mhofmann wrote: ↑
Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:55 pm
The reviews seem to tiptoe around it, but I still think the transfer looks absolutely terrible compared to what would be possible with a halfway decent scan of a film of that vintage. Oh well, seems we're not getting anything better.
Talking about "a film of that vintage" is pretty meaningless in this context, because in terms of source medium Irréversible
isn't really a "film" as such - or rather, while it was originally shot on Super 16mm, the entire post-production workflow was carried out digitally at 2K, using twenty-year-old technology and algorithms, and all subsequent release versions (35mm, DVD, BD, you name it) ultimately came from the same digital interpositive. So in terms of the Indicator catalogue, the only really viable comparator is something like The Pillow Book
, which also betrays the limitations of the technology on which the post-production was carried out, and which also cannot be measurably improved without essentially reassembling the entire film from scratch.
tenia wrote: ↑
Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:05 pm
But yes, otherwise, a new scan would certainly have yielded a finer result, even simply at 2k.
A new scan of what
, though? Even if the original 16mm rushes survive, which is by no means a given, you'd have to redo the entire post-production, including re-rendering all the special effects (which include the seamless digital stitching-together of dozens of shots to create the impression of only a handful of very long ones). With the best will in the world, that simply isn't going to happen, any more than it's going to happen with The Pillow Book
- if it was a viable option, Noé would undoubtedly have taken it in 2019.