Tweet WWII color film preservation

Just about WWII color films used for some documentaries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u8CUHAu ... ure=relmfu

But I think it was a bit weird, the preservation they did. Cleaning the films with only a flannel, and just projecting and shooting withn a digital camera, claiming it was preserved in 4K resolution.

The mentioned Red Camera... I don't know much about, but is used for shooting digital live action, and not for scanning. I know a true 4K film scanner it's large, very expansive, and it's not justb a camera recording a projected image.

Well, better than nothing. I do not criticize the effort for save these films. Better than nothing. But a full restoration, with digital masters, would envolve a cleaning with more than a flannel, and use wet gate, to fill any scratches, and a true film scaner, and not just a digital camera recording a projected image.

Anyway the color films from WWII always looked soft or blurry (no up even to 2K resolution I think), and the colors always looked like aged color footage. Maybe the fact of be so old color emulsion, and such characterists are original from the films, and ahd always looked like that.
I ask if is possible to balance the color, using modern digital tools, to make the color very natural.

The fact of digital record a projected image, always add some extra softness to the alread soft footage.

Pixels are one thing... But what about dynamic range ? Can this Red Camera get all dynamic range from the films ? Did they use compression to store the image?
I a film is too contrast, and a contrast enhancement is proposed to recover details in shadows and highlights, the digital file need to have all dynamic range information from the film, and the digital file can have any compression with details loss.
Try enhance contrast a Blu ray screen capture, that is always compressed, and you will get artefacts.

Just about WWII color films used for some documentaries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u8CUHAu ... ure=relmfu

But I think it was a bit weird, the preservation they did. Cleaning the films with only a flannel, and just projecting and shooting withn a digital camera, claiming it was preserved in 4K resolution.

Filming the images instead of scanning each individual frame? It sounds to me they chose the cheapest way to recapture the images, to preserve the original quality was never in their minds.

[Mike Gebert]

Have you seen any of these programs?

The quality coming from substandard gauges is quite remarkable. I wouldn't criticize their methods given the result, though I'd criticize some of the colorization...

One thing is watch on TV. A 4K digital camera recording a well projected image will render a decent result for TV.
But true preservation needs to be more than that.

Supose a filmmaker decide to make a film about WWII, and intent toi use the footage and try to make it look clearer, adjusting the color, rescuing image hidden in the shadow and in the highlight from contrasting render of such early color emulsion. If the archival digital image it's not well made or if use compression similar to Blu Ray or JGP for separated frames, he will get artefacts while trying the adjusts to recover color and dynamic ranger.

I saw such documentaries onh TV too. All images, despite resonable clear of dirt for such old events, was all soft, not a single sharp image in the whole documentary. Just some of the B&W colorized footage, used in some documentaries, was sharp.

Also, 4K is not always real 4K. Depending of the the kind of image sensor it's need a 4K sensor to get a true 2K.
It's like a digital camera, if you get a older model which maximum resolution is 1200-900 pixels, it's have not the same quality than pícture shot with a camera with 2400 -1800 pixels that was converted by software to 1200-900 pixels.

But again, I really respect their effort trying to preserve. All effort is valid as long as do not damage the originals for a incomplete job.

Questions:

-Why almost all world war B&W footage looks always like generations away from camera negative, resulting in a very contrating print? Camera negatives or masters was throw away ???

-Why they do not enhance contrast, to get details in shadosw and hiughlights, to allow colorization have dynamic range to put good color ? ??
(colorization works bad in contrasting images)

I enhance some contrast image in Photoshop quite well, and sometimes even screen captures.

In cases budget is way short, I have elogies to such incomplete preservation approuch.

Many films are lost, even today, due lack of budget.
They say it's expansive to hire technicians to clean frame by frame meticulous the entire film; and Fine grains 35mm films it's expansive, and lab work are costly too.

Instead of let many films perish, why not digital record all the titles in imminent danger and with almost no budget for restoration?

I see people here posting quite good quality images from film srips, using just a digital camera and a light table (like the ones to watch X-ray radiography)

I think is possible to build a simple and cheap adapted film scanner, using peices of two cameras, or two projectors, and adapting a digital camera (like the ones used by tourists) to the gate of one projector. Projecting frame by frame to the digital camera sensor, and recording the files in a HD.
Just for films that would certainly perrish.