Cinerama's "Search for Paradise" Remastering and reconstructing

The work behind the remastering and reconstruction of Cinerama's "Search for Paradise" by David Strohmaier and Cinerama Inc, 2014. Copyright 2014, Cinerama, Inc.

[@ronz101]

Quite glad to see and hear the restoration project has turned out so well. Thank you all.

[@mehtabhussain4961]

Wonderful... I am from Hunza Pakistan and I can't express in words how much of a valuable treasure you have provided to people of Hunza in this documentary ...

[@BlaBla-jj6sh]

Very interesting video, one can hardly imagine all the work that has to be done to restore this unique cinema format but this video gives a good idea of the challenges involved. Perhaps the Cinerama format will one day make a comeback in the digital realm: Sony has made a prototype curved sensor a while ago. If they scale that up in size and resolution you could capture curved yet undistorded imagery in superb digital quality with no panel lines, no distortion and razorsharp picture quality. Being in a digital format, the master file would never fade or lose resolution. A hundred years from, it would look exactly the same as today. Cinerama 2025?

[@TheMaroonstudio]

well i am glad to see the big idol of Lord Bishnu sleeping on serpents above water ..thank you cinerama..❤ from Nepal

[@Mitzy596]

This is the most amazing project I have seen in quite a while. It could be shown at the restored Cinerama theater in Seattle?

[@jmalmsten]

I'm curious. You keep saying in these videos that the image was scanned at 3K for each frame. It is nice to know the horizontal resolution. But we never hear what the vertical resolution of the scan is? I mean... Assuming that the specs on widescreenmuseum.com is correct the ABC gates were .996"x1.116" or about 0.892:1... Is it scanned with pillarboxing to fit a 3K 4:3 (3072x2310) image stream, making it effectively 2060x2310 allocated to the exposed image? Or is it 3K wide and 3072/0.892 = 3444 pixels tall?
I mean.
3072x3444=10,579,968. Around 10.6 megapixels
2060x2310=4,758,600. Around 4.8 megapixels
That is a potential difference of roughly 45%... Per frame...
Please, the nerd in me wants (I do not really need it, I know) more info. :D
And the potential full image resolution for a master copy is... Uhm... (Image height * aspect ratio) = 3444*2.68=9230... Or 9230x3444... That is a very big image (allthough you loose a bit on all sides due to cropping off course, but still!).
And when you say you squeeze it to work on it for color or cleanup... Does that mean 1080p HD or 2K DCI or UHD or 4K DCI?
Again... Just curious about the details here. :)

[@simonlunt353]

I take my hate off to all clever people l always have a big fan of cinerama but what happens when the negative is so you can’t Restore it do you have to go looking for other prints l would like to see more of these great films come out on blu ray at a good price like how the west was won outstanding film thank you for all your work 👍🇬🇧

[@in70mm]

www.in70mm.com/library/remaster/index.htm

[@robfriedrich2822]

Can you scan Vistavision too?

[@SO_DIGITAL]

or converted to IMAX?

[@irwinisidro]

It probably wouldn't fit the normal IMAX aspect ratio, but I could see the smilebox aspect ratio in a IMAX dome since in that type of theater it's already curved.