In My Image: Long lost back up tapes

[Scotness]

Years ago when I made In My Image (2001 I think) - I got all the K40 transferred by a Rank Cintel - which as you can imagine cost a bit - we had about 200 cartridges to do.

So anyway it was transferred to miniDV - the tapes then were $30 each - and rather stupidly I ended up taping over those tapes to shoot home movies etc, once I had transferred them to my PC.

So with a mixture on inexperience and a bad DV codec I ended up getting some compression artefacting that was quite evident in the final DVD.

So many times over those years I wished I hadn't taped over them so I could fix the artefacts -- well too my surprise my mother presented me with 8 miniDV tapes yesterday that are marked In My Image backups. I've got to borrow a minDV camera because my two are broken, but I'm pretty sure it's a back up I did of the original transfer that I had completely forgotten about.

It may not have the reshoot we did when Kodak refunded us for the jittery carts - but it may have -- anyway depending on what's there I might be able to put it out again with out all that artefacting which would be great.

The sound still needs alot of work though!!

Scot

[S8 Booster]

Well, that is always good news - then your opportunities for a good re-mix is available - wish you good luck and expect a lot of sweat in the process ... 8)

Shoot....8

[carllooper]

I have a MiniDV camera if you want to borrow it. Let me know. If you can pay for postage there and back, and treat it gently that will be fine by me. PM me with your details.

C

[Angus]

I watched "In My Image" again a few months ago. It's not without some problems but it's quite a compelling story and super 8 rarely looked so good.

[Will2]

I would suggest picking up a DVCAM Deck as they are crazy cheap now. I got a Sony DSR-45 with a tiny little monitor screen built in for $200 a year ago on eBay. That way you can play miniDV or DVCAM tapes both small and full size.

[Scotness]

Thanks Carl for the kind offer but I've borrowed one off a friend and have started transferring right now actually. I've had to resurrect an old laptop that has a firewire port in it too - the hard drive is dieing but hopefully will live long enough for this. If not I can get a firewire to USB adaptor.

Just by looking at the tapes now, it's individual takes with the audio synched to them. I don't think it's every take - but probably just each take that we ended up using in the movie. I'll have to see if it's all there - hopefully I've got Roger's plane shots too.

You're quite right about the problems Angus - it's mainly jitter and crappy audio. What I'm transferring now has some jitter on it - which is what I was hoping for actually because that means it's before I tried to stabilise it and I think it was in all those re-renders that the artefacting came in. I know I can do a better job now - with more experience and better software now.

The audio is a conundrum though - I just didn't appreciate how much camera sound was going to come through - just plain naivety on my part! At the time Roger said we should loop the whole film - I just couldn't bring myself to do that - but he was right. We could probably do some of it - but the other lead Joseph Regione has passed away, some people will be hard to find, or not want to do it -- I could get a whole new cast of voice actors - but is it worth it? Let alone how much time it would take to synch it. I could definitely do that atmos better now, and the general mix - so I might consider that.

But it's like polishing a turd isn't it! - It's only going to be so good - the directing is still pretty stilted and a bit theatrical or stagey and I can't change that now ~ I don't want to end up like George Lucas - constantly tinkering with something - but I would love to have it looking as good as it can - so when people see it they are thinking about the story and themes and not any of the technical deficiencies. And I am proud of the story and script I think all that is really good - and it is still the best fun I've ever had making a film -- so where to from here I'm not sure yet

Scot

[carllooper]

If I were remastering it I'd go back to the camera original and retransfer it and do a full colour grade on every single shot. But either way I'd make a new work rather than try to recreate some lost dream.

So I'd use the live sound despite the sound of the camera. Or rather, because of it. The camera sound will add a sense of reality to the shots (a different kind of reality from that normally understood). I'd completely rethink the film. Throw out the original script. For example, let out-takes play a big part. Include the head and/or tail of shots that would have otherwise been edited out. Completely rearrange the material. Experiment with the material towards a new film altogether rather than try to fullfill some notion of an original idea. ie. don't do a George Lucas on the work. Treat that which is not there as not there - forever not there. And treat that which is there as that which needs to be more there (rather than less). Treat the material as that which has it's own intelligence and how it can direct the work.

Two stories can emerge from this rethink. One which can be indicative of the films' original intent (some sort of fictional tale), and a second more robust one, that lets the reality of each shot have more of an influence on what is seemingly unfolding. To express something in addition to, or even against the original intent or script. Assemble the material out of order, in a more fragmentary way, with shots deliberately out of context, exploited for their peculiarity when out of context. Create a kind of surreal experience of something taking place: someone is making some sort of film, there is someone there in the shot acting out words from some lost script, they fluff a line, a clapper comes in during a retake, we start to experience the reality of what is taking place rather than some fictional story happening somewhere else. We become intrigued by the simple reality of what is there in front of us rather than whatever story is otherwise being created. The story becomes a kind of riddle to be solved. We start to get a sense of it but never see it directly - we infer that story, while simultaneously appreciating the far more compelling reality taking place in front of us.

To make some brand new poetry from the raw material.

C

[Scotness]

That's a brilliant idea Carl and I really like it - however I won't do it because all the worth that I wanted to get across is actually in the constructed narrative. But I really like the idea and it's quite brilliant - you robably couldn't get anyore post modern than what you are suggesting.

I had also over the years thought about getting an HD transfer - but that's probably overkill - I think SD and Super 8 are a pretty good match (maybe not for the Vision 3 stocks though) and then there's the question of the 16:9 framing - but maybe I could crop into that and see what it looks like - hopefully at SD res it wouldn't blow the grain or the pixels up too much -- we did have some vinjetting issues which this would sidestep of course!

Scot

[wado1942]

When it comes to digital anything, I learned the hard way that the keeping it safe entails multiple redundant copies across several different types media. My butt's been saved time & time again by analogue copies of digital projects as well.

Just by looking at the tapes now, it's individual takes with the audio synched to them. I don't think it's every take - but probably just each take that we ended up using in the movie.

Hopefully it's a clone of the originals and not recompressed.

You're quite right about the problems Angus - it's mainly jitter and crappy audio. What I'm transferring now has some jitter on it - which is what I was hoping for actually because that means it's before I tried to stabilise it and I think it was in all those re-renders that the artefacting came in. I know I can do a better job now - with more experience and better software now.

Hopefully, you can use loss-less intermediaries now instead of recompressing and use fewer intermediary generations. I started restoration of an old project a while ago that needed a lot of intermediaries and now coming back to it, I found I can do most of the job in two passes, so that should help the end quality quite a bit.

The audio is a conundrum though - I just didn't appreciate how much camera sound was going to come through - just plain naivety on my part! At the time Roger said we should loop the whole film - I just couldn't bring myself to do that - but he was right. We could probably do some of it - but the other lead Joseph Regione has passed away, some people will be hard to find, or not want to do it -- I could get a whole new cast of voice actors - but is it worth it? Let alone how much time it would take to synch it. I could definitely do that atmos better now, and the general mix - so I might consider that.

People's voices can change a lot in a few years. Besides, I hate when people rerecord stuff AFTER a movie has been finalized. Remix, fine, but don't change the recordings please (I'm looking at YOU James Cameron & George Lucas). I have a lot of experience with audio restoration, so I'd be happy to give a listen to your material and help you assess the situation.

the directing is still pretty stilted and a bit theatrical or stagey and I can't change that now

I've found small edits can make a big difference. In my aforementioned film restoration project, Just cutting around a line or trimming a few frames here & there can make the direction seem a lot better.

I had also over the years thought about getting an HD transfer - but that's probably overkill - I think SD and Super 8 are a pretty good match (maybe not for the Vision 3 stocks though) and then there's the question of the 16:9 framing - but maybe I could crop into that and see what it looks like
Scot

Vision3 is actually lower resolution than most other Kodak color stocks. Low grain comes at a cost so it has sharpening built into it to give the illusion of resolution. Reframing is another thing that bugs me in rereleases. It was shot for 4:3, so I don't think throwing away 25% of the image can make it better. Maybe if you did have it rescanned with as wide of a gate as possible, you could get away with losing less vertical information, but vignetting would still be a problem.

[Scotness]

Thanks for the offer to look at the audio - I'll send you a sample in due course - I think some of it you just cant' adequately EQ or noise reduce - but you'll know better than me.

I just had a look at some vision that I cropped on my medium size 16:9 TV and it actually looked pretty good - not too grainy, and the reframing wasn't too bad either.

Re the directing - you're right about the effects re-editing can have. This was the first film I ever made and it's full of all of those kinds of mistakes - and I've edited so many films since then - I'm a much better editor both technically and artistically - and I was thinking it would be a pain in the backside to recut shot for shot (even using the original premiere project files) so if I have actually got all the synched takes here I might just do a re-edit from scratch - it will be quicker and will result in a better end product because I'll be relating to the material more meaningfully, and allowing my improved skills to come into play.

By the way I'm going to use the huffyuv lossless codec for all the intermediates - I'm pretty sure what I've got on the tapes hasn't been recompressed - or if it has it's only one generation - but what I've seen so far isn't showing any artefacting. I'm on tape 4 out of 8 of them.

So anyway this is what I *might* do, assuming I have all the material:

- Transfer everything then convert from DV to huffyuv lossless codec
- Do an edit (bringing 8 hours down to 1.5)
Then only on the takes I'm using:
- Stabilise any jittery stuff
- Colour correct
- Crop to 16:9
Then look at the audio:
- Perhaps all of it will have to be looped
- Foley and atmos will actually be fun - I've got a much better range of microphones and recording units now than I did back then and it will be easy to get all of this stuff up to standard

And then voila all done ;-)

Is it worth it? Well the themes of the film are pretty good - and I'd like to have a vessell that shows them with out distracting people with the technica flaws - so it probably is - but man synching the ADR - blerrggh!

If I did it over a long period of time it would probably be tolerable!

Anyway we'll see once I've transferred all the tapes

Wado - your restoration project worked out alright?

Scot

[carllooper]

If it's just camera sound you want to take out there are filter techniques that can be used to filter it out (to varying degrees of success) while keeping the rest of the sound intact.

But if it's the performance you want to take out (and replace through ADR) that's a lot more work but really, to what end? Is it the same work if you have to replace it? Or if you have to replace it why insist on it being the "same" work? In what way can it be the same work? Personally I think concepts are the same thing as the material otherwise created. If a shot doesn't work the way it was created, then that means the corresponding concept also doesn't work. If the shot needs to be changed then so too does the concept. They are the same thing.

I find the simplicity of the work, it's staginess and rehersal like performances, is it's most important and compelling part. I wouldn't try to replace such. I think you'd just end up with yourself in a corner with no way out and nothing to show but an empty exercise. From where I stand the work isn't lacking anything at all. It's just a little obscured. It's not polish it needs - just cleaning. To wipe the dust off. This is, in itself, a lot of work. But it's work worth doing. Even if it reveals something you don't want to see. Or perhaps because it reveals something you don't want to see.

If you are going to add anything (as I was suggesting) add something new to it, ie. rather than trying to replace anything that is there with a fake version of such. Now by "fake" I don't mean things like foley and atmos - those things fall under the category of adding something new - a form of voice over but in a different language - the language of sounds.

So this isn't to suggest you can't take stuff out that you don't like. It's to suggest that if you do replace anything you do so with something conceptually new (not just materially new) - which does not need to be unrelated to the original intent, but isn't beholden to it. Not trapped by it.

C

[Paul Thrussell]

Looks like a very interesting film, hope to see it someday!

[wado1942]

Thanks for the offer to look at the audio - I'll send you a sample in due course - I think some of it you just cant' adequately EQ or noise reduce - but you'll know better than me.

I look forward to it. There's no replacement for capturing the audio well in the first place as you probably know, but a lot can be done with the right tools/operator when you're stuck with what you have.

- Transfer everything then convert from DV to huffyuv lossless codec

All that will do is take up drive space. You're in better shape editing directly from the sources. BTW, I used to use HuffYUV, but now use Logarith.

- Do an edit (bringing 8 hours down to 1.5)
Then only on the takes I'm using:
- Stabilise any jittery stuff
- Colour correct

Cool.

- Crop to 16:9

OK, but I wouldn't stick hard to that idea. 360 lines isn't a lot these days.

Then look at the audio:
- Perhaps all of it will have to be looped
- Foley and atmos will actually be fun - I've got a much better range of microphones and recording units now than I did back then and it will be easy to get all of this stuff up to standard

Yeah, and in no time! I've spent days/weeks on just 10-minute shorts when I have to do all the sound in post. It's only fun for the first few hours.

but man synching the ADR - blerrggh!

Sync is easy. Getting a convincing performance is the hard part!

Wado - your restoration project worked out alright?

Visually, yes, quite well. It looks better than it did on the original film thanks to a good transfer job done by Cine Post. I still haven't finished the audio because I've been trying to get the original actors to my studio to loop their parts and it isn't working. I'm just going to get other people to do it. The problem is that the original audio was an afterthought. It was the first film I shot (Super-8 black & white silent film) and mics were there just to capture dialogue so we could insert titles later. Well, the movie plays much better with sound, so we decided to keep it but the quality is poor and a lot of it is missing. I want to get it done before Halloween, so we'll see.

[Scotness]

If a shot doesn't work the way it was created, then that means the corresponding concept also doesn't work. If the shot needs to be changed then so too does the concept.

LOL no I think that's actually called 'Not Having the Ability to Pull It Off Correctly In the First Place'!!

From where I stand the work isn't lacking anything at all. It's just a little obscured

You're very kind in saying this ~ so you understand - I'm not trying to add anything new into it - and I've long ago accepted the unevenness of the performances in there as part of it - but I'm just trying to get the best presentation of what I was trying to achieve with the film - ie clean up what we've got really well - not go back in and actually put stuff in that wasn't there. So my motivation for the audio work is to clean up the camera noise, get good clean volume levels etc - not improve the performances (but I won't object if it does!).

All that will do is take up drive space. You're in better shape editing directly from the sources. BTW, I used to use HuffYUV, but now use Logarith.

It will take space but because it is lossless I won't get any artefacting when I run the video through multiple renders. I did with the microsoft DV SD codec - I've now got it in the Panasonic DV codec - but I'm not taking any chances. Hard drive space is cheap now - unlike when I first made the film.

OK, but I wouldn't stick hard to that idea. 360 lines isn't a lot these days.

Yes but luckily I'm in PAL land so I get a bit more - 720 x 405 = 16:9

Sync is easy. Getting a convincing performance is the hard part!

I always found it the other way - but I think my audio skills have improved a little so we'll see what happens.

If I go ahead with this it will just be a gradual project so it doesn't get in the way of other things I'm doing. I'm glad your restoration is going well despite some issues - were you shooting at sync speed? That could make it really hard if you weren't

Scot

[carllooper]

If a shot doesn't work the way it was created, then that means the corresponding concept also doesn't work. If the shot needs to be changed then so too does the concept.

LOL no I think that's actually called 'Not Having the Ability to Pull It Off Correctly In the First Place'!!

I'm being quite serious there. Its a conceptual or philosophical angle on things - a little difficult to comprehend, but by no means intended as a joke. Its based on the concept that there is a correlation between ideas (eg. expressed in words such as a script) and what one also does in practice (with camera, film, actors, etc) notwithstanding that the creation of ideas and writing scripts is also a practice. An important clarification here is that the correlations be understood as not causal. So the film will not be a function (or dysfunction) of the ideas, nor vice versa. Rather they will be in harmony or disharmony with each other.

The temporal order is also irrelevant. Ideas can precede the filmmaking (eg. writing a script) or occur afterwards (eg. an audience is in such a position). But one doesn't cause the other. Rather they are in a correlation with each other - acting in harmony or disharmony, without either being any more relevant, correct or truer than the other.

Currently it sounds like disharmony (between ideas and material) is that which has the upper hand. The ideas are to remain as fine, and the material less so. A Platonic vision of the universe in which ideas are pure and material only ever some inferior copy/instance of such.

An alternative but equally disharmonious approach is to treat the material as pure, and the ideas as less so.

A third option is to allow some harmony some input. The material can be considered in harmony with the ideas that went into it (authoring) and/or the ideas that can come out of it (audiencing) without requiring any distinction or decision be made between these two ways of comprehending the work: that they are, from the point of view of harmony, exactly the same thing.

Another way of saying this is that as long as you keep reading/writing the work as faulty, it will remain faulty, both materially and conceptually.

C