I point this out for those who dismiss the threat of good video. One problem I do have, though, is when I don't diffuse the sharpness a little the steps artifact. As Evans points out, video needs to get away from using lines and more to a random or semi-random grain structure to avoid such problems.

Is anyone else bothered that the railroad line in the first segment of the picture appears to be a 2 or 3 foot gauge and the later trains are more standard gauge? My other picky points on this film are 1. Sharif removing his headpiece and throwing it on the ground in disgust. That would be an offense to Allah, not to Lawrence. 2. The processing marks that show up in the sky as light vertical moving bands. I remember being surprised that this wasn't fixed in the otherwise amazing restoration.

quote:

---

I point this out for those who dismiss the threat of good video. One problem I do have, though, is when I don't diffuse the sharpness a little the steps artifact. As Evans points out, video needs to get away from using lines and more to a random or semi-random grain structure to avoid such problems.

---

It is best with DVD to find the correct sharpness setting so that no false high frequency information is being added (or more accurately, no boost is given to the high frequencies). This varies from set to set. On my set, the correct setting is to have the sharpness all the way down, believe it or not. On newer Sonys, the correct setting is approximately one third or one fourth of the way up. If your set has a way to turn off SVM (Scanning Velocity Modulation), turn it off, because it causes an effect similar to having the sharpness run up too high.

With DVD, using S-Video or Component video cables to get the highest quality picture possible, there is no reason to run the sharpness up higher than the "flat response" setting since doing so will often cause the artifacts from the MPEG2 compression to become noticeable.

With NTSC video, the "steps" artifacts are on any video source, analog or digital, due to the discrete nature of the signal in the vertical direction (480 visible scan lines). Analog video is a strange animal. It's continuous horizontally and discrete vertically. It wouldn't matter if you had a video format and a receiver that could both display in infinite number of "pixels" of information on each scan line. The limitation of 480 scan lines is a problem with NTSC.

Anyway, until some sort of HDTV version of DVD comes out, DVD's as they are now are the best home video movies you can get.

I just wish they'd made the anamorphic encoding always use all 480 scan lines, regardless of the aspect ratio, and required the players/sets to cope with figuring out the amount of unsqueeze/squeeze to apply. Doing it this way would have allowed scope movies to be encoded with 720 by 480 resolution rather than 720 by 357. It seems that at home, the flat ratio is always the one that is going to look better (with more image detail).

It may take several years, but I do think home video will eventually hurt movie theatres more than they do now. As larger, brighter, less expensive screens become available, more people will buy them and stay home more. Sound systems are already there, just waiting for the screens and picture quality to catch up.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site

quote:

---

It may take several years, but I do think home video will eventually hurt movie theatres more than they do now. As larger, brighter, less expensive screens become available, more people will buy them and stay home more.

---

Sad, but probably true.

By all accounts, the 35mm dye transfer prints really look great on a big screen. But I was originally wowed by the 70mm presentation of "Apocalypse Now" at the Century City Plitt theatre in LA in 1979. Think what a new 70mm Vision Premier print of "Apocalypse Now Redux" would look like on a huge, well-lit screen.

Nice and convenient as it is, a DVD on a home theatre screen won't even come close to the experience.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Progressive scan DVD players are becoming more common. I replaced my old glitched out Sony DVD player with a Pioneer DV-C603 model which features progressive scan output capability. I don't have a TV that does progressive scan yet though. One of these days I'll get the money together for a new widescreen digital TV.

Jerry, regarding the marks in the sky in Lawrence go they came oh so close to completely loosing the camera neg for that film, due mostly to studio assholes engauging in studio politics. Something like two more weeks and the film would no longer exist! As it was the stuff was comming apart while they were making the seps or printing interpositive or whatever they had to do with the neg to bring it back. It is quite amazing that it survived at all and that it looks as good as it does. It is a great tribute to Bob Harris's abilities and I'm sure that restoring that film was the high point in his life's work. I suppose it could have been digitally redone but it was not that big of deal. There were also other minor visible problems as well.
Mark @ GTS

Also, I've heard rumors of the "near death" of Lawrence, but I don't have the full story. Any sources that you recommend?

Not to imply that RAH, Katz, and company are digital-phobic. They've used digital technology to pick up where chemical/optical restoration left off. Two examples I can think of right away are the famous Grace Kelly/Jimmy Stewart kiss scene in Rear Window and the substantial chunks of My Fair Lady that had deteriorated too much to be saved chemically.

However, IMHO, digital restoration should be left as a last resort. I saw the restoration of A Hard Day's Night and was very annoyed by the pixellation. The contrast also left something to be desired. That negative is pretty much gone, so unfortunately the digital version is the one we're stuck with.

------------------
Tao Yue
MIT '04: Course VI-2, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Projectionist, MIT Lecture Series Committee

 |  IP: Logged

I suppose it'll be possible in a hundred years to go back and restore it again. So I should have heeded the maxim, "never say never." We'll be stuck with the digital version for a long time, but perhaps not forever if things are good. But for color films restored digitally, we may indeed be stuck with the digital restoration forever.

------------------
Tao Yue
MIT '04: Course VI-2, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Projectionist, MIT Lecture Series Committee

The end of the chapter about the reconstruction and restoration mentions a screening of the finished "work print" in Los Angeles on May 6, 1988. David Lean attended along with Steven Spielberg and some studio officials. According to the book...
---------------------------
After the screening, Harris set about making final changes and ordering new material to replace dupes or torn negative. He then put in a lab order that a 65mm 'preservation interpositive' be printed off the reassembled original negative. This 'interpositive' -- a low-contrast, fine-grain, positive color print -- is used to create a small number of duplicate negatives. It is these which are used to produce the positive 'prints' which are distributed to cinemas. This strategy prevents wear and tear on the original negative.

"As they began to produce the interpositive," Harris recalled with horror, "all of the splices started opening, the perforations began failing, and the negative surface started cracking up: it was starting to fall apart. We were down to the final weeks of life of the negative: it was starting to fall apart. The negative started self-destructing.

"There were very few rolls of negative that successfully produced an interpositive the first time through.

"One of the reasons that the original negative was in such bad shape, was that in the 60s, 70s, and even the early 80s the duping stocks were so bad that they had used the original negative to make theatrical prints. The negative had been run through a printer over 220 times."

Harris was forced to decide -- in each case -- whether to go to the separations, an alternate shot, or a trim piece, to replace the damaged material. What should have taken another week, took four more agonizing months.

Finally, in September 1988, the restored 'Director's Cut' of Lawrence of Arabia effectively existed.

Sir David Lean's lost masterpiece was ready to return to the cinema.
(copied from page 208)

---------------------

I think Columbia isn't alone among the studios in treating its classic films poorly. The reports I read about RAH's interest in The Alamo indicate that MGM/UA destroyed a pristine print of the film just to telecine it. It's enough to make you cry. See:
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2001-08-09/stuff.html

This is one reason why I do not support the current trend in copyright law of taking rights away from consumers and giving them to the copyright owner. Should the law really protect the right of a studio to willfully or negligently destroy a great work of art? Well, it does currently.