Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn
Sorry not intentional it was just hard to tell from this post exactly what you meant. This sounds like a depressing sort of "they will ruin it if they touch it" post to me.
No worries. Conveying what one means only by the written word leaves out all of the important visual and tonal cues necessary in understanding intent and no offense but I long ago stopped allowing other people to define the context of what I mean especially when I plainly stated color grading and "alterations" as my concerns and you come back with resolution and now it's the old, "I would have understood your position better if you had better writing skills to state your actual position."
Fact is you brought your own narrative to what my post was about thinking I'm bringing some tired old argument to the table that you could make quick work of with a shocked face emoji while inserting a word I never used and then later saying it was because the words I did use at the time were too muddled to decipher my meaning.
Here's the cliff notes version. I have ZERO issues with cleaning up someone's film source or correcting color errors but Kubrick had no errors that needed cleaning. That's why he burnt through so much film stock and shooting days to many a producers dismay and why even cutting room scenes of one of his films were even used in the original Bladerunner by Ridley Scott. A well known perfectionist filmmaker in his own rights.
If this print is going to be more true to how it was shot and shown in theaters originally then I'm fine with that. If it reveals something that was already there then I'm fine with that. If the improved resolution shows details previously unseen in the print then I'm fine with that. HDR is a film tool. Tools can build beautiful things. They can also damage beautiful things. It's all in the hands of the carpenter and the master carpenter of this film isn't with us anymore to guide their hands.
Also, what's depressing about wanting a visionary once in a lifetime artists work to stay true to its creators intent and what's the formula for touching it? "Just because we can" is usually the stock answer.
I put Kubrick's work in a very unique category of filmmakers. I've watched his films over decades and hundreds of times as I'm sure many others here have as well. Would HDR improve Barry Lyndon which was shot with a camera so unique there were only 2 or 3 in existence at the time and shot mostly (but not all) in natural light? It was intentionally shot so that still frames of each scene looked like oil paintings from the era. Will HDR and some no name colorist really improve the climactic duelling scene in the barn? If not then to me that's a better definition of depressing than yours
My brother and Dad are named Art as well. Nice name