Yeah, I was doing a Coop-style endurance session, I think – 22 hours without sleep. That post was bit verbose and repetitive to say the very least! I hate it when I've written something and someone reads what I wrote completely the opposite way from what I intended. It's a lesson to me to write more clearly. Sometimes, unthinkingly as someone working in the business, I just tend to write something on the assumption that people know the technical bits, which they might not, so it's kind of weird to have someone 'mansplain' aspects of my own job back to me!! Much better for a few hours' sleep now!!
Yeah, I was doing a Coop-style endurance session, I think – 22 hours without sleep. That post was bit verbose and repetitive to say the very least! I hate it when I've written something and someone reads what I wrote completely the opposite way from what I intended. It's a lesson to me to write more clearly. Sometimes, unthinkingly as someone working in the business, I just tend to write something on the assumption that people know the technical bits, which they might not, so it's kind of weird to have someone 'mansplain' aspects of my own job back to me!! Much better for a few hours' sleep now!!
First: Disappointed. I would bet that David Lynch was not the impetus behind these designs.
Second: Conservative approach. That's probably a good thing on two fronts. They've decided not to try to be edgy, hip and 'fresh,' at the risk of turning off the older fans and it looks like David Lynch is not being a control freak. (I like David Lynch in total control (fave is Eraserhead)---but I think that would bode badly for the success of the project.)
All of this reminds me of my initial torn feelings about the new Twin Peaks. As much as we (hardcore Lynch fans) were ecstatic that David Lynch is said to be directing every episode, there was something very beautiful in the fact that other, often younger, directors got to share in the magic of Twin Peaks. Can you imagine how exciting that must have been in the early days of Twin Peaks for a new director to get to be involved in something so magical? I came to this thought after I saw this section of this "Making of" extra feature... Fwd to 35:56. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnGWE2qz4ZQ[/youtube] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnGWE2qz4ZQ
For me, if David Lynch was just around the set to influence things, I'd be happy to see guest directors. I wonder if we will see assistant directors heavily involved for portions of the new season?
SpookyDollhouse wrote:
The pilot and series are not "SD." The original series was presented and transferred "in HD" from film elements with a digital resolution of approximately 4k. "More aggressive color grading" doesn't make any sense, and changing it just to change it wouldn't add to the experience imo. The pilot was shot under certain conditions as were a majority of the episodes. There's a reason they all look a bit different and they've thankfully honored that.
What I'm saying is that Twin Peaks was mastered and broadcast in SD originally. It doesn't matter that it was shot on 35mm film or what the potential pixel density of 35mm film in a broadly analogue tape era was; it was still finished in interlaced standard definition and transmitted in interlaced SD. SD is inevitably more forgiving of variations than HD because of its lower quality. The picture is sufficiently lacking in definition, especially in NTSC, that shadows cast on the ground by sunny weather, for example, are far less clearly defined than in 1080p, meaning the differences between stock shots and location shots are less obvious. When you bump your source material up to 1080p from what was previously transferred on 525i or 625i, creating a new master from the negatives, the improvement is drastic, but, like I say, it's also unforgiving. You only have to look at the disaster of Buffy the Vampire Slayer upgraded to HD to know what a sloppy job on the upgrade can do.
But they didn't transfer it from SD elements for the Bluray release, they transferred it from the original film elements which are, if we're gonna use buzzwords here, technically "UHD." It's an upgrade in a sense from what's been offered before, but it's not an upgrade of the source material. If you're talking about the Buffy movie, that was transferred warts & all inherent to the original production and at least it wasn't digitally manipulated to death. (for example aggressive denoising which, imo, is one of the worst things you can do to photographed material)
What I'm saying is with the flexibility and look you get with film, it'd look the same if not better (ymmv) from an aesthetic and definition standpoint cuz it'd be transferred digitally anyway. Definitely not worse. It'd only cost more and take more time which is why they shot digital and not to mention Lynch's further love of shooting that way for said ease.
First: Disappointed. I would bet that David Lynch was not the impetus behind these designs.
Second: Conservative approach. That's probably a good thing on two fronts. They've decided not to try to be edgy, hip and 'fresh,' at the risk of turning off the older fans and it looks like David Lynch is not being a control freak. (I like David Lynch in total control (fave is Eraserhead)---but I think that would bode badly for the success of the project.)
All of this reminds me of my initial torn feelings about the new Twin Peaks. As much as we (hardcore Lynch fans) were ecstatic that David Lynch is said to be directing every episode, there was something very beautiful in the fact that other, often younger, directors got to share in the magic of Twin Peaks. Can you imagine how exciting that must have been in the early days of Twin Peaks for a new director to get to be involved in something so magical? I came to this thought after I saw this section of this "Making of" extra feature... Fwd to 35:56. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnGWE2qz4ZQ[/youtube] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnGWE2qz4ZQ
For me, if David Lynch was just around the set to influence things, I'd be happy to see guest directors. I wonder if we will see assistant directors heavily involved for portions of the new season?
Well I may have good news for you then. I have heard a rumor that Diane Keaton may brought aboard to do some re-shoots of key scenes LOL.
If Twin Peaks is indeed located in north eastern Washington state as agent Cooper says in the first episode, it is clear that it would be the largest town in the region by far, hence having the local sheriffs office. It would be near present day Metaline Falls, which is super rural.
'Q: Would a small US town have a sheriff or police?
A: It depends on the size of a town and the available money in a budget as well as the laws of the state whether they will have one or more municipal officers or rely on the county sheriff's department for law enforcement. In an area without sufficient funds to pay a full-time officer, sometimes a small town will hire a part-time person(s) who may also work full-time elsewhere. "
I say the size of the Twin Peaks Sherriff's dept. implies:
1) Twin Peaks is a county as well as a town (like San Francisco, which is a city and a county), since all sherrifs offices in the U.S. are at the county level
2) the population is closer to 50,000, since a town of only 5,000 would not have the budget to pay for such a large force (Sherriff, Andy, Hawk, Lucy, Cappy and the deputy seen in the pilot etc.)
The town is located all over the place, with contradictory details both in the show and in TSHOTP, and Deer Meadow is basically worse than Howl's Moving Castle... Anyone here familiar with Schuiten and Peeeters' Les cités obscures? If the US even existed in that setting, Twin Peaks' meandering geography and chronology would be a damn good fit for it, I'll say.
Upon careful reconsideration of my previous rash statement as I have not had any coffee yet today I will simply say based on everything we've all seen and heard I very much doubt there are a bunch of assistant directors doing the lion's share for David Lynch.
While I loved 99% of Twin Peaks' directing staff in the '90s, eventually the show got away from Lynch and Frost a bit. This is their baby now and it's how they wanted it, from the marketing to the final product. IMO that's how it should be after 25 years.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
N. Needleman wrote:Upon careful reconsideration of my previous rash statement as I have not had any coffee yet today I will simply say based on everything we've all seen and heard I very much doubt there are a bunch of assistant directors doing the lion's share for David Lynch.
While I loved 99% of Twin Peaks' directing staff in the '90s, eventually the show got away from Lynch and Frost a bit. This is their baby now and it's how they wanted it, from the marketing to the final product. IMO that's how it should be after 25 years.
Which rash statement? Also, I totally agree and don't see how anyone wouldn't. If given the option for young new directors putting their stamp on it (yet obviously maintaining a certain predetermined tone, so what's the point, ultimately?) or an entirely Lynch directed project, obviously I would want Lynch and only Lynch. I don't understand the logic behind not wanting that, especially since it's what we have. It's like the best case scenario that was always only a pipe dream; it's also as though he has finally been given everything he's wanted his whole career: complete control, a budget, and an ability to have all this in the field of long form television, which is obviously something he's always wanted due to his numerous attempts within the medium. Thwarted no more.
SpookyDollhouse wrote:
But they didn't transfer it from SD elements for the Bluray release, they transferred it from the original film elements which are, if we're gonna use buzzwords here, technically "UHD." It's an upgrade in a sense from what's been offered before, but it's not an upgrade of the source material. If you're talking about the Buffy movie, that was transferred warts & all inherent to the original production and at least it wasn't digitally manipulated to death. (for example aggressive denoising which, imo, is one of the worst things you can do to photographed material)
What I'm saying is with the flexibility and look you get with film, it'd look the same if not better (ymmv) from an aesthetic and definition standpoint cuz it'd be transferred digitally anyway. Definitely not worse. It'd only cost more and take more time which is why they shot digital and not to mention Lynch's further love of shooting that way for said ease.
The point is that in the 90's, colour grading was far far more primitive. There are only so many process you can do to film without modern digital intermediates, and it lacked nuance that you have today (i.e., being able to easily manipulating individual objects in a frame). Essentially you were stuck doing full passes over the entire image save for special cases, because it was so time consuming. Today, you can take a frame, bump up the eye light, lower the shadows in a corner, 'oo, that red cup, bump up the saturation on that a bit', sharpen something that looks a tiny bit too soft, etc. etc. I mean, you don't necessarily do that for everything, but, I think you understand the possibilities for when one wants to alter the image.
I don't know why you're bringing up 'buzzwords' as though the prior poster was being snobby about it. UHD isn't a buzzword, HD isn't a buzzword, SD, digital intermediate, etc. etc. Those are all well.. correct terms!
Also, I was the one talking about Twin Peaks now being shot digitally, and I acknowledged that the only part that matters is that it's a digital intermediate. Having said that, modern digital is flexible in low light situations in a way that film isn't, and Lynch does love his darkness.
I believe they were also lamenting that the colour saturation on the original series wasn't re-evaluated due to considerations of how it behaves when viewed on modern televisions versus how it was initially balanced for SD viewing (while also in their post admitting that it's perfectly fine/respectful for it *not* to be altered). It's not even just about being respectful to the original, but, certain decisions that were made to make the image best for viewers at the time on CRT television sets might not have the same impact for those watching on HDTV televisions. Some films/television shows have done that before (in a way that isn't Lucas-esque). Lynch though I do believe oversaw the transfers, so, I assume he was fine with it. . I've always disliked the red tint a little bit as I just prefer Peaks to look cold and wintery, but, alas.
Buffy, the television series (which I believe is what the poster was talking about, not the movie) though *was* a bad transfer (there are plenty of shots of literal camera junk was left in frame because they went open matte despite the footage being intended to be cropped?) Similarly, there were drastic changes in colour temperature which completely ruined scenes that were shot day-for-night!
Anyway, we were just discussing the possibilities for Lynch and his post-production team now that they have access to modern colour grading technology (hell, even Inland Empire wouldn't have had that, as it was shot in 2005 and on SD [as far as I'm aware] .. so, not exactly working with something like RED Raw or whatever codec Alexa's shoot)
SpookyDollhouse wrote:But they didn't transfer it from SD elements for the Bluray release, they transferred it from the original film elements which are, if we're gonna use buzzwords here, technically "UHD."
Nope. We're still talking at cross purposes. What the source elements are is irrelevant to what I was talking about. I never once said they used SD material to upgrade the show for the Blu-rays and iTunes. Never never never. Not once. Ever. Never. You just misread what I wrote. No one else seems to have had this problem. I'll take you through the post and try to work out where you're getting confused, because you're clearly a nice person and this could escalate the wrong way and I don't want that.
I wrote:
The digital aspect will be great for the show. Whatever look is needed can be far more easily achieved.
In TV production that is most certainly true.
Funnily enough, I was just posting on the episode discussion board about the episode featuring Laura's funeral and lamenting the visual clash of Pacific Northwest stock shots and Californian exteriors.
Commenting on the clash between stock footage shot up in 'real' Twin Peaks land and the Californian 'studio' Twin Peaks.
The original show, IMO, would have worked so much better had they been able to grade it digitally to look more like the pilot.
So that's just my opinion and me wondering whether they might have gone in that direction if they'd been able to use modern grading tools (DaVinci and so on) back then.
All good so far? Now comes to the bit I think you're getting stuck on.
Standard definition is far more forgiving of these aspects than HD.
As in: the original standard definition version we originally watched didn't make the difference between stock shots and Californian location shots as obvious to a viewer because SD, being lower definition, doesn't show it up as much. In the HD recreation, which is (yes) created from the negatives, used on the Blu-ray, the difference between stock and Californian material is really obvious to me and, at times takes me out of the show. Many old shows have this problem when they upgrade from SD to HD: HD shows up something that wouldn't have been an issue when they were shooting with the intention of broadcasting in SD and giving no thought to the footage being used for HD decades later.
I then elaborate, discussing the funeral episode:
As it stands, we cut from dreary, wintry shots of trees blowing in the wind under a grey sky to a calm, warm-looking, sun-dappled graveyard.
In other words, something startlingly obvious now that was less so in SD.
Then I go on to give a bit of opinion again, even dropping a jokey 'George Lucas' comment to soften what I'm saying:
I'll be shot down as a 'George Lucas' for saying this, but I wish they'd considered being a bit more aggressive with the grading for the upgrade to HD on the grounds that HD is a somewhat different medium from SD.
I was talking about the show as a complete entity being upgraded to HD. Given a return to the negatives means we're back at square one, ungraded, with the option either of recreating the original look or trying to marry the disparate styles of pilot and series a little more.
You then say:
It's an upgrade in a sense from what's been offered before, but it's not an upgrade of the source material.
And what you say there makes it difficult to answer. I never said it was. It was never in the purview of the discussion. I guess my answer to that comment would be 'Yes. Obviously. And?' I never said anything about the negatives being upgraded. I never discussed the source. I was comparing masters: SD and HD.
If you're talking about the Buffy movie, that was transferred warts & all inherent to the original production and at least it wasn't digitally manipulated to death. (for example aggressive denoising which, imo, is one of the worst things you can do to photographed material)
I'm not talking about the movie. I'm talking about this:
What I'm saying is with the flexibility and look you get with film, it'd look the same if not better (ymmv) from an aesthetic and definition standpoint cuz it'd be transferred digitally anyway. Definitely not worse. It'd only cost more and take more time which is why they shot digital and not to mention Lynch's further love of shooting that way for said ease.
For the pace of a TV production that might well require different looks on a tight budget, not to mention special effects, digital is by far the better option. Shot on film, we might have had seven episodes for the money. On digital video, we'll have 18. It's a no-brainer to me. Film is lovely, but it's increasingly expensive and increasingly impractical for a modern TV production. Lynch himself speculated in the Side By Side documentary that he was done with film. He discussed using film for the new Twin Peaks show originally, but clearly was happy enough to be talked out of it.
