Last night, I saw a four hour version of this film. It was listed as "digital" and it certainly was. However, it seemed well below par for a 2K transfer. The cinema I saw it at has a 4K projector and projects very crisp films. Could this have been transferred from a dodgey film print (maybe no originals in existence?) or a VHS tape or ??
shareWas this at The Astor? I was at the screening of Woodstock there last night, and was expecting it to go for about three hours, but it went closer to four, so it was obviously one of the later cuts (though I'm not sure which). I did notice as I went in that there was a sign about how the 35mm print had deteriorated and so the screening would be a digital projection, but I don't think it mentioned anything about a transfer. The image didn't look all that clear to me, but don't know a lot about the technical ins and outs of these things and I haven't seen it screened before for a comparison point. Fantastic film, nevertheless.
The man doesn't blink, mom, the man doesn't blink!
Thanks for your thoughts. You are correct - it was the Astor, but I didn't mention it because I was certain that fabulous cinema would have done their best with what they had. In recent years, we have referred to digital prints as 2K or 4K, and they are always good to excellent. However, I seem to remember that, in earlier times, they were simply called digital, and that the quality of those older ones was variable, from OK to awful. I wondered if this digital print was done quite some time ago, and maybe wasn't up to 2K or 4K standard. It was truly an astonishing and important documentary record.
share