How 'Mission Impossible' Made the Leap To 4K and HDR (engadget.com) 51
In the run up to the release of Fallout, the new movie in the Mission Impossible franchise, Paramount studio re-released the entire Mission Impossible series on 4K Blu-ray last month. The new discs aren't only a huge upgrade for cinephiles -- they're also a fascinating glimpse at how studios can revive older films for the 4K/HDR era. Engadget: "In terms of any re-transfers or remastering that we are doing for our HDR releases, we will go back to the highest resolution source available," Kirsten Pielstick, manager of Paramount's digital mastering group, said in an interview. In the case of Mission Impossible 1 and 2, that involved scanning the original 35mm negatives in 4K/16-bit. As you'd expect, the studio tries to get the original artists involved with any remasters, especially with something like HDR, which allows for higher brightness and more nuanced black levels. Pielstick worked with the director of photography (DP) for the first Mission Impossible film, Stephen H. Burum, to make sure its noir-like palette stayed intact.
[...] "Our mastering philosophy here is always to work directly with the talent whenever possible, and use the new technology to enhance the movie, but always stay true to the intent of the movie," Pielstick said. "You're not going to want to make things brighter just because you can, if it's not the intent of how you were supposed to see things." [...] "You also have to remember that we're not putting in anything that didn't exist on the film [for HD remasters]," Pielstick added. "It was always there we just didn't have the ability to see it. So we're not adding anything new, we're not doing anything to increase those, we're just able to look at the negative in a much clearer way than we ever could before."
[...] "Our mastering philosophy here is always to work directly with the talent whenever possible, and use the new technology to enhance the movie, but always stay true to the intent of the movie," Pielstick said. "You're not going to want to make things brighter just because you can, if it's not the intent of how you were supposed to see things." [...] "You also have to remember that we're not putting in anything that didn't exist on the film [for HD remasters]," Pielstick added. "It was always there we just didn't have the ability to see it. So we're not adding anything new, we're not doing anything to increase those, we're just able to look at the negative in a much clearer way than we ever could before."
Mod up. (Score:2, Insightful)
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
A better headline would be helpful here (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A better headline would be helpful here (Score:4)
You mean the shot for 1960s TV, 240 lines of interlaced NTSC? I wonder if the original 35mm prints even still exist, much less how well they were maintained.
Converting that to something that didn't look like washed-out shit on a 4K screen would be a seriously impressive feat.
Re:A better headline would be helpful here (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the shot for 1960s TV, 240 lines of interlaced NTSC? I wonder if the original 35mm prints even still exist, much less how well they were maintained.
Shot for 1960's TV but on 35mm film by total pro's using excellent Mitchell cameras. Just like the original Star Trek, which was shot on the soundstage next door, on occasion with the same physical cameras. Dye fading and such could be an issue, but they should have plenty to go on, plus they don't have to rebuild all of the SFX as they did with TOS.
At least a much better chance that ten years newer, when everything had shifted to videotape.
Re: (Score:2)
Both were Desilu productions. They have an interesting history of being an independent production company formed by Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball. Many of their shows had relatively more expensive production values but they also were popular enough that when they went into syndication they turned into good profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You should see what they did with Star Trek TOS.
Re:A better headline would be helpful here (Score:4, Interesting)
The master prints certainly still exist, and like many classic shows the DVDs were "remastered in HD" back in the 00's so cleaned up digital HD transfers of the episodes do exist. I distinctly remember watching a few episodes in 1080p on Netflix back when they had the show years ago, I was dismayed but not entirely surprised when I looked at CBS All-Access last year and realized they only had the show streaming in standard definition even though they've got those HD masters kicking around somewhere.
Now whether any of the original negatives still exist, that's a whole other question. A positive print in good shape is great and all, but to really get the most out of remastering in 4K HDR I'd think they'd need those original negatives.
Re: (Score:1)
a seriously impressive feat.
Or an impossible mission?
If you choose to accept it.
Re:A better headline would be helpful here (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, when these were on Netflix it had good resolution. A lot of older shows were shot on film. You can often tell shows that were shot direct to video tape because they had a distinctly different look to them. It took awhile to make video cameras that looked decent, so you'd off odd optics, high persistence which smudged whatever was moving, and overall fuzziness. Twilight Zone did a few episodes with video instead of film (they were going over budget) and those really stick out because of the primitive video cameras used. I think video got stuck with an assumption that they were low quality even after they had improved, so shooting to film remained a standard for pre-recorded weekly television for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no complaints about the Mission Impossible episodes on Amazon Prime video.
https://i.imgur.com/p95qSV8.pn... [imgur.com]
note the fine pattern on the jacket doesn't become a swirly mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Remastered (Score:3, Informative)
That's a lot of words to basically say, they remastered something.
Re: Remastered (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot of words to basically say, they remastered something.
A bit more than that: "That's a lot of words to basically say, they remastered something since these worthless movies tend to get forgotten ; we remastered them to trigger some publicity and hope some people who don't know (yet) that even in 4K these movies are of no interest might open their wallet".
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot of words to basically say, they remastered something.
Good. Too long we have stupidfied ourselves by distilling a complicated process with highly varied results down to a single verb. We should be using a lot of words to describe complex processes.
Ouch... Right in the Lucas... (Score:5, Interesting)
4K is just a bit too much. (Score:3, Funny)
You can see all the thetans that Tom Cruise had to have removed after the film shoot.
Ugh (Score:5, Funny)
The thought of having to see that awful exploding helicopter jump in 4K HDR is terrifying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Phile (Score:3)
Mission Impossible
Cinephile
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
That's impossible (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I used to bulls-eye womp rats in my T16 back home, that aren't much bigger than 4k.
fascinating like? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than 4k, I'd love it if they released new and rescanned titled in 3D FullHD - whether originally shot in 3D or post-processed.
Re: (Score:1)
Rather than 4k I would prefer if they released something worth watching... just sayin...
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense (Score:3)
Film has low dynamic range, no matter how perfectly it's scanned
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong. Film is analog.
What are you responding to? Are you on the right thread?
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to what? 35mm film has a dynamic range of about 12-13 stops. That's in the order of 4000-8000:1 contrast ratio. Your typical cinema projector or TV for which the finals were mastered had a contrast ratio of 250:1 and the final masters were made with this in mind.
The original film has a much higher dynamic range than any final master of these old movies you have seen before, and a much higher dynamic range than any production produced to 8bit standards that pre-date the HDR specs.
SPAM Garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a fucking break,
Re: (Score:1)
Ugh. Man, what kind of paid advertisement shilling is this anyway?
Meanwhile, others have managed to actually contribute something of substance to the topic at hand, while you have decidedly not. Good show.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really??? no shit!! 35mm film can be scanned at 4K , my mind is fucking blown.
There is more to restoration and editing for 4K HDR release than the mechanical process of scanning the master print of a film or secondary sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh. Man, Give me a fucking break
There. I remastered your post. Looks a bit different than the original.
The new M:I movie is titled "Fallout"? (Score:4, Insightful)
So do we get to hear Tom Cruise say "War. War never changes."?
big whoop (Score:1)
Garbage movie for Garbage people
35mm is better than 4k (Score:2, Informative)
Not sure what the big whoop is. 35mm has just as good resolution than 4k, and if you take into account the compression that typically comes with 4k then 35mm would be superior.
But don't take my word for it, check out the comparisons: https://i.imgur.com/g8U62w3.png [imgur.com]
35mm is not better than 4k (Score:4, Insightful)
35mm Not As Good As 4k (Score:2)
4k Cinema is about 4096×2160, where 4k TV is 3840×2160. Comparing resolution is especially difficult because of quality of the film and the fact that the grain isn't linear like digital is.
Most higher end films used a film stock that is about the same resolution as 4k Cinema. Though even this is a bit of a misnomer because each grain is about 2x1 pixel