Étienne-Jules Marey

PLACE DE LA CONCORDE

Étienne-Jules Marey made this shot at Place de la Concorde sometime between 1888-1904 with his chrono-photographic camera. It is one of the first cinematographic recordings of Paris. Étienne-Jules Marey realizzò queste riprese in Place de la Concorde fra il 1888 e il 1904 circa, con la sua fotocamera cronografica. È una delle prime registrazioni cinematografiche di Parigi. Originally, this film was not intended for projection, but made for Marey’s motion analysis research. After digitization of Marey's film in 2017, some 120 years later, it is possible to screen this for the first time. Originariamente questo film non era destinato alla proiezione, ma utilizzato da Marey per le sue ricerche sull’analisi del movimento. Dopo la digitalizzazione del film nel 2017, circa 120 anni dopo, è finalmente possibile proiettarlo per la prima volta. The original negative, shot on black-and-white flammable raw nitrocellulose material produced by either the Eastman Company or Lumière Laboratories in Lyon had been preserved in the depository of the National Technical Museum in Prague. Il negativo originale, in nitrocellulosa grezza infiammabile in bianco e nero, prodotto dalla Eastman Company o dai Laboratories Lumière di Lione, è stato conservato nel deposito del Museo Tecnico Nazionale di Praga. The 88mm wide x 19 meter long film strip was digitized in 13K resolution on Prague’s National Heritage Institute’s Cruse scanner. The film has 45 seconds, was shot at 12 frames per second, and has 545 frames, the size of 31 x 88mm. The film was digitally restored but not retouched. La striscia di pellicola, larga 88 millimetri e lunga 19 metri, è stata digitalizzata in risoluzione 13K con lo scanner Cruse del National Heritage Institute di Praga. Il film dura 45 secondi, è stato girato a 12 fotogrammi al secondo, è composto da 545 fotogrammi, di 31 x 88 millimetri. Il film è stato restaurato in digitale, ma non ritoccato. This film from the National Technical Museum’s collection was digitally restored in 2017 by the Digitally Restored Authorizate (DRA) method. Questo film della collezione del Museo Nazionale Tecnico è stato restaurato in digitale nel 2017 con il metodo Digitally Restored Authorizate (DRA). Scanned in Digitization Center of National Heritage Institute in Prague Reconstructed and Stabilized in postproduction house Animation People Prague Digitally restored at CPA Laboratory, Academy of Performing Arts in Prague. Scansionato nel Centro di digitalizzazione dell'Istituto del Patrimonio Nazionale di Praga Ricostruito e stabilizzato in postproduzione presso Animation People Prague Restaurato in digitale presso CPA Laboratory, Academy of Performing Arts in Prague Supervised by digital restorer Marek Jicha and Expert group – Jaromír Šofr, Ladislav Bezděk, Daniel Souček, Ivan Vít, Vidu Gunaratna, Zdeněk Stuchlík, Jiří Šimunek a Hynek Stříteský Supervisore del restauro digitale: Marek Jicha con la consulenza degli esperti: Jaromír Šofr, Ladislav Bezděk, Daniel Souček, Ivan Vít, Vidu Gunaratna, Zdeněk Stuchlík, Jiří Šimunek a Hynek Stříteský

Condition of film negative – damaged frames

This digital restoration of Étienne-Jules Marey’s chronophotographic film Place de la Concorde was made as part of the NAKI (National Cultural Identity) research conducted at the Academy of Performing Arts in Czech Republic. This 4 year reserach project has had the goal of creating a certified methodlogy for the digital restoration of the country cultural film heritage. The resulting methodology has been named Methodology of Digitally Restored Authorizate, abbreviated as DRA. Through this means, a digital authorized form of the original film is made in the presence of a restorer and the film’s authors or representatives (experts nominated by professional associations) when the authors are deceased.

The aim of the DRA method is to achieve the original authenticity of the film, which, in principle is unattainable, but can be arrived at through a process of educated guess, interpreting surviving video and audio sources of the film. The process is carried out by a restorer together with an Expert Group, (composed of cinematographers, sound designers and the film’s director). Together they interpret source materials in the best possible way to come to a digital restoration that as close as possible approaches the estimated appearance of the film, as conceptualized by the film’s authors, at the time of its premiere. Such interpretation demands high competence to analyze initial resources and properly diagnoze defects. The presence of the Expert Group (personalities with extensive experience working with images, such as cinematographers, as well as sound engineers) enables the preservation of image-related values while ensuring that a new version of the work does not emerge. Such professional supervision has been fully applied already since the origin and initial development of the DRA Method, and the achieved results of the first digitisations using this method document its importance.

DRA stands for: D – Digitised, R – Restored, A – Authorised as the original source

In its definitive form, the DRA Method was officially used for the first time when restoring the film Kamenný most (The Stone Bridge) by director Tomas Vorel, when in 2016 it was allowed, for the first time, to declare this fact by stating the names of the restorer and the members of his expert DRA group in the film’s credits. Other films digitally restored by the DRA method include: Cesta z města (Out of the City) by director Tomas Vorel, Radúz a Mahulena (Raduz and Mahulena) by director Petr Weigl, Žiletky (The Razor Blade) by director Zdeněk Tyc and chronophotographic shot Place de la Concorde by Étienne-Jules Marey. All of these cases of digitisation have been recognized as outstanding by the professional community. The Prague research team has made DRA Samplers of another 20 feature films as preparation for future digital restoration. The research team has also detailed new methodics of Sampling and a list of historical film techologies with representative samples for each. In these ways the accuracy of the DRA Method has been demonstrated. The DRA Method is the output of the NAKI research project No.: DF13P01OVV006, carried out at the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague in collaboration with experts from the Czech Technical University.

Six basic quality criteria are required for the resulting digitised film copy (Digitally Restored Authorizate) to be recognized as the original source of the work, meeting the DRA certification conditions: Criterion 1: The image is digitised in resolution corresponding to the original cinematographic material, in the original frame rate, in the aspect ratio and image size corresponding to the original and with the sufficient range of brightness and colour depth of the image faithful to the original; Sound is digitised in a resolution of at least 48kHz, 24-bit, in the corresponding number of channels.

Criterion 2: A professional group of officially recognized film and digital restorers (or such restorers that are university educated in the fields of cinematographer and sound engineering) participated in the restoration of the film.

Criterion 3: Authors of the film participated in the restoration of the film – cinematographers, sound engineers and directors (if available) and representatives of their professional associations of authors.

Criterion 4: The restored film is approved by the aforementioned expert group consisting of restorers and authors whose members should sign, after mutual consent, an official certification document on the DRA and a restoration report documenting that the DRA method was used.

Criterion 5: The differences in quality between AP, RRP or DFRRP and DRA must be, as far as the appearance of the image is concerned, in order to preserve the author's concept of the cinematographic work – within the meaning of the Copyright Act – carried out based on an educated guess of the expert group.

Criterion 6: What is used as the single source for archiving the DRA is the so-called Master Archive Package (MAP) and the Intermediate Access Package (IAP) from which, subsequently, all the copies of any distribution formats (digital cinema, television, home video, web etc.) are made, namely without any intervention into the appearance of the work as per the above-defined criteria (except for the changes in the overall size of the image and the different levels of compression depending on the respective distribution format). If there is no version of the original sound mix intended for television or home theatre systems, DRA must be created before archiving in a standard manner consistent with the current requirements placed on these media. Currently, it is e.g. an EBU R128 standard for determining the average volume.

The DRA Method CHART:

Explanation of Abbreviations

AP – Answer Print - a copy carefully made at the time of the film's origin, a balanced, so-called "signed" combined copy containing synchronized visual as well as audio components, approved by a cinematographer, sound engineer and director who physically signed its first part. It was presented at the première of the film, generally used later only as the authoritative reference material for producing new copies. Today, it is suitable for digital restoration as a reference. It rarely occurs in the Czech Republic. West of our borders, it represents a standard practice.

RRP – Reference Release Print — a print carefully made at the time of its origin, a studio print containing synchronised visual as well as audio components, intended for distribution in cinemas. It was chosen as a reference print by the restorer, i.e. as the one closest to the answer print. It is always an estimate which is why the selection of the reference release print must be carried out together with the expert group consisting of cinematographers.

DFAP/DFRRP – Digital Facsimile of Answer Print or Digital Facsimile of Reference Release Print – this facsimile is an exact replica of the cinematographic work or of its part, identical to the original in shape and colour, different by the technology and material used. The facsimile captures the current condition of the work including traces of its development over the course of time (damage etc.).

DSM – Digital Source Master (a digital source data record) – is a proprietary set of digital video and audio files created in the post-production process, depending on the processor of the cinematographic work and on the technical facilities available, i.e., e.g. data from a film scanner. The kit includes uncompressed and unencrypted video, audio and subtitle files, compliant with the relevant international standards (e.g. ISO 26428-19:2011 and recommendations of SMPTE), stored ideally in TIFF files with a bit depth of 12 or 16 bits per image channel. The image is saved with the camera aperture, cue marks of film sections and does not have retouched dirt or material damage.

OCN – original camera negative – a film negative exposed by a cine-camera.

DP – duplicate positive.

DN – duplicate negative.

IMN IMP – intermediate negative (positive).

DC – a dumb copy – a film copy without the soundtrack.

DCPC – duplicate combined positive copy – is made out ON a SN, it contains synchronous visual and acoustic components and serves as a back-up material in case of a loss or damage of the original negative. They are copies that are deposited in an archive and are never lent for screenings.

OST – original sound mix of the cinematographic work – is recorded on magnetic or optical media and used as authoritative reference material for digital restoration.

SN – sound negative – the original mix of sound recorded in an optical form or a transcript from the OST into the optical form used in the production of RRP, CC, PSC or DCPC, produced in a sound camera.

PSC – positive sound copy – independent positive copy produced from the sound negative for the purposes of subsequent digitisation. A positive sound copy is usually a new film copy carefully made from the SNN with one-sided or double-sided optical recording of the sound which does not contain the image component which is complete compared to the SNN.

CC – combined copy – a copy of the film carefully made from the ON and SN intended for screening in cinemas within distribution, containing a synchronized visual and audio components, which is, at the moment of digitisation, in a very good technical condition.

EGAP – Educated Guess of the original appearance of the answer print – the estimate made by the restorer and his/her Expert Group of the basic image parameters (brightness, contrast, colour hue, saturation) aimed at restoring the original appearance of the signed (answer) print at the time of its première. This restoration analysis is based on the scanned negative of the image (or the closest surviving source of the film's image) and on its being compared with the digitised reference print, the DFRRP.

DRA – the Digitally Restored Authorizate – is the result of a process of digital restoration (modified DCDM with a camera aperture and without retouching) which has been certified by the restorer, the expert group and representatives of the state authority as the new original source of the original work. The DRA thus cannot be considered a version of the work but it's original digital source. The image is stored with the camera aperture from the time of its origin, with unretouched cue marks of film sections and some unretouched dirt or major material damage.

DCDM – Digital Cinema Distribution Master - uncompressed and unencrypted video, audio and subtitle files complying with the respective international standards ISO 26428-19:2011 and recommendations of the SMPTE, stored in TIFF files with a bit depth of 12 or 16 bits in the XYZ colour space as the digital original designed for distribution. The image is stored with the projection image area from the time of its origin, retouched cue marks of film sections and retouched dirt or material damage.

IAP – Intermediate Access Package – a set of unencrypted, compressed video and audio files, identifying and complementary technical metadata and media (visually lossless compression of the visual component, audio component without compression) created from the DRA (in the form of the DCDM). It is intended for production of all distribution formats (for digital cinema, television, home video, web etc.). It is not suitable for long-term storage of cinematographic works, it contains only the projection image field and supports only frame rates according to the relevant international ISO standard for digital cinematographic projection. The DRA product optimised for creation of additional sub-masters for distribution exploitation (DCP, DVB-T, BRD/DVD, VOD, etc.).

DCP – Digital Cinema Package – a presentation copy for distribution in digital cinemas; generally, it is not suitable for long-term storage of cinematographic works.

DAP – Distribution (Dissemination) Access Package – any distribution format (for digital cinema, television, home video, web, BRD, etc.).

DVD – Digital Versatile Disc (Digital Video Disc).

BRD – Blue-Ray Disc.

VOD – Video On Demand.

HDTV, UHDTV (UHD) – High-Definition Television, Ultra High-Definition Television

MAP – Master Archive Package – a set of unencrypted, compressed video and audio files, identifying and complementary technical metadata and media (mathematically lossless compression of the visual component, the audio component without compression) created from the DRA (16-bit TIFF, XYZ) in an arbitrarily selected resolution, intended for long-term preservation of cinematographic works; it should contain the whole camera image field (incl. any optical sound recording, perforation holes of the filmstrip etc.) and support the original projection frame rate. The DRA product optimised for long-term digital preservation.

DAN – Data Archive Negative – the data entry into the film negative (Data Archive Negative).

NIN – New Image Negative - was created by laser transcription of digital data into a new negative material where it produces an analogue cinematic image.

NAP – New Answer Print – a print of the film made as a control copy from the New Image Negative - NIN.

SAM – Separation Archival Master – three black-and-white separation R, G and B extracts from the original colour negative or the DRA used for long-term archiving of the three black-and-white strips "R", "G" and "B" made by copying or laser transcription into a durable archival black-and-white negative with the gradient of ɣ = 1.00.

Artistic Film is Living Art!

On some basic and indispensable considerations when disseminating art cinematographic works

Director Petr Weigl

In any dispute over the handling of a work of art it is first necessary to clarify the basic concepts and meanings of

matters, which are being discussed. The development offers a variety of new possibilities for the preservation and

dissemination of works of art. The film art is no exception.

It is understandable that society will primarily preserve those cinematographic works, which have film art qualities. A

film work of art, like art in general, is one of the most eminent results of human talent, not subject to the ravages of time,

independent of time and as such, still alive. The value of a work of art is associated with its effect and impact on an

emotional and aesthetic level.

The source of all art is individual talent of its creator, talent, having an extraordinary ability to uniquely reflect reality

and convey this reflection through the work of art so that others may experience it.

The evaluation of the work of art is always subjective, it always depends on the achieved level of cultural

development, existing relevant reviews, domestic or international awards received, and last but not least, on the extent to

which the work due to its quality was capable of affecting the viewers and thereby could have influenced their emotional

sensitivity, their qualitative personal development in the field of attitudes towards key human values and their overall

sophistication.

In light of the aforementioned, it is clear, that for further considerations and correct conclusions on the issue of the

reproduction of works of art, the key assumption is that the work should be recognized as art. As such, it is recognized that

its effect is independent of time and the talent of the author or authors must always be primarily respected as the

fundamental basis for its result.

When we concentrate on the cinematographic work of art, if we are to proceed correctly and fairly, we need to accept

the fact that the author of the film is its director. This fact stems from the circumstance that throughout the process of

making a cinematographic work he or she determines and fundamentally influences all components of the film by his or her

unique vision, and accordingly is also respected. The specific feature of film art, which distinguishes it from other art forms,

and at the same time characterizes it, is an assembly of motion pictures. It is therefore the image, which is the main specific means of cinematic language, and thus legitimately the second irreplaceable author of the film is its cinematographer.

The development of technologies, enabling constantly higher quality options, offers many benefits. But it also raises

some questions which are relevant in respect of other possible procedures in film art. The quality and achievements

associated with film digitisation not only guarantee a longer preservation of cinematographic works in time, but also offer

new opportunities in their transcription.

In this context it is therefore crucial to consider what stance on the work of art we take. This stance depends on

whether we perceive the value of the art film topicality for today only in the authenticity of documenting it as a product of its

time, or admit that its meaning consists in effect unlimited in time. It is the contradiction between the meaning that is

attributed to the work of art as a product of specific time period and recognition of the work of art in its timelessness. When

choosing between those two categories, we will definitely prefer more general impact and meaning of art - its permanent

effect, which is timeless. In connection with the digitisation, it is obviously necessary to carefully distinguish between what is

the adjustment of a cinematographic work by its refining and what is responsible upgrading of a technical convention having

a particular period effect to a more contemporary convention.

It should be noted that period technical quality was a part of the entire period convention of perception. It was -

despite some weaknesses - evaluated on a customary basis and various film deficiencies therefore were not distracting.

The preservation of a work of art, whose effect is inherently independent of time, needs other restoration approaches

than the production of historical relics of time degraded copies that are preserved as a bizarre corpus delicti, as a document of contemporary history. We know that the film prints will continue to be ageing and change its colour. Hence, tomorrow we

can no longer consider their current digital facsimile as a correct facsimile. So how should we proceed?

The correct answer to this question can be found only when we answer, what was the purpose of creating a cinematographic work and what is the purpose of its preservation. Whether a cinematographic work is important for us as a demonstration of a particular film technique of a certain time epoch, or whether its value for us and society in general consists in permanent effect of the author's artistic message and therefore, we are obliged to ensure that it continues to be a part of cultural life.    

      I think the answer is clear. We need to preserve the original intention. It is our service to the preservation of the

original authenticity and effect of a work of art. I think that it is clear that a work of art needs to be preserved because of its

meaning, not the historical one, but because of its capability of permanent live effect and rendering of aesthetic value.

Consequently, using the new restoration technical means is not tantamount to improving the film, but rather matching the

new digital technology with the original effect of the film.

In this context, it is of course necessary to confirm that such restoration interventions into the technical quality of the

film are permissible only with the knowledge or participation of the author or in accordance with his or her intentions and

cannot be in any case considered to be remastering. The intention of digitisation of art films is clearly defined and any

questioning of trust in the responsibility of filmmakers and authorized professional restorers would offend their honour and

would not be up to the standard of an academic debate.

It is also necessary to explain that this procedure and recognition of the competence of the authors of the film must be respected in principle, especially in cases where no initial material explicitly confirmed by the authors as intended for further dissemination has been retained. If the authors confirmed certain new digital copy of the film after completing its digital restoration as final and on its basis copies for reproduction were produced, it is also a confirmation of their artistic authorization and achieving the original intention. The existence of such initial material authorized by its creators guarantees that in case of any other work associated

with the dissemination of the work, the result will be always identical. Obviously, this is based on the assumption that this

initial authorized material is not in any other transcription exposed to the risk of any copyright theft.

In conclusion to this issue, it should be noted that such aforementioned controversial dispute about various

procedures of digitisation of film materials can never occur between the creator and the distributor, as both pursue and will

pursue in the future always consistently the maximum effect of the work. Both have this same interest and therefore the

described problem of different understanding cannot occur and also does not occur in their case. Such a problem can be

caused only by an intermediary who has nothing in common with the creative field of filmmaking and has nothing in common

with the entity which needs that the film and its effect is always vivid. It can occur only where there is a lack of expertise.

This may be any entity entering between the creator and distributor that does not understand the film, its mission and the

reasons for its preservation.

If someone enters between the author and user without being able to respect the opinion of one or the other, this is a

mistake and a lack of analytical erudition of those who make it possible.

The passage of time shifts the perception of information according to a certain convention which arises as a result of

certain state of technical capabilities. Technical perception is changing and current standards of correctness are different

than they used to be. The quality of imaging and sound technology has improved. This is the frame of reference that needs

to be adhered to and there is no doubt that every author of a cinematographic work and a competent specialist will

guarantee that it will not be violated.

Living film – a living work of art – should be, even in its digital rebirth, taken care of by those who practically create film and are able to authorise its new existence in the form of the original creative intention and in the authentic form of its first presentation – the film première. This is the objective of the DRA Method.