141 Children of Paradise

[triodelover]

Be that as it may, the Dark Energy process is distressing, both in the cleanup stage and in the ridiculous "regraining" second stage. This wasn't the right process for this restoration, because it removed so much sharp focus from the source material. The regraining did not put that sharpness back into play--how could it? They had already taken it all away.

I'm sure it is a question of what values you most want to keep from the original picture, but for me there's no contest: I would rather have crisp, sharp focus and the most depth-of-field possible in my blu-rays, and for that I'm willing to put up with flickers, pops, scratches, blotches, and--gasp!--grain.

I don't disagree with any of this and I in no way meant to suggest that what happened in the restoration and resultant BD was defensible. But, as Gregory pointed out, the 2002 DVD is rife with compression artifacts. The image may have more film grain, but detail is at best a draw, and no scene in the 2002 DVD has the depth of field of the long shot scenes on the Boulevard du Crime in the Blu. In addition, the audio is murky on the DVD, while on the BD it's crisp and clear. (As an aside, it escapes me why the audio seems to always be an afterthought in these discussions since surely it's as much a part of the illusion as the video.)

The sad thing is that no one expected to be having these kinds of discussions at all after the 4K resto. That we are is evidence enough that the resto and transfer to BD was badly botched. All I'm saying is that whichever choice you make you are choosing problems with your preferences and that there are reasons to prefer each option.

[feihong]

That's true. A lot of the more inferior blu-rays I have are in one way or another an improvement on their dvd alternatives. I think the problem is so often that they aren't enough of an improvement. So many Hong Kong movies suffer this way, and it's like it isn't worth it to upgrade them. Children of Paradise is such a ridiculous trade-off--one set of problems for another. And like you said, it shouldn't have been like this in the first place.

I do think though that, looking at the Dark Energy process demonstrations, it is kind of remarkable that anyone would think the result a serious improvement. The sloshy softness that results from the cleanup process is alone a terrible way of handling any film.

[matrixschmatrix]

It's frustrating actually to watch the blu- particularly on my projector setup, where it's a good six feet across- because there are some shots where you can really see how great the resto should be, with sharpness and crisp depth that lets you pick out every person in the carnival scenes outdoors. And then there will be a facial close up that's still watchable, but looks as if someone did the smear tool on Photoshop all over it. I personally think it's a worthwhile tradeoff from the DVD, but it should have been something on the order of Night of the Hunter.

[triodelover]

I do think though that, looking at the Dark Energy process demonstrations, it is kind of remarkable that anyone would think the result a serious improvement. The sloshy softness that results from the cleanup process is alone a terrible way of handling any film.

Unquestionably and it leaves one stunned that such was even considered. Who thought this was a good idea?

It's frustrating actually to watch the blu- particularly on my projector setup, where it's a good six feet across- because there are some shots where you can really see how great the resto should be, with sharpness and crisp depth that lets you pick out every person in the carnival scenes outdoors. And then there will be a facial close up that's still watchable, but looks as if someone did the smear tool on Photoshop all over it. I personally think it's a worthwhile tradeoff from the DVD, but it should have been something on the order of Night of the Hunter.

It's those scenes, however brief, coupled with what I think is a massively improved audio track, that will keep me watching the Blu (while I hold on to the DVD) until something better comes along, if it ever does. If all goes according to plan, 2013 will mark an update to the house that will include turning the 18' x 30' dedicated listening room downstairs into a long-awaited front projection set-up to accompany the big audio system. I hope I'll still feel the same way about this film (and many others) afterwards.

[Lance]

Hello all. My name is Lance, I am the CEO of Cinnafilm. Lots to digest here, so I will do my best to hopefully answer some of the critical feedback. Please bear with me, I am only human and some of these complaints are not easy to digest but I will certainly try. I do respect fully where these concerns come from, but i also think that not enough information is understood.

1. Keep in mind we can never really show what we do w our online videos - for years this has been a challenge - watching demos in any compressed format regardless of source will hide what we really do, perhaps better to go back to splitscreens. If you are judging our capability by that video online (which is mostly digital content anyhow not film), you realy have not seen what we are capable of. We have sat for thousands of hours in full size projection rooms and validated the science down to the mole on a shoulder with ARRI, Kodak and about everyone else who takes good images seriously. We do try to "wash away or mush things" - that is ludicrous.

2. We design software that is capable of not harming detail better than any denoiser out there; this is fact and I can back it with numbers and exmaples. our stuff has been used to do amazing work on a lot of projects you do not know about, we rarely get to tout our success. Even modern digital cinema. again, any toolset in the hands of someone who pushes images too far can result in problems, regardless. It would be like blaming Adobe for bad editing. I do not think they pushed it too far on this - I think that this is one of the few times that a full retexturing has been done and it is shocking because the original was so coarse in many places. no more shocking than the first few colorings, perhaps.

3. I am proud of what was done on this flim and stand behind the folks who did the work 100%; I got to see the 4K master at the Adademy in full resolution - I wonder if any of you have seen the uncompressed 4K master like this - and it looked fantastic! The folks who restored this had to work with the owners of the film on every shot, some shots were almost unsalvagable but they pulled it off. Some of the original print was in very bad shape, BTW. When you scan those old prints at higher resolutions (as opposed to what they used in 2002), the original grain and such can look terrible (IMO), like giant pools of rocks and that is not what the restorers wanted the viewers to experience. here is where I know I will shake the hornets nest; fact is, when they shot this during the war beind the Nazi's back (thank God they did, very courageous), they shot with what film and cameras they could at the time, and i promise if they could have used an Alexa instead of chunky B&W film stock they would have. The grain is a byproduct of the tools they had, and has nothing to do with artistic intent except in the rare cases where directors could leverage grain for mood. I do agree with that - but that is because they had no choice and leveraged what they could. the restoration invovled looking for a homogenous feel end to end, it appears. sometimes our tool is used to remove grain, then color, then lay it back down or model anew - the end result can be stunning. Either way cinnafilm has no creative control over how its software is used.

4. I love film and am a purist. I started Cinnafilm with the true goal to help out with the real problems that are out there, and helping independent filmmakers get a leg up. Fact is, there are problems with footage all over the place and sometimes old chunky grain is one of them. It eats up compression and can cause serious problems going to blue ray. My guess is you have seen some amazing restorations and it was done with our toolset, you just don't reazlie it. If I did not care I would not make an honest attempt here to try and answer some quesitons.

5. It is true that any toolset can be missused. I agree with that. But I can tell you that sharpness and perceived sharpness is something we work very hard on and know about full well - do not think we take it lightly. We train our users the best we are able. In the end it is up to them. I know how hard they worked on this, to restore it. I have worked with many folks who work painfully on this stuff, they have tools like surgical tools at their diposal - they do their best, then they present it. Sometimes it looks fantastic, sometimes it does not. Sometimes it is different and that is what annoys the most. I appreciate the concerns. Sometimes they are valid, sometimes they are only opinion.

Look, I appreciate where these comments come from, and I welcome feedback. I am here to try and answer quesitons to some extent because yes we really do care; believe in what I do. I will check back in a couple weeks.

PS - keep in mind some shots were fuzzy or mushy to begin with. When you remove grain, sadly you remove percieved detail but also you can remove detial that was not there before; the fuzziness stands out (if a slight out of focus had occured, for isntance) - perhaps the chunky grain hid that well and that is a good reason to have considered using a heavier regrain.

Thanks everyone!

[peerpee]

Lance, the fundamental problem is that you see nothing wrong with the whole idea of removing original film grain and then re-graining an entire film to "achieve an homogenous look". You see this as a solution, you think it works, and that it looks acceptable. A growing number of people in the industry know how damaging and foolish this approach is – I've discussed it at length with a number of restoration professionals including James White, who recently restored The Passion of Joan of Arc for Masters of Cinema, and they wholeheartedly agree.

Film grain *is* the image. Removing it from every frame is to lose valuable, irreplaceable detail in motion, which is exactly what has happened with CHILDREN OF PARADISE. As you have stated: "when you remove grain, sadly you remove perceived detail" – this is exactly the cause of everybody's problems with the Blu-ray.

Regraining it, using some computer generated faux-grain snowstorm bears NO RESEMBLANCE to what you've taken away. Film grain is uniquely rendered when the film is shot, and to think that grain can be magically re-applied later is an appalling error. It will give it a texture, but it is a fake texture with none of the magic of the original grain.

The whole idea of grain removal and re-graining is fundamentally flawed and a non-starter. I challenge you to name one B&W film that has been released on Blu-ray by a respected label to global applause which contains the level of grain removal and re-graining that CHILDREN OF PARADISE has unfortunately been lumbered with. There are none.

–--

Furthermore, to suggest that unless one has access to the finished projected 4K image, one can't really comment on the quality of the Blu-ray image, its sharpness (or "perceived sharpness"), grain replication, etc – is a complete red herring. If these traits are visible at 4K then they should be clearly apparent in the Blu-ray, no question about it.

You make it clear that Cinnafilm doesn't take responsibility for how their software is used, or "overused" by other companies, which implies you're shifting the blame back to Pathé for the distinctly unimpressed reception the CHILDREN OF PARADISE restoration has received globally.

[David M.]

Lance, thanks for coming in here. Your post is very interesting:

they shot with what film and cameras they could at the time, and i promise if they could have used an Alexa instead of chunky B&W film stock they would have. The grain is a byproduct of the tools they had, and has nothing to do with artistic intent except in the rare cases where directors could leverage grain for mood. I do agree with that - but that is because they had no choice and leveraged what they could.

That's a very surprising comment, especially given that you say you're a purist. How do you feel about colorizing old films?

I was under the impression that Les Enfants was a film steeped in history. It seems odd to suggest that that shouldn't extend to how it looks.

During a restoration project, assuming that the goal is to approximate the original camera negative, and some portions of it are too damaged and have to be pulled from lower-down sources, then I would understand careful use of degrain/regrain to level out the look, to integrate the lower-down sources with the OCN. But here, the look of the film is radically changed.

It eats up compression and can cause serious problems going to blue ray.

Respectfully, I'll have to disagree with that last point, as someone involved in compression work for BD myself.

Perhaps on a poor encoder, removing high frequency content and random motion will be beneficial. I don't think that goes for any of the encoders being used in professional disc production, though. "Pro-sumer" encoders and in-NLE encoders being used to produce BDs of wedding videos, perhaps

Given that BD has the luxuries of being originally designed for an outdated codec, with more efficient ones being added later *but* keeping the same high maximum bit rate, I don't see reproducing grain as that much of a challenge - however coarse it is. Yes, there are some cases, but removing film grain to save some time adjusting encoding parameters seems like a very harsh punishment. (Off topic, but I've actually found that removing the grain and producing a largely static image causes more compression problems, since it causes the bitrate allocation in some encoders to underestimate what's needed for a good visual result).

My guess is you have seen some amazing restorations and it was done with our toolset, you just don't reazlie it.

I don't doubt that for a second. It would be silly to bash the tools. As you say, anything can be misused.

[jsteffe]

This is the most frustrating dilemma I have yet encountered with a Blu-ray release. Reading this thread has convinced me not to purchase the new restoration of CHILDREN OF PARADISE, even though it is one of my favorite French films. Yes, in many ways the new restoration is obviously an improvement over the older DVD, and I can understand why others have elected to purchase it despite the flaws. For me personally, knowing how the restoration has been botched will inevitably spoil some of my enjoyment of the film whenever I watch the Blu-ray. Why should I spend money on this when there are so many titles out there which are more completely satisfying? It's not as if I can afford to purchase every Blu-ray that comes out, and there are many films that I love but don't own either on DVD or Blu-ray. The only consolation for me is that there is now a 4k scan that Pathé can return to someday and apply a better digital repair philosophy that preserves the integrity of the image, if they can ever face up to what has happened. However, I suspect that we're stuck with this version for a very long time.

[Norbie]

Honestly, I can't believe that anyone can think such a deadful grey-gradation can be the original look of the movie.
There are things where you can have doubts, like the contrast or luminosity. But not something like this, as for the poor level of details.
They have issued a 4K restoration (not only scan, but restoration), and it has less details than a 2K restoration issued from a 2K scan.

There is something instantly wrong when watching the movie.

Where can I find the 2k restoration that has more detail?

[peerpee]

I think tenia is talking generally, ie. about their 4K CHILDREN OF PARADISE scan having even less detail/texture/tonality than what you would expect from any number of 2K restorations of other films recently.

[feihong]

What is "chunky" black-and-white film stock?

[peerpee]

It's clear from viewing Cinnafilm's own demonstration video about Dark Energy that they treat film grain as noise – an undesirable problem that their software can reduce.

The problem is that the stills below do not tell the full story. Degraining removes irreplaceable valuable original information from the film which *in motion* help to give us more detail and depth than can be seen in a still. By removing the grain and smoothing out the image on all frames, you lose the powerful magical detail and depth that film grain offers in motion from frame to frame.

The following three images are taken from Cinnafilm's own demonstration video:

This first image, is a BEFORE image. It looks great. Proper grain structure. If only it could be left alone!

This second image shows how the removal of grain creates a waxiness to the image, completely denaturing the look of the original film, and restricting the perception of detail and depth, fixing it with a fake look.

This third image, is a zoom-in/detail (by Cinnafilm) to try and make the film grain section look worse. It highlights the waxiness of the Dark Energy version, which suffers greatly in motion because it now looks more like video than film.

Dark Energy tries to make film look like Red Digital Cinema – unfortunately, it succeeds in doing that, but very little else.

[TMDaines]

That's utterly atrocious. What an utter tragedy that important films, and even less important ones, have to be treated in this most disrespectful and roughshod manner.

[MichaelB]

Tangentially, this is also an excellent illustration of why framegrabs are a less than ideal method of gauging what a Blu-ray looks like in motion. Detail that might not be visible in a single frame thanks to the grain structure of that specific frame appears when multiple frames are run together.

[triodelover]

I think when we combine Lance's comments and Nick's demonstration (note to Lance: proper spelling enhances credibility), it's fairly clear that this is a company that is less about restoring films to their period-correct appearance than "improving" them to enhance (there's that word again) their acceptability to modern audiences (or at least what Cinnafilm opines is acceptable). The first clue was Lance's assertion that if given the option, Carné and his contemporaries would prefer a modern digital camera to that which was available to them at the time. While we'll never know what Marcel and friends might have chosen, the statement clearly infers that Cinnafilm (or at least it's CEO) operates under the mantra that modern is always better. Nick's demo seems to underscore that approach. While it's true that Cinnafilm cannot be responsible for the application of its tools in the hands of the end user, the Cinnafilm demo video that Nick took the grabs from could be taken as an indicator of how Cinnafilm feels one should employ their tools.

[jsteffe]

This first image, is a BEFORE image. It looks great. Proper grain structure. If only it could be left alone!

This second image shows how the removal of grain creates a waxiness to the image, completely denaturing the look of the original film, and restricting the perception of detail and depth, fixing it with a fake look.

Even with the usual caveat about the need to view an image in motion versus still frames, the amount of detail lost as a result is shocking. Her orange jacket has a clear herringbone pattern in the weave that has mostly disappeared as a result of the cleanup. How can this conceivably be a good thing?

I hope that in a few years, the injustice that Children of Paradise has endured can be righted. The Blu-ray of Patton was eventually fixed, so it can happen to Carné's film too. I'm willing to wait.

[zedz]

Tangentially, this is also an excellent illustration of why framegrabs are a less than ideal method of gauging what a Blu-ray looks like in motion. Detail that might not be visible in a single frame thanks to the grain structure of that specific frame appears when multiple frames are run together.

Exactly. In that third example that Nick posted, there's already more detail in the original image than in the de-grained one, but in the next shot there will also be more detail, and moreover, it will be different detail, so in motion the detail of the image will be compounded twenty-four times a second, whereas in the smoothed-over one, the detail of every single image will be reduced to the same, slightly fuzzy and waxy, base level, with none of that rich cumulative detail. Instead, what will be compounded in motion (at least in my experience of viewing overly de-grained transfers) will be that waxy artificiality.

[vsski]

This probably belongs in another thread and may have even been discussed at length eslewhere on this forum, but looking at especially the examples that Nick showed here and that even to a layman make the point extremely well, why is it that so many companies, from studios on both sides of the Atlantic to smaller independent licensors feel the necessity to remove grain?
The main argument I keep hearing over and over again is that modern audiences, who are accustomed to a more "digital" or "clean" look, want to see movies that way.
I for one don't know too many folks of these so called modern audiences who are even remotely interested in most of these classic films no matter what they look like. And in many cases the folks who perform the transfers are actually knowledgable about the issues of film restauration - or maybe because we have a few really great ones on this forum my view is biased.
So do these folks really don't know better, think it's a good idea, or do they get pressure from higher ups, who have no clue what film grain is all about and who believe for presumably business and monetary decisions it has to be removed?

I can't believe we are dealing with armies of bumbling fools who simply don't know better.
What is really at the heart of this?

[zedz]

I think it's a consequence of the general fetishization of new technologies, and in this instance of the digital image. We saw this expressed back during the HD-DVD / BluRay wars (remember those?) when various buffoons were saying things like, "why bother even releasing old movies that weren't even shot in HD in the first place on this shiny new format?"

Trying to make old films conform visually to the new digital paradigm is like touching up the Mona Lisa to make it look more like it was painted on velvet. ("Mmmm, velvet," enthuse the enthusiasts. "So. . . velvety.")

[peerpee]

In that third example that Nick posted, there's already more detail in the original image than in the de-grained one, but in the next shot there will also be more detail, and moreover, it will be different detail, so in motion the detail of the image will be compounded twenty-four times a second, whereas in the smoothed-over one, the detail of every single image will be reduced to the same, slightly fuzzy and waxy, base level, with none of that rich cumulative detail. Instead, what will be compounded in motion (at least in my experience of viewing overly de-grained transfers) will be that waxy artificiality.

Brilliantly put! That's exactly it.

[MichaelB]

Sight & Sound has just asked me for a 300-word review of the DVD and Blu-ray scene in 2012, and this was my opening paragraph:

For me, 2012‘s most important home video event was the publication of Nick Wrigley’s ‘Crimes Against the Grain’ in the December S&S, with its detailed and damning exposé of how and why certain digital “restorations” end up more like the notorious amateur retouching of Elias Garcia Martinez’ fresco ‘Ecce Homo’ than anything the films’ directors or cinematographers would recognise. This is cultural vandalism akin to panning and scanning, and needs to be just as vigorously opposed.

[peerpee]

Thanks very much, Michael. Glad you liked it. I don't know what the etiquette is about posting pdfs of full articles – it's only just been replaced at newsagents with the new issue – but it would be great to be able to post it somewhere.

[vsski]

Sorry for not having caught up with Sight and Sound, but thank you MichaelB for mentioning the article. I just read it and it is excellent. Anyone who is even remotely interested in all of this should read this well written and thought out article.
I don't know the forum etiquette either, but if it's allowed to link to the PDF I hope one of the moderators will do so.

To me revisionist film making and that is really what I would call most of this, when not done by the original author, is akin to copyright violations.

[jindianajonz]

Thanks very much, Michael. Glad you liked it. I don't know what the etiquette is about posting pdfs of full articles – it's only just been replaced at newsagents with the new issue – but it would be great to be able to post it somewhere.

I would never link to illegally posted articles, but you can often google things like this...

[tenia]

I think tenia is talking generally, ie. about their 4K CHILDREN OF PARADISE scan having even less detail/texture/tonality than what you would expect from any number of 2K restorations of other films recently.

Yes indeed, I was talking generally. You explain pretty well what I was wanting to say.