contrast in War of the worlds

[Filip Plesha]

The film has quite a contrast, both on DVD and in cinema (as I remember)

 

Since as far as I know, they didn't do a DI on that film, how did they treat the image like that?

Is it pushed or skip bleach, or something else?

[Keith Mottram]

The film has quite a contrast, both on DVD and in cinema (as I remember)

 

Since as far as I know, they didn't do a DI on that film, how did they treat the image like that?

Is it pushed or skip bleach, or something else?

 

It did go through a bleach bypass.

 

Keith

[Filip Plesha]

On the prints or "preprint" material?

 

I remember, while It did look contrasty, it didn't have the blacks (like Alien ressurection for example), looked more like when you look at a high contrast film on TV (contrasty, but not that much density)

[David Mullen ASC]

The theatrical prints used a silver retention process (not full skip-bleach, but some level of ENR or ACE, depending on whether Technicolor or Deluxe made the prints.)

 

The home video transfer used a low-con print, rumor has it, rather than an IP, because there is more grain and contrast in the low-con print (I don't think he bothered though to do any silver retention process to it though).

 

I think Kaminski feels that a transfer from an IP looks too clean and clinical, so the low-con print gets him closer to the harshness, grittiness, and softness of the theatrical ENR prints. I believe the final transfers for "A.I.", "Minority Report", and "War of the Worlds" were all done this way; I don't know about "The Terminal" since that movie went through a D.I. and doesn't have that gritty look.

 

It's a bit confusing because the term "low-con print" implies that it must be lower in contrast than an IP/IN, but it isn't. An IP or IN is closer to the contrast of the OCN, whereas a low-con print is a notch less contrasty than a theatrical print. Low-con prints tend to be less sharp than an IP since they are made on a continuous contact printer (like prints), not a pin-registered printer.

[Filip Plesha]

Now that you mention it, the DVD really did look a lot like a film print. Not just in contrast, but the general tonality of the print (the way highlights behave as oposed to regular transfers), very interesting.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

It's a bit confusing because the term "low-con print" implies that it must be lower in contrast than an IP/IN, but it isn't. An IP or IN is closer to the contrast of the OCN, whereas a low-con print is a notch less contrasty than a theatrical print. Low-con prints tend to be less sharp than an IP since they are made on a continuous contact printer (like prints), not a pin-registered printer.

 

---A projected low-con print has startlingly weak blacks.

 

The lab I was at made all of their I/Ps on a continuous contact printer, then I/Ns from those.

 

Many of these I/Ps were for MGM and Sony transfers.

 

Often I'd get I/Ps and I/Ns which had KS positive perfs. Even on I/N replacement sections for damaged OCNs.

 

---LV