- This topic has 4 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 2 days ago by
.
-
Topic
-
Perhaps it’s a bit odd question, but i’m curious about which version of a movie you usually prefer (if different versions are available, of course) , the original “vintage” movie with all the technical limitations of the time or a new digitally restored version?
If i remember correctly i read that Roger was involved in the digital restoration of some of his movies (1984 perhaps? i apologize but i don’t remember exactly which ones) , so i could infer that you see it as a positive thing. And the devices on which we see movies changed and improved of course.
But sometimes if feel like the movie lost something with the restoration, that vintage flawed feel that perhaps was part of its charm. Before i attract Roger’s wrath, i’m not asking about digital vs film cinema, ah ah! While I appreciate different editing versions (like a “Director’s cut” for example : in that case i prefer the final version approved and created by the director and not the studio), a digitally restored old movie that was shot on film sometimes seems very nice, very perfect but also very cold and lifeless when digitally restored, polished, re-scanned, etc etc.
I am not talking about Roger’s movies, i just watched the restored version of an old b/w movie and it looked very polished but a bit fake. Or a more recent movie i love that was restored , re-exposed, re-colored and…it’s a different movie. Somehow i prefer the old bugged version. It’s the one i was used to and it’s the one i absolutely loved and admired.
Is it a common feeling or am i the strange one as usual?
-
Replies
-
I agree. There is a balance between restoration and “invention”. I try to get as close to the original intent of a film as possible. That does not include manipulating the color or the grain, other than when a sub standard optical can be refined to be less of a distraction. I don’t see that removing scratches, hairs in the gate, etc. is altering the original look of a film although it actually is!
I just like both versions. I love the look of old, unrestored films with all the specks and dust and I love the restored version that looks like it was filmed yesterday. Both have their own charms.
What i find interesting it’s why are we so charmed by that look, the one digital images miss and we try to recreate in post production. Perhaps is it because it’s linked to childhood memories? I think that there’s some kind of imprinting that creates that “film look” idea. I was a child in the eighties and the first movie i remember at a cinema was The Last Crusade, so to me reading the words “film look” makes me think to Indiana Jones instinctively.
PS:
Welcome!
I don’t know if the bug still exist but if you need to edit a post uncheck the “keep log” under the form before submitting the editing or it could block the post and stuck you account for a while. It solved the problem for me at least!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.