IMDB: What a Glorious Feeling! 'Singin' In The Rain' Is Restored
Bruce Calvert
Warner Home Video has demonstrated a new digital process, called
Ultra-Resolution, that it has used to remaster the classic Technicolor musical
Singin' in the Rain for DVD, due to be released on Sept. 24. As Video Store
magazine describes the process in its online edition today (Tuesday), the
process involved scanning the 443,424 separate frames of the three "master
positives" of the Technicolor film. (The original Technicolor process involved
using a camera that exposed three rolls of film simultaneously, producing
yellow, cyan and magenta images. These were then used to print the individual
frames onto celluloid stock with ink, producing the full-color film.) The
digital images were then combined electronically, adjusting for aging and film
shrinkage. The result, according to Richard May, Warner's chief of film
preservation, are images that exceed the clarity of the original. "I don't
remember ever seeing so much detail," he told the trade magazine.
http://www.videostoremag.com/news/html/breaking_article.cfm?sec_id=2&article_ID=3646
Bruce Calvert
(remove the xspam to reply)
Visit the Silent Film Still Archive
http://home.attbi.com/~silentfilm
Jim Beaver
"Bruce Calvert" <silentf...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:R0Pa9.37400$15.1...@www.newsranger.com...
> From today's IMDB news:
>
> Warner Home Video has demonstrated a new digital process, called
> Ultra-Resolution, that it has used to remaster the classic Technicolor
musical
> Singin' in the Rain for DVD, due to be released on Sept. 24. As Video
Store
> magazine describes the process in its online edition today (Tuesday), the
> process involved scanning the 443,424 separate frames of the three "master
> positives" of the Technicolor film. (The original Technicolor process
involved
> using a camera that exposed three rolls of film simultaneously, producing
> yellow, cyan and magenta images. These were then used to print the
individual
> frames onto celluloid stock with ink, producing the full-color film.) The
> digital images were then combined electronically, adjusting for aging and
film
> shrinkage. The result, according to Richard May, Warner's chief of film
> preservation, are images that exceed the clarity of the original. "I don't
> remember ever seeing so much detail," he told the trade magazine.
No disrespect to Dick May or anyone else, but how can any copy exceed the
clarity of the original? Can the copy show things that weren't in the
original? If certain details were not visible on the original film
emulsion, how can any reproduction reveal those things?
Jim Beaver
Feuillade
> No disrespect to Dick May or anyone else,
> but how can any copy exceed the clarity of
> the original? Can the copy show things that
> weren't in the original?
Without discussing this particular instance (or film in general), it is
possible in the case of old recordings to bring out details of 78 R.P.M. that
have never been heard before because the playback equipment of the time was not
capable of digging out all the sound information that was there.
So I suppose the same thing is possible for film...
Tom Moran
RobtMcKay
>> No disrespect to Dick May or anyone else,
>> but how can any copy exceed the clarity of
>> the original? Can the copy show things that
>> weren't in the original?
Speaking as a photographer, it is VERY difficult to make a print via
traditional (wet darkroom) means that has proper tonal balance and includes ALL
the information that is contained in the negative.
My few forays into the digital photo world have shown me that elusive details
in deep shadows and bright highlites are much more easily transferred from
negative to print intact using digital techniques.
Rob McKay
Neil Midkiff
It's not so much a question of things not on the original negative(s), but
of things that wouldn't reproduce on the original prints, and so weren't
viewable by the audiences at the time of the film's release.
There are lots of examples of that:
We've been told in this newsgroup that 1930's b/w release print stocks
were grainier than the best b/w emulsions available today. So (assuming
good lab work) if the original negative exists, a modern positive from it
*can* be sharper than a vintage print.
An audio analogy might involve going back to original studio session
master tapes and getting better modern playing copies (either on LP or CD)
than the original LPs cut from those masters.
In the case of Technicolor, it's a wonderful process, giving gorgeous
results, but there are inherent chances for maladjustment and misalignment
both in the camera and in the printing process, so that even on original
prints one sometimes sees a bit of color fringing. The new digital
compositing process can correct these errors, and even compensate for
differential shrinking of the film elements, as I understand, so that in
every case the best possible alignment of the three color masters can be
achieved, thus giving the best image sharpness all the time.
I expect that the digital compositing also removes just a bit of blur that
would come from the spreading of the dyes in the transfer-printing
("imbibition") process -- there has to be a little bit of lateral movement
of the dye as it goes across from one emulsion to the other.
The original negative(s) [or in this example, the original Tech separation
positives, which are the best surviving materials] of course hold all the
information that we'll ever have for these images. But it's certainly
plausible that the new print-making process gets more of this information
onto the projection print than the classic methods did.
-Neil Midkiff
Tony Spadaro
would be impossible using traditional darkroom methods. A frame by frame
restoration of a movie would be fairly simple, but time consuming and
expensive, although computers can do an awful lot of the work. Much as
everyone hates colourization the methods developed for that are essentially
the same as for many restorations.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
Photography ... the hard way
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"RobtMcKay" <robt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020827163248...@mb-ch.aol.com...
Precode
I think what they mean is that details that were not visible in the
original release prints (but were there in the camera neg) are so now.
Dick told me that the chief advantage of this process is that it
allowed them to re-register all the frames, thus doing away with the
fringing that was common in IB prints.
Mike S.
(round tones, round tones)
Max Nineteennineteen
1) It exceeds the quality of typical prints, not the negative.
2) They're edge-enhancing the shit out of it so it looks too sharp to
be real, which some people think looks like better quality.
Happygrouch
during the "Good Morning" scene :-)
Anthony
ChaneyFan
clarity of the original? Can the copy show things that weren't in the
how can any reproduction reveal those things?
As others have noted here, it's certainly possible using digital cleanup.
Also, even in straight film to film transfer, I've seen copies that look better
than originals. A good example is that a properly printed reversal print of a
slightly under exposed (i.e., grey) original print will perk up the contrast in
the reversal and it will indeed look better than the print it is copied from.
===============================
Jon Mirsalis
e-mail: Chan...@aol.com
Lon Chaney Home Page: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan
Jon's Film Sites: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan/jonfilm.htm
Bill Vermillion
Beaver <jumb...@prodigy.net> wrote:
Well I know that in audio I was able to take tape masters that were
40 years old and get more information from them than was originally
retreived. I was comparing the master for the 1956 LP with what
was on the original tapes that generated those masters - the raw
un-eq'd cuts.
Changes in head design and electronics, and the physical process
where more information could be stored than retreived with the
equipment of that era made some really nice sounding restorations.
My film work was a long time ago and was in 16MM B/W, but I do know
that some wonderful things have been done in the field of optics
in the last 50 years, so perhaps it is possible to retreive more.
I remember when MGM reformatted GWTW for the 'new' wide-screen
processes in a re-release in the mid-60s, there was quite a long
article in American Cinematogrpher on the work they had to go
through and match visually the separations as they had shrunk
at different rates.
Proper software and equipment can do this much more accurately than
is possible with the human eye.
As to thee person not remembering with this quote: "I don't
remember ever seeing so much detail," ...
We have two things possible. One is the memory. Did he see it and
originally and then seeing the new version notice things he did not
see the first time. We do train our vision as most people who see
films now after being exposed to many notice things they did not
see when their visual skills were not honed by many years of film
use.
A second possibility - and highly probable - was that the equipment
the person making that comment watch the original film upon was not
as good as it could have been.
In another article in American Cinematographer [I'm sorry I can't
even remember who the director was], and interview with one of the
leading directors brought forth the question from AC along the
lines of "what do you think of your films when you see them after
you have finished them".
His quote [approximate] was "I never watch them outside the final
screening room at the studio as there are only about 6 theatres
in the US with equipment good enough to show it".
I'm guessing I read that in the late 1960s or early 1970s.
So having more detail than someone remembers is quite possible.
And having more detail than any of the original theatrical prints
is also possible. Going back to the 3-strip source and working
from there is going to assure the best as once it is converted to a
digital format there will be no further degradation along the line.
The closest you could get to the original in an optical mode would
be to watch the combined product made directly from the three
strips and the only people who would typicall see that are those
working with the original and those approving it for making the
prints.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Bill Vermillion
You mean like the DVD of The Phantom Menance? My imported LD
is much more watchable than the DVD. The former looks real while
the latter does not.
Jim Beaver
"Neil Midkiff" <nmid...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D6BEA81...@earthlink.net...
Well, shut mah mouf!
Actually, this last paragraph clarifies what I was asking about. The
original comment about "images that exceed the clarity of the original"
suggested to my mind exceeding the clarity of the original information on
the negative. It makes complete sense (especially after having it explained
so fully and nicely by so many) that one could now exceed the clarity of the
original PROJECTED images.
Nice stuff, guys.
Jim Beaver
Eric Grayson
Technicolor prints of pre-1954 era were fairly notorious for poor
registration and poor overall resolution. I don't find it at all
implausible that a Technicolor print from 1952 would be inferior to a print
that could be made today.
Differential shrinkage (the shrinking of one of the three strips of film to
the next) is a big issue. GWTW has big-time shrinkage, and many others do
as well. This was probably an issue from the start but has become even
more of one as time has moved on.
It is probably a good idea (as Rob McKay said) to scan these in and
register them properly. Outputting them back to film should give a truly
wonderful image.
I have yet to see any color rendition that begins to compete with dye
transfer Technicolor.
And, as far as sharpness goes, the Technicolor prints of the mid-late 1960s
were the best. The good British prints went on a bit longer. Those prints
are staggering. You can (and should) carp about early 1950s prints, but if
you put in a 1965 Technicolor print of ANYTHING it will likely be a
stunner.
I would really like to see what Technicolor could do with the re-registered
SITR with its new dye-transfer line. I've heard it's been closed down,
which is a damned shame. If I knew the best person to bribe, I'd have a
check there already.
Eric
Lincoln Spector
as the new 5.1?
Lincoln
Glamour Studios
Jim Beaver wrote:
> The
> > digital images were then combined electronically, adjusting for aging and
> film
> > shrinkage. The result, according to Richard May, Warner's chief of film
> > preservation, are images that exceed the clarity of the original. "I don't
> > remember ever seeing so much detail," he told the trade magazine.
>
> No disrespect to Dick May or anyone else, but how can any copy exceed the
> clarity of the original? Can the copy show things that weren't in the
> original? If certain details were not visible on the original film
> emulsion, how can any reproduction reveal those things?
This is a guess, but possibly what he means is the results are sharper, crisper
and more detail-revealing than an original POSITIVE dye-transfer print. It IS
possible that this digital technique is creating a finished product with more
perfect registration of the three color images (and therefore more sharpness)
than was previously achievable by the comparatively "hand-made" process of
dye-transfer printing. Guess we'll just have to wait till the DVD comes out to
see for ourselves.
Archie Waugh
Victor Morton
> A few points to add:
>
> Technicolor prints of pre-1954 era were fairly notorious for poor
> registration and poor overall resolution. I don't find it at all
> implausible that a Technicolor print from 1952 would be inferior to a print
> that could be made today.
>
> Differential shrinkage (the shrinking of one of the three strips of film to
> the next) is a big issue. GWTW has big-time shrinkage, and many others do
> as well. This was probably an issue from the start but has become even
> more of one as time has moved on.
>
> It is probably a good idea (as Rob McKay said) to scan these in and
> register them properly. Outputting them back to film should give a truly
> wonderful image.
>
> I have yet to see any color rendition that begins to compete with dye
> transfer Technicolor.
>
> And, as far as sharpness goes, the Technicolor prints of the mid-late 1960s
> were the best. The good British prints went on a bit longer. Those prints
> are staggering. You can (and should) carp about early 1950s prints, but if
> you put in a 1965 Technicolor print of ANYTHING it will likely be a
> stunner.
This is kinda OT, but there are quite a few people here who seem to REALLY
know what they're talking about in matters technical. So I hope I can get
answered a question that's been in my mind for years.
I've always thought that British color films from the 1940s and early 50s
that I've seen -- THE THIEF OF BAGHDAD, COLONEL BLIMP, THIS HAPPY BREED,
HENRY V, STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN, BLACK NARCISSUS, THE RED SHOES, THE TITFIELD
THUNDERBOLT, THE LADYKILLERS, RICHARD III, A KID FOR TWO FARTHINGS plus
clips from TALES OF HOFFMAN -- looked markedly different, and all in the
same way, from the American color films I've seen from the same period, such
as SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and GONE WITH THE WIND.
In the British films, the edges of things aren't quite as crisp, the
lighting looks to be of a much lower-key, and the colors themselves are
muted, almost muffled, and it's like they're not really part of the things
being photographed (imagine Turner colorization minus the garishness). The
overall style is something like the sfumato effect of a Da Vinci-style
painting. As a style, this is a perfectly fair choice (in fact, I consider
several of those titles to be masterpieces). But, in my memory at least,
EVERY British color film of that period that I've seen is done in that same
style, which makes no sense. Admittedly, 11 films plus a few clips is not a
huge sample size and half are from one source (the Archers). But there are
no exceptions, that I've seen anyway; there's a reasonable diversity of
style and subject matter among those dozen; and the other films' auteurs --
Lean, Olivier, Reed and Ealing -- don't strongly resemble Powell and
Pressburger in any other way.
Two other relevant facts: 1) the only American color film of the period that
I can definitely remember having a similar impression of was RANCHO
NOTORIOUS (my memories of MOONFLEET and A STAR IS BORN are suggestive, but
I'm really not certain); and 2) the British black-and-white films of the
period don't strike me as visually being any different from comparable
American films -- though they are generally cheaper-looking (as the British
color films are too).
So ... was there something different about British color film, either in
terms of quality or style at the time, or in terms of how it ages? Is this
an accident of prints? Was there something different about the British style
of film-making that just makes color films come out that way? Is my sample
size not large enough or otherwise distorted? Or am I just screwed in the
head (and eyes)?
Victor
William Hooper
early 3 strip technicolor.
But since the comparison has been made to the common practice
of "cleaned up" releases of earlier record releases, my hackles
have been raised about the godawful abuses & abominations that
have been the result of that marketing-driven practice.
The audio artifacts, including part of the noise & artifacts of early
processing techniques, were PART of the original record release, they
were part of the SOUND of the music that made them hits & classics
to begin with.
Going back to the days of LP releases of Top 40 hits, the songs
would become hits by being played on AM radio, through a boatload
of audio compression. Records on the radio would thus be very
upfront & high energy, even ballads. When folks bought the 45 &
played them, they felt a little disappointed because it didn't "sound
like it did on the radio". I remember answering phones in radio &
hearing people request songs *that they were playing in the
background*, I'd ask why they're requesting it, & the answer would
always be a fumbling variation on "I like to hear it on the radio".
It was because of the compression, & likely somewhat because of the
groove noise.
LP's had even more dynamic range than 45's, not only did the LP's
sound less upfront than the 45 version of the same song at home,
they did on the air as well. Plus they weren't as noisy, & if
you remember when CD's and DDD recordings started out, artists
were going back in & ADDING groove noise & square wave because
DDD was so clean & dead. They still are.
Even as far as remixes go, labels themselves mixed LP's a little
more open & wide than the singles, too.
When the first CD's came out & you could get these "oldies", they
were absolutely, sickeningly noise free, widened dynamic range
made for old people's nonthreatening oldies station mixes. Yes,
they're cleaned up, dead, & good for office listening now. They
sound nothing like the hot songs that became hits.
One of the things I am enormously glad I did was when several years
ago I picked up some Stax records compilation CD, was absolutely
disgusted by the "Nelson Riddle's Engineer was here" cleanup, & to
fix it got from the junkheap the original nasty Gates Solid
Statesman that was the on-air processing for a classic Top 40 station
in the mid 70s. It's in my stereo rack at home, & THAT's what that
music sounded like. More like present day alternative, urban, &
club music environment, & unlike the anesthetized Lite Hits oldies
for aging boomers with weak bladders that they're marketing these
"re-mastered" releases too.
The exciting, gripping, fun Arturo Toscanini & NBC Orchestra LP I had
& considered a sort of reference for my favorite popular-targeted
recording of light classics was released on CD, taking advantage of
being able to increase dynamic range & do more noise reduction.
That CD is a brick on the floor in the middle of a large room.
I read that they're putting out a CD compilation of re-mastered
Rolling Stones hits; 5 dollars says it will sound like a damn
Steely Dan album, not the Rolling Stones. These things are all being
artistically altered in a significant way to conform to modern,
burned out, washed out old-peoples' tastes.
There are a number of DVDs I can't stand because the image
manipulation to make it "better looking" is actually to make
it easier to read - they tend to look more like cartoons than
photography.
It will certainly make some folks compelled to buy
even more DVD's when they start advertising that the new transfers
have been able to return the clarity of image to shots that were
ruined by sticking net over the lens.
The premise that the image quality of DVD's touted as being
of better image quality that original prints completely ignores
the fact that camera & print tests were done originally to get
them the way the cameraman, DP, or director *wanted* them to look.
Aside from removal of things like negative scratches & damage, there's
an obvious problem with correcting other "technical flaws" that
altogether may have been integral, essential parts of the original
work's look that was desired by its creators.
I'd like to think that the current trend of altering movies
to the cartoonish "DVD look" might be just a sort of transitory
fashion, like the early MTV & Hullabaloo looks. Unfortunately,
since the sonic alteration of previous hits for oldies release
continues to be prevalent, I really suspect that images will grow even
*more* schematic. It will probably develop into image expectations
for people who grow up watching them, & along with parallel immersion
in video game, poor CGI in theatrical releases, & low resolution
reduced contrast & color palette digital theatrical image acquisition
& projection that's being pushed so hard, I'm pretty sure that
the cinematic/video live action future looks a lot like anime'.
>>Jim Beaver wrote:
>>
>> "Bruce Calvert" <silentf...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> news:R0Pa9.37400$15.1...@www.newsranger.com...
>> > From today's IMDB news:
>> >
>> > Warner Home Video has demonstrated a new digital process, called
>> > Ultra-Resolution, that it has used to remaster the classic Technico
lor
>> musical
>> > Singin' in the Rain for DVD, due to be released on Sept. 24. As Vid
eo
>> Store
>> > magazine describes the process in its online edition today (Tuesday
), the
>> > process involved scanning the 443,424 separate frames of the three
"master
>> > positives" of the Technicolor film. (The original Technicolor proce
ss
>> involved
>> > using a camera that exposed three rolls of film simultaneously, pro
ducing
>> > yellow, cyan and magenta images. These were then used to print the
>> individual
>> > frames onto celluloid stock with ink, producing the full-color film
) The
>> > digital images were then combined electronically, adjusting for agi
ng and
>> film
>> > shrinkage. The result, according to Richard May, Warner's chief of
film
>> > preservation, are images that exceed the clarity of the original. "
I don't
>> > remember ever seeing so much detail," he told the trade magazine.
>>
>> No disrespect to Dick May or anyone else, but how can any copy exceed
the
>> clarity of the original? Can the copy show things that weren't in th
e
>> original? If certain details were not visible on the original film
>> emulsion, how can any reproduction reveal those things?
>>
>-Neil Midkiff
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Article poste via Voila News - http://www.news.voila.fr
Le : Thu Aug 29 11:15:52 2002 depuis l'IP : 66.55.13.227 [VIP 9946225]
CAndersen (Kimba)
>It was because of the compression, & likely somewhat because of the
>groove noise.
I've always said that Shirley Bassey's "Goldfinger" just doesn't sound
right without the sound of a crappily-made polystyrene 45-RPM groove.
There's two things at work here: The "Pop Music Effect", where the first
version you hear of a song is the only version that sounds right to you,
and what you suggest, that the music makers accommodated and adjusted for
the final distortion in delivery over the air and on crappily-made
records. It's hard to separate the two, because the first is so strong and
you never know exactly when the second is a factor.
But I will not deny that an awful lot of reissue CDs sound like they were
remastered by deaf people.
And there are the large number of whiners out there. I was in a CD store
when some guy threw a recently-purchased reissue CD at a clerk,
complaining at the top of his lungs that he "heard some noise on it".
Unfortunately, I was standing under one of the store's speakers as the
clerk cranked it up to deafening levels trying to hear this offensive
problem.
The whiners make themselves heard while the rest of us get out our 78s and
listen to the music.
>I really suspect that images will grow even
>*more* schematic. It will probably develop into image expectations
>for people who grow up watching them, & along with parallel immersion
>in video game, poor CGI in theatrical releases, & low resolution
>reduced contrast & color palette digital theatrical image acquisition
>& projection that's being pushed so hard, I'm pretty sure that
>the cinematic/video live action future looks a lot like anime'.
I have no doubt that you're right. The incredible number of hours spent in
front of videogame displays by a very large number of people can't help
but distort their ideas of what things "should" look like. Look at the
popularity of the disgustingly ugly pictures displayed by Sony WEGA TVs.
We can only hope that the video distortions will continue to be built into
some TVs, so that discs can be properly mastered and still look ugly to
those who choose to buy those TVs while they look good on a decent set.
Stephen Cooke
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Victor Morton wrote:
> So ... was there something different about British color film, either in
> terms of quality or style at the time, or in terms of how it ages? Is this
> an accident of prints? Was there something different about the British style
> of film-making that just makes color films come out that way? Is my sample
> size not large enough or otherwise distorted? Or am I just screwed in the
> head (and eyes)?
Can't help you with the technical aspects, but at least I can reaffirm
what you're seeing. I've always felt British colour from that period
looked "different", even in restored 35mm prints of Colonel Blimp and The
Red Shoes. A little soft, more like pastels than the garishness of, say,
Duel in the Sun (which is stunning in its own way).
On the other hand, one UK title that sticks out in my mind as being more
like a North American film is A Matter of Life and Death (aka Stairway to
Heaven), where earth is in colour and heaven is black and white! But the
colour seemed to me to be significantly "sharper", for lack of a better
term. Maybe Natalie Kalmus was on vacation in the UK at the time... :)
swac
Anyone have Jack Cardiff's phone number?
Bill Vermillion
William Hooper <w...@mindless.com> wrote:
>I'm completely in favor of using computer-aided registration for
>early 3 strip technicolor.
>But since the comparison has been made to the common practice
>of "cleaned up" releases of earlier record releases, my hackles
>have been raised about the godawful abuses & abominations that
>have been the result of that marketing-driven practice.
The Prisoner of ??? Island - the story of Dr.Mudd and his discovery
that mosquitoes tranmit malaria had a few scences that were highly
changed by the processing.
In one scene there is a pan down the side of the prison and some of
the lines between the stones are missing. It appeared to me the
automatic scratch removers [acting like the old drop-out
compensators], removed the lines between the stones makeing them
about 3 feet high, and then when the vertical motion stopped the
lines between them appeared again making them 18" tall.
Then there is the rain in Citizen Kane that is seen in the top 1/2
of the window but missing the bottom half. :-(
>The audio artifacts, including part of the noise & artifacts of early
>processing techniques, were PART of the original record release, they
>were part of the SOUND of the music that made them hits & classics
>to begin with.
It depends on how early the recordings were made as accidental
comrpession crept in when using tube devices as they overloaded in
the second harmonic range which was quite musical. The transistors
overloaded in the 3rd harmonic which was harder and when they went
to IC's most of the overload harmonics were 7th order - so they
were really easy to hear so the chance of overload >>IF<< they were
paying attention during recording was less. The 'cleaner' sound
in that era was because original distortions were lower.
>Going back to the days of LP releases of Top 40 hits, the songs
>would become hits by being played on AM radio, through a boatload
>of audio compression. Records on the radio would thus be very
>upfront & high energy, even ballads. When folks bought the 45 &
>played them, they felt a little disappointed because it didn't "sound
>like it did on the radio".
Not neccesarily true. "The Bird" [everybody knows the bird's the
word] would literally hang on 0 VU during the entire playing of the
record. You could not compress that much more with any audio
processing gear at the station.
And as time progressed the 45's were cut with more compression and
also 'hotter'. The CBS tried to set a standard level and sent out
disks to the radio stations so you could mark all your pots and
everything would come out at the same volume.
Of course that lasted all of a minute or so :-). What the
producers would do was to cut their singles as hot as possible
[widest groove excursion to generate the most output]. This was so
their records would play lounder on the juke boxes than others.
I was talking with Shelby Singleton one time [probably around 1970]
and he blew out 1 or 2 $10,000 helium cooled cutting heads trying
to make his current project 'hotter'. [He was a legend in the old
days. He started Smash records for Mercury and the first 56
releases he was responsible for hit Billboard's Top 100]
>I remember answering phones in radio & hearing people request
>songs *that they were playing in the background*, I'd ask why
>they're requesting it, & the answer would always be a fumbling
>variation on "I like to hear it on the radio".
>It was because of the compression, & likely somewhat because of the
>groove noise.
Or like the station I worked at [and other stations did the same],
we sped the 45RPM speed up just slightly so our station would
sound brighter and more uptempo. Something must have been done
right because I had 60% shares when I was on at night and left the
other night-time stations [five or six at that time] to fight for
the remaining 40% of the audience.
>LP's had even more dynamic range than 45's, not only did the LP's
>sound less upfront than the 45 version of the same song at home,
>they did on the air as well. Plus they weren't as noisy,
Not the first LPs. They were cut at a lower volume and you'd get
up to 30 mintues/side. They got 'hotter' as time went along and
playing time went down. Then the bean-counters figured that if
they charged the same amount per LP but put only 5 songs per side
instead of the up to then 6 songs per side - they could save
about 10 cents per LP on mechanical rights. That was why during
the mid-60s people wanted the original British versions of Beattle
recording to get 12 songs and not 10 in the US versions.
> & if you remember when CD's and DDD recordings started out,
>artists were going back in & ADDING groove noise & square wave
>because DDD was so clean & dead. They still are.
Adding noise was not common. And with proper recording and audio
system to play them upon they are not neccesarily dead. [I run
studio monitors for my system as I spent too many years behind the
controls of a recording console to prefer anything less. And gobs
of power so I get clean transient response - even though the system
runs only about 2-4 watts average output - I have measured 125db
peaks that are absoutely clean]
>Even as far as remixes go, labels themselves mixed LP's a little
>more open & wide than the singles, too.
That depends. I had one LP I mixed that when they mastered it they
ran it through some cheap EQ and totally destroyed the l/r phase
relationships and made it muddy and opaque. I shouldn't complain
too loudly though as it hit #1 on the Billboard 'soul' charts as
they were called at that time.
>When the first CD's came out & you could get these "oldies", they
>were absolutely, sickeningly noise free, widened dynamic range
>made for old people's nonthreatening oldies station mixes. Yes,
>they're cleaned up, dead, & good for office listening now. They
>sound nothing like the hot songs that became hits.
Some of those were absolutely attrocious.
>One of the things I am enormously glad I did was when several years
>ago I picked up some Stax records compilation CD, was absolutely
>disgusted by the "Nelson Riddle's Engineer was here" cleanup, & to
>fix it got from the junkheap the original nasty Gates Solid
>Statesman that was the on-air processing for a classic Top 40 station
>in the mid 70s.
Yucko. Gates built OK stuff. We used CBS labs audimax and volumax
and followed that with a Kahn symetric peak for awhile until we
moved to an RCA unit where we could push 120% positive peaks - so
we'd sound louder before the FCC limited that. [If you went past
100% on negative peaks you'd clip the transmission and splatter all
over the dial and you'd get a quick visit from an FCC inspector]
>I read that they're putting out a CD compilation of re-mastered
>Rolling Stones hits; 5 dollars says it will sound like a damn
>Steely Dan album, not the Rolling Stones. These things are all being
>artistically altered in a significant way to conform to modern,
>burned out, washed out old-peoples' tastes.
Some of the original recordings from that era are pretty raw.
A lot depended on the label the artists cut for and whether they'd
get a good sounding studio or one that was seemingly run by
amateurs. [I've worked both sides - broadcast and laster as a
recording engineer].
>There are a number of DVDs I can't stand because the image
>manipulation to make it "better looking" is actually to make
>it easier to read - they tend to look more like cartoons than
>photography.
You mean like "The Phantom Menance" that is enhanced like mad.
I prefer my LD of that - at least it looks real.
>The premise that the image quality of DVD's touted as being
>of better image quality that original prints completely ignores
>the fact that camera & print tests were done originally to get
>them the way the cameraman, DP, or director *wanted* them to look.
And that look often went away when the prints were released.
The original GWTW was more pastel like and the colors were pumped
up in the 1965ish restoration to look more like Kodachrome - skies
bluer and grass greener than mother nature ever had.
>I'd like to think that the current trend of altering movies
>to the cartoonish "DVD look" might be just a sort of transitory
>fashion,
I hope so too. I don't think it will happen but I do hope it does.
Too many people are more worried about content than form.
>It will probably develop into image expectations
>for people who grow up watching them, & along with parallel immersion
>in video game, poor CGI in theatrical releases, & low resolution
>reduced contrast & color palette digital theatrical image acquisition
>& projection that's being pushed so hard, I'm pretty sure that
>the cinematic/video live action future looks a lot like anime'.
For people who have not seen good 'big screen' theatres [not the
googleplexes that assail us today with their sort-of-infocus prints
and are more familiar with computer generated images they really
have no standard with which to make the comparison. You only know
something looks bad when you see something better, and the
opportunity to see something better seems to be diminishing with
time.
Eric Grayson
explain the "look."
I think that you are seeing a couple of things that explain these effects:
a) A number of titles that you've seen have been transferred from British
original release prints, and these will have a softer look to them. The
American titles have generally been remastered onto newer film stocks (all
of the Turner product has been remastered) and these titles will look
sharper, whether or not the original prints looked that way.
b) The director of photography on a number of these was Jack Cardiff and he
liked that "look," even though he hated Natalie Kalmus. It seems that
EVERYONE hated Natalie Kalmus, especially Herbert Kalmus, who divorced her
(even though she kept the name).
Cardiff preferred a very theatrical look (see Black Narcissus for the best
example) and did things like complementary lighting (deliberately making
greenish shadows when the main lighting is reddish) to accentuate it.
Because of Kalmus and Cardiff, films in England from, say 1940-1954 or so
have a distinctive "look" to them. Even when Cardiff wasn't the director
of photography, he was very influential on others.
The Americans preferred the gaudier color, and it wasn't until Moulin
Rouge, when John Huston tried a deliberately muted look, that things
changed. Fritz Lang would certainly have jumped on that bandwagon, so it's
not surprising that Rancho Notorious looks the same way.
After 1953-1954, many films were shot on Eastman color negative and the
color saturation was automatically lowered because of that. The
three-strip system was a clumsy, bulky, nightmarish machine, but it could
do some amazing stuff that Eastman color still can't do.
Eric
Eric Grayson
>The original GWTW was more pastel like and the colors were pumped
>up in the 1965ish restoration to look more like Kodachrome - skies
>bluer and grass greener than mother nature ever had.
Not strictly true. And there's a good chance that the original prints of
GWTW are what Natalie Kalmus wanted, not what Selznick wanted.
Here's what I know about GWTW reissues:
1939: Original nitrate issue. Some sepia-ish prints survive.
1954: Reissue. Some evidence that Selznick may have been consulted. Very
rich color, typical for dye transfer printing of that era.
1961: Reissue. Some 1954 prints were used, but also there were new prints
made. Very rich color.
1967: Metrocolor (Eastmancolor) reissue. More standard, less saturated,
color.
1974: Reissue. Some prints appear to have been on Agfa stock, a newish
process at the time. Very nice trailers survive from this issue.
[I'm sure there were probably a couple of reissues after 1974 but I'm not
aware of them...]
1989: Turner reissue 50th anniversary. Remastered from the 3-strip
materials on Eastman LPP stock for reprinting.
1998: Dye transfer Technicolor prints made from 1989 materials. Prints are
in an odd kind of Cinemascope and look geniunely awful.
As you can see, there is not a definitive LOOK for GWTW. My best money is
that the movie looked most like Selznick wanted it in 1954.
Eric
Bill Vermillion
Eric Grayson <er...@wolftechnical.com> wrote:
>>And that look often went away when the prints were released.
>>The original GWTW was more pastel like and the colors were pumped
>>up in the 1965ish restoration to look more like Kodachrome - skies
>>bluer and grass greener than mother nature ever had.
>Not strictly true. And there's a good chance that the original
>prints of GWTW are what Natalie Kalmus wanted, not what Selznick
>wanted.
I'm basing my comments on the first real re-issue and rework of
GWTW when the reformatted it for wide-screen. The American
Cinematographer article was quite extensive.
I was not commenting on anything later than that. The reframing
took a lot of work but so much of GWTW was framed perfectly to
start with. It was just the money people wanting to capitalize on
the wide-screen film vs the little screen TV.
Has this version ever been reissued? It didn't deserve to be as th
original aspect ratio serves it quite well.
>Here's what I know about GWTW reissues:
>1939: Original nitrate issue. Some sepia-ish prints survive.
>1954: Reissue. Some evidence that Selznick may have been consulted. Very
>rich color, typical for dye transfer printing of that era.
>1961: Reissue. Some 1954 prints were used, but also there were new prints
>made. Very rich color.
>1967: Metrocolor (Eastmancolor) reissue. More standard, less saturated,
>color.
And it was somewhere in the above when they went back to the
3-strip negatives and reframed for 'wide-screen' and changed the
color to be brighter. This was made from the original negatives
and no earlier prints were used.
Eric Grayson
>And it was somewhere in the above when they went back to the
>3-strip negatives and reframed for 'wide-screen' and changed the
>color to be brighter. This was made from the original negatives
>and no earlier prints were used.
The 1954 and 1961 prints are brighter (more saturated color) than the 1939
prints and they were done under Selznick's supervision (at least the 1954
ones probably were-- I'm not sure about the other).
There is a little reframing present on the 1954 and 1961 prints to allow
for 1.85:1 formatting. This is still present today as the original
negatives were altered for this.
The 1967 prints are completely retimed for Eastman color and are
reformatted entirely for 1.85:1. This was done via a dupe Eastman color
negative which has since faded. This version was reissued in 1974.
By 1989 it had faded too much to use.
My point is that there have been color printings on GWTW that are all over
the map, and two different ones during Selznick's reign. There really is
no official "look" for this film.
Eric
Bill Vermillion
Eric Grayson <wolf...@indy.net> wrote:
>
>>And it was somewhere in the above when they went back to the
>>3-strip negatives and reframed for 'wide-screen' and changed the
>>color to be brighter. This was made from the original negatives
>>and no earlier prints were used.
>The 1954 and 1961 prints are brighter (more saturated color)
>than the 1939 prints and they were done under Selznick's
>supervision (at least the 1954 ones probably were-- I'm not sure
>about the other).
>There is a little reframing present on the 1954 and 1961 prints to allow
>for 1.85:1 formatting. This is still present today as the original
>negatives were altered for this.
Thank goodness.
>The 1967 prints are completely retimed for Eastman color and
>are reformatted entirely for 1.85:1. This was done via a dupe
>Eastman color negative which has since faded. This version was
>reissued in 1974.
That's the one that struck me as a travesty. The article in
American Cinematographers was quite good on this one. Too bad you
can only keep so many old magazines when you don't have a house the
size of a warehouse :-(. I'd like to go back and re-read that
again.
>By 1989 it had faded too much to use.
Thank our lucky stars.
>My point is that there have been color printings on GWTW that
>are all over the map, and two different ones during Selznick's
>reign. There really is no official "look" for this film.
Well the original of the reformatted was punched up to look more
like Kodachrome. I just think that the original would be close to
what the creators wanted. The 1967 surely wasn't.
Bill
David Mullen
original dye transfer prints of both British and American 3-strip
productions. I would say that the PRIMARY difference is due to stylistic
choices in art direction, lighting, and photography. This is horrible
over-generalization of course (so I apologize), but cultures that live &
work in more subdued weather conditions (less harsh sunlight) tend to feel
that softer colors in photography look more natural to the eye, plus of
course your working conditions outdoors ARE in less hard sunlight often
producing more muted results. And certainly British cinematography tended
towards softer lighting and a more low-key naturalistic approach (even in
3-strip) than what developed in American studio photography by the late
1930's.
There is a possibility that there are differences in the dyes used for the
dye transfer (imbibation) printing, but I would think that what dyes were
used was dictated by the main facility in Los Angeles and the
recommendations were carried out in London.
I'm sure one could dig up some Hollywood 3-strip productions which use
softer colors too, though. I seem to recall "Drums Along the Mohawk" being
pretty subdued-looking.
Oh, another thing is that one can vary the color saturation of the final dye
transfer prints not only by adjusting the dyes but by the gamma of the
negatives and the positive matrices in processing. I even believe that the
matrices were flashed to control contrast, but this might be more in the
later days when they were extracted from Eastmancolor negatives. And in
that era, you could also switch to separation filters that did not perfectly
subtract the other wavelengths on the Eastmancolor negative and create b&w
separations that were corrupted with the other two colors, producing a
desaturated and washed-out effect. This was done to produce dye transfer
prints for TV transmission, but Ozzie Morris saw this once at the
Technicolor London labs and used it for the prints for "Moby Dick"
(Eastmancolor negative / dye transfer prints), adding a fourth silver key
pass to restore the blacks in the prints. Well, some of the prints got this
treatment...
Anyway, I'm just suggesting that there are a couple of points in the chain
where color saturation can be controlled in the dye transfer process.
David Mullen
Eric Grayson
>Well the original of the reformatted was punched up to look more
>like Kodachrome. I just think that the original would be close to
>what the creators wanted. The 1967 surely wasn't.
Bill, the 1954 and the 1961 prints look more like Kodachrome than the 1967
prints ever did.
I never saw a 1967 print (in 1967 at least), but I can tell you from
personal experience that the 1954 and 1961 prints are very Kodachrome-like.
The 1967 prints, being on Eastmancolor, were naturally less saturated than
the dye transfer prints would have been. There probably was an effort to
punch it up at that time, because in 1967 Eastmancolor was pretty
de-saturated.
The heavily-saturated GWTW Kodachrome-like "look" dates back to Selznick's
lifetime.
Eric
Foto28
>lifetime.
Oddly, now Kodachrome is considered somewhat flat compared to modern emulsions
(speaking of still photography, anyway)...imagine if GWTW had been given a
"Velvia look"! (For those not familiar with Velvia, it's a brilliantly
saturated transparency film that makes richly colored landscapes, still lifes,
and product shots, but makes people look sunburned if anyone makes the poor
choice of using it as a portrait film)
===============
Danny Burk
www.dannyburk.com - fine art photography
Bill Vermillion
Eric Grayson <wolf...@indy.net> wrote:
>>
>>Well the original of the reformatted was punched up to look more
>>like Kodachrome. I just think that the original would be close to
>>what the creators wanted. The 1967 surely wasn't.
>Bill, the 1954 and the 1961 prints look more like Kodachrome
>than the 1967 prints ever did.
>I never saw a 1967 print (in 1967 at least), but I can tell you
>from personal experience that the 1954 and 1961 prints are very
>Kodachrome-like.
Memory fades but I saw the 1967 release in the first month of it's
release and the color seemed like it was more of the current 'pop'
style. But as we know the further from the 'scene-of-the-crime'
the more fragile our memory is - and that was 35 years ago.
This was when all the big companies - no matter who/what they were,
started modernizing. Leo the line became a [poor IMO] graphic,
RCA dropped the lighting logo and went for block letters.
Everything was being done to stop associations with the past.
This was in the 'Don't trust anyone over 30 era'.
I just remembered I surely didn't like it - and making it
widescreen surely destroyed so much of the art in the middle.
Bill Vermillion
Foto28 <fot...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>>The heavily-saturated GWTW Kodachrome-like "look" dates back to Selznick's
>>lifetime.
>Oddly, now Kodachrome is considered somewhat flat compared
>to modern emulsions (speaking of still photography,
>anyway)...imagine if GWTW had been given a "Velvia look"! (For
>those not familiar with Velvia, it's a brilliantly saturated
>transparency film that makes richly colored landscapes, still
>lifes, and product shots, but makes people look sunburned if
>anyone makes the poor choice of using it as a portrait film)
I prefered Ektachrome when filming as opposed to Kodachrome.
Things looked more natural. So maybe that's where some of my bias
came in. Done as a amateur with a modifed Bolex and a delightful
Taylor-Hobson-Cooke prime lens. Never did care for those
new fangled things that Zoomar came out with. :-)
Foto28
>Taylor-Hobson-Cooke prime lens. Never did care for those
>new fangled things that Zoomar came out with. :-)
>
I don't much care for zoom lenses most of the time either. Fortunately no one
has come out with one for my view camera :)
Bill Vermillion
Foto28 <fot...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>>Done as a amateur with a modifed Bolex and a delightful
>>Taylor-Hobson-Cooke prime lens. Never did care for those
>>new fangled things that Zoomar came out with. :-)
>>
>I don't much care for zoom lenses most of the time either.
>Fortunately no one has come out with one for my view camera :)
I've always wanted to see what it would take to adapt the bellows
approach to a movie camera to get buildings that looked like they
were shot straight on as you can do when you move the lens off
center in a view camera.
David Mullen
>approach to a movie camera to get buildings that looked like they
>were shot straight on as you can do when you move the lens off
>center in a view camera.
Clairmont Cameras in North Hollywood rents such a device.
David Mullen
Rodney Sauer
Digital Projection for larger theaters. I was rather disappointed with
the projection, at this venue at least. The color looked fine, but I'm
not one to compare it to the last time I saw it years ago. The
"technicolor blue" behind the opening credits was less bright and garish
than I remember, but whether I remember from film or video I can't say.
What was disappointing was "digital" vertical lines and stairstepping
that were visible, particularly when high-contrast text appeared in
background signs in the vaudeville flashbacks, and during Broadway
Melody when Gene Kelly became smaller and smaller in the crane shots his
arm was reduced to three vertical blocks. I discussed this with the
projectionists, who weren't sure whether what I was seeing was the
limits of the technology or the limits of their particular projection
equipment (which is optimized for wide-screen and so is not fully
utilized for this film).
Still, if this is supposed to be higher quality than film, I'd rather
have a technology that bottoms out into fuzz rather than one that
bottoms out into noticeable blocks.
Rodney Sauer
rod...@mont-alto.com
The Mont Alto Ragtime and Tango Orchestra
and The Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra
http://www.mont-alto.com/
Silents Suck
Isnt that just dandy?
Too bad that no amount of restoring can make the film
viewable with that FAG Gene Kelly - That fruit cake knows
nothing about dancing or singing - or acting for that matter.
Gene Kelly learned how to sing and dance with the money
he made as a "rent boy" ---- After Gene Kelly
became too old to do that sort of work he used his money at
some approved McCarthy School of dancing and singing.
People like Gene Kelly give a bad name to gay people.
Too bad you the Fags of the "Mont Alto" cant perform
their own speical score for this monstrosity.
:)
Sincerely,
Christina the movie critic
"wraps real fur around herself - adjusts her hat and exits smiling"
Rodney Sauer <rod...@mont-alto.com> wrote in message news:<3D74C7C9...@mont-alto.com>...
David Mullen
is, someone feels the need to designate themselves as the group troll? I
can imagine a newsgroup specializing in plumbing having some troll who calls
people using copper pipes "fags" or whatnot... It's a bizarre aspect of
human behavior on the internet.
David Mullen
Frederica
> WOW
>
> Isnt that just dandy?
> Too bad that no amount of restoring can make the film
> viewable with that FAG Gene Kelly - That fruit cake knows
> nothing about dancing or singing - or acting for that matter.
>
> Gene Kelly learned how to sing and dance with the money
> he made as a "rent boy" ---- After Gene Kelly
> became too old to do that sort of work he used his money at
> some approved McCarthy School of dancing and singing.
>
> People like Gene Kelly give a bad name to gay people.
> Too bad you the Fags of the "Mont Alto" cant perform
> their own speical score for this monstrosity.
>
> :)
> Sincerely,
>
> Christina the movie critic
> "wraps real fur around herself - adjusts her hat and exits smiling"
You know, I think it really is Jason. Ah well. (PLONK.)
Frederica
Precode
> WOW
>
> Isnt that just dandy?
> Too bad that no amount of restoring can make the film
> viewable with that FAG Gene Kelly - That fruit cake knows
> nothing about dancing or singing - or acting for that matter.
>
> Gene Kelly learned how to sing and dance with the money
> he made as a "rent boy" ---- After Gene Kelly
> became too old to do that sort of work he used his money at
> some approved McCarthy School of dancing and singing.
>
> People like Gene Kelly give a bad name to gay people.
> Too bad you the Fags of the "Mont Alto" cant perform
> their own speical score for this monstrosity.
>
>
> :)
> Sincerely,
>
> Christina the movie critic
> "wraps real fur around herself - adjusts her hat and exits smiling"
>
Hey, everyone! Jason's back!
Mike S.
ChaneyFan
<<drivvle snipped>>
I'm really irritated with all of you who haven't killfiled this bozo yet. I
wouldn't have to read this nonsense except for those of you who quote him/her.
:-(
===============================
Jon Mirsalis
e-mail: Chan...@aol.com
Lon Chaney Home Page: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan
Jon's Film Sites: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan/jonfilm.htm
Foto28
>wouldn't have to read this nonsense except for those of you who quote
>him/her.
>:-(
Funny, I was thinking the same thing.
If you just ignore it, it will give up and go away.
James Russell
>If you just ignore it, it will give up and go away.
We've ignored it in the past. It's still here. Oh well, back to using the
killfile program...
James R.
--
Hot Buttered Death http://www.ans.com.au/~jgwr/blog/
Celluloid Dreams: Wednesday, 8pm AEST, 2SER 107.3 FM http://www.2ser.com/
Frederica
> On 06 Sep 2002 01:41:05 GMT, fot...@aol.comnospam (Foto28) wrote:
>
> >If you just ignore it, it will give up and go away.
>
> We've ignored it in the past. It's still here. Oh well, back to using the
> killfile program...
>
> James R.
Yes, but it does so irregularly, almost like it has been put on an
unsuccessful outpatient program. Then they either re-admit it, or up the
dosage (although from the tenor of the posts, I'm thinking electroshock),
and it goes away. It's OK, my killfile is an expandable one.
Frederica
Steve Crook
The muted colours of British Technicolor films of the 40s & 50s
has often been commented on. Some put it down to different water
or different chemical mixes. I prefer the Scorsese explanation.
British skies tend to be overcast more often that the searing
brightness of Hollywood skies. Britain (especially in the 40s)
wasn't a land of bright colours :)
The other reason is that many of the art directors (and some
cinematographers like Jack Cardiff) were influenced more by the
theatre and paintings.
During the filming of AMOLAD Jack Cardiff had many arguments with
Natalie Kalmus and Technicolor but he was always backed up by
Michael Powell, so they got what they wanted.
Steve Crook
Powell and Pressburger Appreciation Society
Web Site: http://www.Powell-Pressburger.org
EMail list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PnP