In My Image: Long lost back up tapes

[Scotness]

Yes but how do you factor in my intent when I made that film?

Scot

[carllooper]

Yes but how do you factor in my intent when I made that film? Scot

In terms of the proposition one would treat your intent, at the time the film was made (or rather at the time the film was shot), as no different from any intent you now possess or might subsequently possess, or that any audience reading the work, might understand as intended. In other words one treats the material as exactly that which was and will be intended - that anything else is always something that wasn't, isn't and never will be an intention/intended.

It's not a proposition one has to use to the exclusion of all others. It's just another tool in one's set of conceptual options. It's one that asks of the artist that they become a part of the universe, if only temporarily, rather than always as if separate from it. The artist intends the work as much the work "intends" them. That there is an equivalence operating there, or hiding somewhere waiting to be unearthed.

What is it that draws you back to this work?

There will be something in the work asking of you something. Certainly there is the stuff that will annoy you, that you will want to edit out. But there will be something else in the work that is asking something of you - that compels you to treat the work as not yet finished. And it won't be the work's assumed faults. It will be something else. A certain potential still lurking in the work waiting to be unleashed, that is not yet quite understood. A mystery of some sort hidden within both yourself and the universe.

Or perhaps not.

C

[wado1942]

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.

Oh, I definitely understand, and sure, use a loss-less CODEC for intermediaries etc. but merely copying to another CODEC before you even start is just a wasted step. If you import the DV files into your timeline, edit & do whatever else and render to HuffYUV, it will be visually the same and save time.

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

It was 18fps since it was intended to be a silent movie. The frame rate doesn't have any real influence over syncing the audio as long as one does their editing at 18fps. That's one thing I'm going differently on this pass. Previously, I wanted to convert the frame rate before I started, so that was several extra steps. The film was transferred to video speed up to 30 so it's progressive scan. Some shots were grossly underexposed due to a problem with the camera and the transfer facility compensated, but there's a lot of grain in those shots. I was applying Neat Video grain reduction to help those shots match the quality of the others, then exporting individual takes, then applying stabilization to reduce jitter in Virtualdub, slowing it to 18fps and converting to 24fps, then bringing it back into my editor for cutting & color correcting. This time, I'll be stabilizing first and slowing to 18fps in Virtualdub and doing everything else in a single pass at 18fps in the editor.

[avortex]

An HD transfer will give you a much superior quality that justifies the amount of work you have to make for reediting everything.
Otherwise, I think all the work involved is pointless, because HD is the minimum quality required these days...

Besides, you can make a DCP with your new HD master and screen the movie in any cinema ;)

My 2 cents!

[Scotness]

. It's one that asks of the artist that they become a part of the universe, if only temporarily, rather than always as if separate from it.

No I'm happy to be forcing this part of the universe here!

What is it that draws you back to this work?

I still think there's something special in the film which the final realised version failed to communicate - and I think now a rework could better communicate it

use a loss-less CODEC for intermediaries etc. but merely copying to another CODEC before you even start is just a wasted step. If you import the DV files into your timeline, edit & do whatever else and render to HuffYUV, it will be visually the same and save time.

Yeah worked this out too - so this is what I've been doing

It was 18fps since it was intended to be a silent movie. The frame rate doesn't have any real influence over syncing the audio as long as one does their editing at 18fps. That's one thing I'm going differently on this pass. Previously, I wanted to convert the frame rate before I started, so that was several extra steps. The film was transferred to video speed up to 30 so it's progressive scan. Some shots were grossly underexposed due to a problem with the camera and the transfer facility compensated, but there's a lot of grain in those shots. I was applying Neat Video grain reduction to help those shots match the quality of the others, then exporting individual takes, then applying stabilization to reduce jitter in Virtualdub, slowing it to 18fps and converting to 24fps, then bringing it back into my editor for cutting & color correcting. This time, I'll be stabilizing first and slowing to 18fps in Virtualdub and doing everything else in a single pass at 18fps in the editor.

Oh how I feel your pain! Good luck with it -- when I was asking about FPS I meant was crystal synched so it will be easier to synch with your recording. I've found Deshaker 3 in Virtualdub really good - it was only on version 1 when I first did In My Image

An HD transfer will give you a much superior quality that justifies the amount of work you have to make for reediting everything.
Otherwise, I think all the work involved is pointless, because HD is the minimum quality required these days...

Yep - you're spot on with this- and this I think is my biggest issue - I've been doing a bit of experimenting - and I need to crop to get 16:9, avoid some vinjetting and as a part of the stabilisation and it all means coming in a fair bit on the SD frame - so I'm seeing some jagged edges and pixelation -- I don't mind grain getting bigger, but I don't want this!

The only thing stopping me from an HD transfer is the cost - but I think it's better to hold off for that.....

Scot

[carllooper]

I still think there's something special in the film which the final realised version failed to communicate - and I think now a rework could better communicate it

Sounds good.

I think there are at least two aspects of any film. One is that aspect which communicates, in the same way one might say that a traffic light communicates: red for stop, green for go. The semiotic aspect. Or story. This aspect I find is not as important or fundamental as the other aspect. But others will disagree.

The other aspect of a film, which I find far more important, operates at an experiential level, where a colour such as red (for example) is not what it communicates (such as stop, or danger, etc) or fails to communicate, but the colour itself. Red. The physical sensation of such. It's visibility. It's observability. It's tangibility. If the blind from birth could see it would be that aspect of seeing which strikes them as a miracle. The miraculous. Music operates at the same level.

It is to this experiential aspect I find there is something about the work not yet fully realised. It is there in the material but not yet as clear it could be. It's not about communication as such. It's about that which precedes communication, inspires communication, creates the conditions for communication, but is not, in itself, communication. It operates in a different dimension. Not an invisible one but on the contrary - a dimension which is impossible to be anything but the visible (and audible). But it can be hidden. Masked. Occluded.

It is along these lines I'd be in agreement with avortex. Aim at getting a high quality HD transfer done out of respect for the original film that was shot. Not now of course, but later, when you're more prepared. Even just doing that would open your eyes to a work you never knew you had. Add to that each of the other technical considerations being discussed and it will be even more insightful.

And if there's something that requires a rework on the level of communication well that's something you can do as well as an added bonus.

C

[MovieStuff]

Regarding location sound and whether to keep it or replace it, the problem one faces isn't just about audio quality or camera noise. It's also about performance, timing, editing, pace, etc. There is an old saying, when making a movie, that if you can show it then don't say it because movies are a visual medium first and an audio medium second. That doesn't mean that audio isn't just as important as the visual but the audio should enhance the visual and the visual should not be hamstrung by the limitations of audio problems inherent in bad location sound. And bad location sound isn't just a bit of wind noise or camera noise or the unwanted jet passing overhead that spoils an otherwise okay take. Bad location sound can be generated by a lifeless read from an actor that otherwise looked great. Bad location sound can be an improper call by an inexperienced director on the intensity needed from the actors in a scene. Bad location sound can be any number of things that suddenly drive and determine how the picture is visually cut.

If you scrap the audio then you can edit the picture more freely, making cuts where they need to be cut and not where the audio dictates. It also gives neophyte actors a (welcomed) second chance at delivery and allows them to play the scene as it exists chronologically and not out of order as in location delivery. And it also allows the director the ability to rewrite dialog for any shots where the actor's face is not seen, which is INVALUABLE when addressing scenes that are too long or are missing narrative information vital to the audience.

But, here's the thing that makes looped audio so obvious and, to illustrate, I'm going to call attention to the RKO jungle set used in so many filmic adventures like King Kong, Tarzan, etc. The set has all the trappings of a real jungle; vines, trees, foliage, weeds, etc. But it always looks fake because the lighting is so perfect that it just screams artificiality. On the other hand, there was a movie called "Tarzen, the Legend of Greystoke" that also had an indoor jungle set but, when watching the movie, there was no sense it was fake and I only knew about it because of an article in a film magazine. What made the difference? It was all in the lighting. The cinematographer lit the jungle set with only one light; a huge brute arc over in one corner of the studio up high. There were other brutes in the other corners to mimic changes in the sun's direction but only one was used at one time. This created deep shadows and areas of pure black and there was zero attempt to use fill because, logically, if they were on a remote jungle location high in the mountains of Africa, then fill light would not be practical. So it was the imperfect lighting that made an artificial jungle set look like it was shot on location.

Likewise, looped audio often seems fake but not because the words don't match the lips. Indeed, in my days of doing film restoration, I can not tell you how many Hollywood movies that had location sound were way out of sync but you never noticed because the audio "sounded" right. But when a film is looped in a studio and the film maker can't resist having perfect studio quality sound, then you are back to the RKO jungle problem. So people watching a film that's been looped are first cued to a problem by what they hear and not what they see. The audio sounds fake and THEN they look to the lips to get confirmation with their eyes that it is, indeed, looped.

Because of this, I always suggest doing your looping in an environment that mimics the location in terms of acoustics when possible. If your scene was shot in a room with hardwood floors, then loop in that same type of room. If your actor has some distance from the camera, then position them accordingly if that is the kind of sound the scene demands. Do NOT put them 10 inches from the mic. Have them move like they do on the screen (within reason) so their body changes their breathing patterns. If the scene is outside, use padding on the walls and floor to dampen audio reflections but put some distance between them and the mic. Only bring them close if they appear close and if the scene calls for intimate sound.

And, most important to the audio is the sound design, foley work, etc. With even the best location audio, there is garbage noise in the track that you simply can not get rid of. It may be minimal but it is this subtle ingredient that, when missing, cues an audience to start looking to the lips for signs of looping. Ironically, resisting the urge to make your audio perfect you will go a long way towards making a believable sound track.

My two cents....

Roger

[carllooper]

Hi Scot,

something else you might consider is working towards an optical blowup of the original Super8 to 16mm. This would provide the closest thing to screening the original Super8 itself, but without the sound handicap of Super8. I think the fact that it was all shot on Super8 is the compelling aspect - if you can exploit that. By exploitation I don't mean in terms of communication or propaganda (hey look: a feature film shot on Super8), but in terms of the way celluloid film looks (regardless of gauge) - to flesh that look out - to exploit the full scope of that. The art of such.

I wouldn't worry about costs. The thing about costs is to reframe them as investments, ie. you aim at getting more back than you spend (return on investment), whether that be monetarily or by some other measure. The aimed at result is then a zero or negative cost. Furthermore, it's not you that needs to invest in the work (in terms of money). That's the role of investors. Although you could count yourself in there as well (why miss out!). From there you then pursue investors, for example, via crowd funding. Or get someone else to play that role - to play the role of a producer.

In the meantime you work with the miniDV, but only as a kind of practice run, or 'workprint'. Indeed you could use the miniDV to design a short test sequence for a blow up of the original Super8 to 16mm. Or just Super8 to digital for that matter. A proof of concept work. Or a work in progress work. And again, just throw out calls for investors to fund such. And/or invest in such yourself.

The apparent costs just cancel out.

And don't respond with the films not good enough, or that it's a turd. For one thing investors won't be interested in investing in a turd. And secondly it is not a turd in the first place. That idea is just something that the mass communication/propaganda machine might like you to believe (or can't help but believe). And so much so that you can easily become convinced that you, yourself, are the centre and origin of that idea. Or otherwise you are, but either way that idea is something to be cut up into little peices and recycled as rat poison.

C

ps. if you do pursue looping, Roger's suggestions on such is a great way of doing it - otherwise you'd have to painstakingly add in all the environmental acoustics, and even then it can easily fail. On the other hand sometimes that can work quite well. Or be a lot of fun. An art in itself. Especially if you have some good sound tools and skills. You can put the sound through filters that reconstruct what the sound would sound like in specified environments - small room, large hall, outdoors, etc. The art of simulation.

But it depends on what you are after. There is something "fake" about looping regardless of how convincing or not it might be. A lot of things occur under the hood (below consciousness) where they take a while to become conscious, but when they do there can be a kind of deeper discontent than any one might have felt for the original sound. But it all depends. Sometimes you just have to experiment to find out what works. Now fakeness itself is not a problem. Or raher it depends on what one means by such. I saw a brilliant work once, shot on Super8 Tri-X, where the performers were in a locked off shot of a car interior, with the exterior rear projected, and the soundtrack was some 40's melodrama to which the actors mimed. It was the overt 'fakeness' itself that was compelling. Instead of trying to convince us of some idealised concept of reality it was the sheer visibility of what they were doing that was far more real/compelling than anything that might have otherwise "convinced" us of anything. But of course that's a very different work. But the point being made is that there isn't necessarily any rules here. Or that rules can be easily broken, and in quite stunning and compelling ways. None of which should be assumed to automatically compromise any narrative level to the work. There are ways of breaking rules that work, and others that are just lame. And the same can be said about sticking to the rules. There are ways of following rules that are lame and other's that are not.

[S8 Booster]

or you can do it the Italian way.

i have always been fancified by the italian/italian no sync dub on their films.
kind of adds, something but i do not know what.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9UtJ4nFAEk

this is just a sample. there are notoriously worse....

shoot....

[carllooper]

or you can do it the Italian way.

i have always been fancified by the italian/italian no sync dub on their films.
kind of adds, something but i do not know what.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9UtJ4nFAEk

this is just a sample. there are notoriously worse....

shoot....

Yes, that begins with Italian neo-realism, which was very interesting insofar as they did indeed employ dubbing. The work was actually shot with that already understood. The reasons had their basis in an economic and social reality where it was cheaper and simpler to dub the vision. Or rather: to do the sound in a separate take (without the camera). Neo-realism was a very grass-roots kind of filmmaking. What kind of film could be hobbled together given no budget, no star system, no studios, a ruined reality (post war Italy) etc. but where none of these things would be treated as an obstacle - on the contrary - where each of these obstacles would be understood as the very substance from which a film would be created. To make a virtue of such. To see and make what the studio system could not possibly imagine. Here it was not a case of repairing or replacing some performance considered underwhelming (oh to have such luxury), but the very means by which the performance and film would make contact with each other in the first place. Reality became something aimed at rather than presupposed. An effect rather than a cause. The vision and sound are done separately and then brought together. Fusion power. It doesn't even matter (as Roger pointed out) whether it's in sync.

The simplest way to employ such a method or obtain such a result (consistent with Roger's suggestions) is to record the sound in the same location, but also on the same day as one is otherwise shooting the vision. When one is already there in the heart of it with the performers. Where you don't have any of the constraints imposed by a particular camera setup and you have everything else.

Even when doing sync sound there is something that is important here. It is said that when Woody Allen is directing he is not looking through a camera viewfinder, or at a video assist screen, or even directly at a performance as it's being shot. Rather he is turned away listening to the performance as it comes over the sound channel. If a Woody Allen film is also visually spectacular it is because, he says, that's what he hires and trusts the DP to do! Whether a myth or otherwise (whether you like Allen or not) there is a truth to be found in such. The sound, without the distraction of vision, is that which tells you whether you really are achieving an aimed at performance. The vision won't ever contradict that. If the vision is less than successful it will only ever be for other reasons - eg. the camera fell over during a take.

C

[woods01]

Carl and others have given you some solid advice. I havn't seen your film but I personally feel that you're polishing a turd. Almost all artists are unhappy with their early work, even when it was exception. Some painters revisit a work and make touch ups or make a new work based on the same subject. With more technical mediums like film and music the temptation to tinker is even greater. For example there is the unnecessary alternate mix of the Beatles ironically titled "Let It Be" album. So Phil Spector wasn't George Martin but album exists as a document of where they were at musically and mentally at that time of release. The remix is just different not really better. And then of course George Lucas wasted years of his life tinkering with Star Wars. Yeah, some of those old effects are pretty bad but overall it was just fine and the weak shots felt at home with what was 1970s technology trying to create a fantasy world.

So having said that and come late to the conversation you are now already reviewing your old material. My question is what do you want to get out of this restoration? Is this film what you think is the pinnacle of your life's work? Would an HD remaster with a spiffed up soundtrack improve the chances of it getting a wider audience than it did in its original form? Is this film worth the time and money, or are you better off working on something new?

If you're going to polish a turd then I argue do it right and concede that you will need to invest time and money on it. If you do it half assed then you are wasting your time. Fix the problems and bring the film up to 2014 standards. The hardest part about this is that you have months of work to do and will need to maintain excitement and interest in an old project while being tempted to start something new and fresh.

Identify your chosen takes, splice them from the master reels and get your selected takes to HD or 2K. With your Kodachrome I feel your film will look fantastic in HD and you may be pleasantly surprised by what you can do with the underexposed shots with a new transfer. I'd argue go for a 2K, for your jitter issues and even just so you are free to decide to make a 16x9 crop or keep it 4x3. I bet it will look better in 16x9. With your more developed eye, I bet you can improve your framings with the freedom to zoom in on a 2K.

Lastly loop the whole movie. Even if it means different actors or even a whole new cast. You aren't the first filmmaker to do this. I'd argue that you might be able to find better actors and improve the dialogue. Yes, thats a ton of work but you will also find the re-editing interesting because you are no longer bound to the audio, which should lead to improved visual style and a less orthodox approach to the final sound mix.

Its not an easy path to return to an old work but if the film means something to you then its the right choice. I wish you the best in this process!

John

[Scotness]

Hi guys thanks for all your feedback - there's some really good advice in there - thanks for taking the time to share. I've had a cold for the last few days so have been reading but not writing! Anyway I think I'll do it - but the main factors will be (as Roger pointed out) editing in a new way - not bound by the previous problems -- and I think with a bit of distance to it too I can cut some more. So anyway I'll keep you all informed

Scot

[MovieStuff]

Yeah, some tough love cutting and some more establishing shots combined with a new sound track would probably do a lot. Good luck!

Roger

[carllooper]

As you'll no doubt surmise, from what I've written, I think the work has a lot of buried potential, not yet realised. And from what you've also said, so do you, if in a way that will be very different from what I might be imagining.

In any case I'd propose a Pozzible crowd funding campaign be developed (the Australian equivalent of KickStarter).

http://www.pozible.com/create?utm_sourc ... ign=search

A small one to start with: to fund a proof of concept work - a short blowup, or 2K transfer (or even 4K transfer) of some key sequence or sequences, along with all of the techniques discussed (looping, atmos, foley, music, editing etc). I'd certainly put myself down as an investor in such. If only out of sheer curiosity as to what you might do. The proposed sequence doesn't have to be very long. Just something that demonstrates where it might subsequently go. On the basis of that one can then launch a more ambitious one, be it another sequence of longer length or indeed the work as a whole, all of which can be foreshadowed in the first proposal.

But I wouldn't put up on the crowd funding site anything from the previous version. Two reasons: one is that such can easily prejudice the new one being envisaged and proposed. And two - it can lock you down too much in terms of what you might like to do once you have funding. You might want to do something completely different instead. There is the spectre of expectations you can end up inadvertently manufacturing, that can circle back around and trap you into doing something you didn't want to do or indeed, shouldn't do. Keep it open ended. If you need any images on the site just use any behind the scenes photography you did on location during the shoot. Contextual information. The work to be funded doesn't yet exist, so there is no way to show that work - one can only describe it, and only in general terms, because until it exists it is only ever a vision, a precognition, a set of possibilities. It is only the work itself (that which is to be funded) that will eventually resolve that vision.

Carl

[Scotness]

In any case I'd propose a Pozzible crowd funding campaign be developed (the Australian equivalent of KickStarter).

http://www.pozible.com/create?utm_sourc ... ign=search

Carl that's a really good idea - I'd have nothing to lose out of that -- will give it alot of thought

Yeah, some tough love cutting and some more establishing shots combined with a new sound track would probably do a lot. Good luck!

Yeah funny thing is in 2007 I went to New Guinea to shoot a doco - all on HDV though ~ but maybe I could use some of that stuff. Geez I've still got a 4008 ZMII maybe I could grab a few more establishing shots!!

MilesandJules who only live about an hour away from me have offered to transfer the film on their Retro 8 at a discount price - we're going to do one real as a test and then I'll make up my mind. Too bad we can't do a full 1920x1080 transfer on it, but for super 8 I don't think that will really matter -- it'll be better than SD miniDV anyway. If I do get underway with this Roger you might like to chuck that aeroplane footage through Retro 8 at your place Roger!!

Scot