Just five years or so ago I was incredibly grateful just for an edited, cropped, fixed subtitle (of course!) print being shown on television with all the credits spoken over to advertise other programmes!

I feel much more in control of my own viewing (even though there are still many films unavailable to me) than I ever did - although I'm worried that being this excited about my current situation if I ever got satellite television and all the choice that might give me I'd probably explode!

[Kristoffer4]

A bit of topic but how does the DVNR compare to Lowry digital, who in my opinion have done some of the best remasteres ever.