A Few Words About A few words about...™ High Noon -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford /t/322358/a-few-words-about-high-noon-in-blu-ray/30#post_3950751
Alright, after watching this BRD in its entirety, I can see why RAH would crap over the video presentation knowing his standards and expertise. With that said, I thought the opening credit sequence with Tex Ritter singing was mediocre at best and I'm being kind there. However, I thought the rest of the BRD wasn't as mediocre and in some sequences, it looked quite good for the most part. No way, should Olive or Paramount be proud with this video presentation as it could've been much better, so instead of getting the highest grade of 5 video-wise, I would give it a 3.5 on my scale. My grade is more forgiving than RAH's, but I think many folks would be satisfied with this BRD, but those of us that want the best possible HD presentations made available to us will not be satisfied with it. The fight to keep pushing these home video companies into giving us their best efforts with the product they're releasing for sale is far from over and I'm afraid we'll never get there in the disc era. Next up, the pod BRD.

Crawdaddy

Robert,

Let's look at it this way. So much money has been made on High Noon, that...

1. It deserves to have top quality asset protection.

2. It deserves to be, and can easily be, a top quality Blu-ray

This film has been run to death for decades on TV, then VHS, laserdisc (even Criterion), multiple DVD releases, now Blu-ray.

And they still neither respect their asset nor treat it correctly?

It constantly seems to be how much can we bring on if we do thus and so. Not look at our cash cow, and how it's been treated.

That said, High Noon is a thousand times the quality of My Fair Lady and Spartacus.

All in perspective.

RAH

 

[Brandon Conway]

Quote: MisterLime

They're working on the restoration of THE QUIET MAN right now, so there's a chance it could be released this year.
The Paramount/Olive restoration is a new one and has nothing to do with the failed UCLA attempt.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/311707/coming-soon-from-olive-films/780#post_3940621

By "failed" he means incomplete, which he mentions earlier in that thread.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /t/322358/a-few-words-about-high-noon-in-blu-ray/30#post_3950782

Robert,

Let's look at it this way. So much money has been made on High Noon, that...

1. It deserves to have top quality asset protection.

2. It deserves to be, and can easily be, a top quality Blu-ray

This film has been run to death for decades on TV, then VHS, laserdisc (even Criterion), multiple DVD releases, now Blu-ray.

And they still neither respect their asset nor treat it correctly?

It constantly seems to be how much can we bring on if we do thus and so. Not look at our cash cow, and how it's been treated.

That said, High Noon is a thousand times the quality of My Fair Lady and Spartacus.

All in perspective.

RAH

To be fair to Paramount, they have had the film for less than a decade. Other entities made most of that money.

Not an excuse, just an observation.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway /t/322358/a-few-words-about-high-noon-in-blu-ray/30#post_3950784

To be fair to Paramount, they have had the film for less than a decade. Other entities made most of that money.

Not an excuse, just an observation.

I think there is a good chance Kinowelt in Germany will release this sometime in the future and do it justice.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/311707/coming-soon-from-olive-films/780#post_3940621
By "failed" he means incomplete, which he mentions earlier in that thread.

The UCLA restoration of THE QUIET MAN (from the original 35mm nitrate YCM elements) has been completed and publicly screened for years. This is the most recent: http://www.ifi.ie/film/the-quiet-man/
Here are the materials in the archive:
- The complete 35mm safety film three-strip negatives
- The complete 35mm safety film optical soundtrack negatives
- Complete 3-strip preservation positives of each color record (two sets each)
- Two 35mm preservation positives (made from the original 3-strip negatives and optical soundtrack negative)
- Original picture and optical soundtrack negatives for the theatrical trailer
- 35mm composite sample reel with dye-transfer clips compared against faded Eastmancolor
If it's not utilized for a Blu-ray master, I suspect the cost of licensing the restoration from UCLA is most likely the reason.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder /t/322358/a-few-words-about-high-noon-in-blu-ray/30#post_3950787

I think there is a good chance Kinowelt in Germany will release this sometime in the future and do it justice.

Once again, we're not discussion large sums to do this correctly.

If they'd go back to the OCN and begin with a 4k scan, I bet that a profit could still be made. And the film would be properly protected, which it obviously is not.

RAH

 

[DavidJ]

None taken, as that's what its all about.
An electronic look, sticky or crawling grain, has nothing to do with budget.

I am pretty forgiving of most transfer issues, but not this.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /t/322358/a-few-words-about-high-noon-in-blu-ray/30#post_3950782

Robert,

Let's look at it this way. So much money has been made on High Noon, that...

1. It deserves to have top quality asset protection.

2. It deserves to be, and can easily be, a top quality Blu-ray

This film has been run to death for decades on TV, then VHS, laserdisc (even Criterion), multiple DVD releases, now Blu-ray.

And they still neither respect their asset nor treat it correctly?

It constantly seems to be how much can we bring on if we do thus and so. Not look at our cash cow, and how it's been treated.

That said, High Noon is a thousand times the quality of My Fair Lady and Spartacus.

All in perspective.

RAH

You're preaching to the HTF choir as the companies that own these assets should take your advice. However, the bean-counters that make those company decisions just aren't listening to you or those of us that agree with your position.








Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /t/322358/a-few-words-about-high-noon-in-blu-ray/30#post_3950814
Once again, we're not discussion large sums to do this correctly.

If they'd go back to the OCN and begin with a 4k scan, I bet that a profit could still be made. And the film would be properly protected, which it obviously is not.

RAH

How much money are you talking about? You really think Olive which is just the distributer can make enough profit to justify that investment? IMO, it would have to be Paramount to make that investment as it's their long-term asset right now.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford /t/322358/a-few-words-about-high-noon-in-blu-ray/30#post_3950903

How much money are you talking about? You really think Olive which is just the distributer can make enough profit to justify that investment? IMO, it would have to be Paramount to make that investment as it's their long-term asset right now.

A reasonable question, for which I've run a quick budget.

A full 4k scan and digital clean-up and repair, WITH a record out to a new 35mm archival negative and check print, and inclusive of an HD master, would run, at my cost, under $150,000. That would be inclusive of archival data files.

And yes, it would be Paramount, Viacom, or whomever, that should be covering that cost. Not Olive, which only holds a limited license.

That investment would cover the studio world-wide in each and every format in perpetuity.

The embarrassment, is NOT making that investment for a film like High Noon.

Let me be as simplistic as possible.

If the studio would like to sell me the copyright, and all elements, the first thing that I'd do, and I'd guarantee that it would be done immediately, would be to to find the money to do just that.

Day ONE!

By the way, if one really wanted to scrimp in the budget, one could hold the data files, and allow the film to bring in some income before recording back out to 35mm as a 4k archival element. If that were to occur, the budget would come down to an immediate cost of
110k, which is still inclusive of my standard 5% contingency.

Food for thought?

RAH

 

[DVDvision]

You're preaching to the HTF choir as the companies that own these assets should take your advice. However, the bean-counters that make those company decisions just aren't listening to you or those of us that agree with your position

That's alas true, but you gotta keep in mind that bean counters should have no, or minor position, in any company. They are not productive people. It's interesting thought, that in the current scheme, bean counters rule companies, whereas all the creative people without whom the companies would have no assets to sell, have zero or next to zero power.

It's a huge problem especially in DVD / Blu-ray companies, that needs to be adressed.

 

[Yorkshire]

A reasonable question, for which I've run a quick budget.
A full 4k scan and digital clean-up and repair, WITH a record out to a new 35mm archival negative and check print, and inclusive of an HD master, would run, at my cost, under $150,000.  That would be inclusive of archival data files.
And yes, it would be Paramount, Viacom, or whomever, that should be covering that cost.  Not Olive, which only holds a limited license.
That investment would cover the studio world-wide in each and every format in perpetuity.
The embarrassment, is NOT making that investment for a film like High Noon.
Let me be as simplistic as possible.
If the studio would like to sell me the copyright, and all elements, the first thing that I'd do, and I'd guarantee that it would be done immediately, would be to to find the money to do just that.
Day ONE!
By the way, if one really wanted to scrimp in the budget, one could hold the data files, and allow the film to bring in some income before recording back out to 35mm as a 4k archival element.  If that were to occur, the budget would come down to an immediate cost of
110k, which is still inclusive of my standard 5% contingency.
Food for thought?
RAH

Thanks for the info.
$150,000 still sounds like a fair few bob to me, but then again we're talking about High Noon, for crying out loud.
Does anyone know much about the other side of the accounts ledger. Okay, it'd cost $150k. But how much would they get from, for example, sales of rights to use the end product for Cable/satellite TV in the US, or UK, or Germany?
In other words, how long would it take to see that $150k come back?
Steve W

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Yorkshire /t/322358/a-few-words-about-high-noon-in-blu-ray/30#post_3950926
Thanks for the info.
$150,000 still sounds like a fair few bob to me, but then again we're talking about High Noon, for crying out loud.
Does anyone know much about the other side of the accounts ledger. Okay, it'd cost $150k. But how much would they get from, for example, sales of rights to use the end product for Cable/satellite TV in the US, or UK, or Germany?
In other words, how long would it take to see that $150k come back?
Steve W

$150,000 sounds cheap to me when you consider how much some of their movies make them on Blu ray, for example, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol made $29.51 million dollars on it's Blu ray debut, now also take into account that the Mission Impossible trilogy boxset made $3.1 million dollars just over this week, these are large numbers and yet Paramount didn't even bother striking new improved transfers for the first two Mission Impossible films despite the fact they are making big money on the set, getting away from the point here, my point is that lots of money is being made by new films released on Blu ray, huge sums of money, i would suggest they use a portion of the income from the new releases to strike new 4K transfers for some of their classic titles which will not only improve the quality but allow them to archive the classics for future generations.

The Star Wars boxset made over $100 million very quickly, yet George Lucas didn't bother to give us brand new 4K film scans of the original trilogy, he gave us old transfers, he is doing the same thing for two of the Indiana Jones films, it's "good enough" the masses will eat it up, sure they will, another boxset which will make them huge money, why not spend some on new improved transfers, because the reviews will give the boxset five stars outta five ( including this site ) and the people will buy regardless of a few complaints that it could have been better.

I'm actually annoyed when i see the figures and how much money is being generated for these companies and yet they are not investing it in their back catalog and in some cases as noted above they are not even investing it in more modern blockbuster fare from just twenty to thirty years ago,

They should be using money made off current releases to fund their back catalog, it just makes sense to protect their old movies and at the same time we as consumers will get a better deal.

P.S. The above figures are USA only and do not include DVD, imagine worldwide Blu ray and DVD sales for some of these titles and you will see the market is now huge, a film can flop at the cinema but make money back on the home market and they should spend some of the rewards on the back catalog.

 

[TravisR]

The Star Wars boxset made over $100 million very quickly, yet George Lucas didn't bother to give us brand new 4K film scans of the original trilogy, he gave us old transfers, he is doing the same thing for two of the Indiana Jones films, it's "good enough" the masses will eat it up, sure they will, another boxset which will make them huge money, why not spend some on new improved transfers, because the reviews will give the boxset five stars outta five ( including this site ) and the people will buy regardless of a few complaints that it could have been better.

In all fairness, the masses that you're looking down on most likely don't have your setup or knowledge (and probably make up about 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the world) so it may not be as simple as people just accepting whatever is given to them and more that it does look great to them based on their equipment and eyes.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by TravisR /t/322358/a-few-words-about-high-noon-in-blu-ray/30#post_3950983
In all fairness, the masses that you're looking down on most likely don't have your setup or knowledge (and probably make up about 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the entire world) so it may not be as simple as people just accepting whatever is given to them and more that it does look great to them. That's not to say that studios shouldn't try to aim as high as possible but if someone thinks that something looks good, it might be attributed to more than that person being part of the unwashed masses.

Well i'm not looking down on them, i'm actually looking down on the studio's who make the decisions, i still see no reason why they cannot use a portion of the profit from newer films for archiving and indeed restoration on older classics, it's their history and they should be preserving it for future generations.

I do think in the modern world that hired spin doctors or PR folks tell us things and we do tend to accept what is told to us far too much, be it Blu ray info or political nonsense which i will not get into here since we know it's banned and i want to play nice, scientific research tells us something, we accept it, it must be true, let's not question it, well i question everything, i'm not a trusting sort of soul unless i know someone well, i try to keep an open mind though on most things.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder /t/322358/a-few-words-about-high-noon-in-blu-ray/30#post_3950972

$150,000 sounds cheap to me when you consider how much some of their movies make them on Blu ray, for example, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol made $29.51 million dollars on it's Blu ray debut, now also take into account that the Mission Impossible trilogy boxset made $3.1 million dollars just over this week, these are large numbers and yet Paramount didn't even bother striking new improved transfers for the first two Mission Impossible films despite the fact they are making big money on the set, getting away from the point here, my point is that lots of money is being made by new films released on Blu ray, huge sums of money, i would suggest they use a portion of the income from the new releases to strike new 4K transfers for some of their classic titles which will not only improve the quality but allow them to archive the classics for future generations.

The Star Wars boxset made over $100 million very quickly, yet George Lucas didn't bother to give us brand new 4K film scans of the original trilogy, he gave us old transfers, he is doing the same thing for two of the Indiana Jones films, it's "good enough" the masses will eat it up, sure they will, another boxset which will make them huge money, why not spend some on new improved transfers, because the reviews will give the boxset five stars outta five ( including this site ) and the people will buy regardless of a few complaints that it could have been better.

I'm actually annoyed when i see the figures and how much money is being generated for these companies and yet they are not investing it in their back catalog and in some cases as noted above they are not even investing it in more modern blockbuster fare from just twenty to thirty years ago,

They should be using money made off current releases to fund their back catalog, it just makes sense to protect their old movies and at the same time we as consumers will get a better deal.

P.S. The above figures are USA only and do not include DVD, imagine worldwide Blu ray and DVD sales for some of these titles and you will see the market is now huge, a film can flop at the cinema but make money back on the home market and they should spend some of the rewards on the back catalog.

It's not cheap for many of these catalog titles who's units sold won't even come close to the titles you mentioned in your post.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder /t/322358/a-few-words-about-high-noon-in-blu-ray/30#post_3950989

Well i'm not looking down on them, i'm actually looking down on the studio's who make the decisions, i still see no reason why they cannot use a portion of the profit from newer films for archiving and indeed restoration on older classics, it's their history and they should be preserving it for future generations.

I do think in the modern world that hired spin doctors or PR folks tell us things and we do tend to accept what is told to us far too much, be it Blu ray info or political nonsense which i will not get into here since we know it's banned and i want to play nice, scientific research tells us something, we accept it, it must be true, let's not question it, well i question everything, i'm not a trusting sort of soul unless i know someone well, i try to keep an open mind though on most things.

Because they have stockholders that say otherwise.

 

[JamesNelson]

It's not cheap for many of these catalog titles who's units sold won't even come close to the titles you mentioned in your post. 

There is more than one way to model a business. One can try to make a profit on each and every item sold, or one can assume losses on given items with the goal of building a happier and larger overall customer base.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford /t/322358/a-few-words-about-high-noon-in-blu-ray/30#post_3950999

Because they have stockholders that say otherwise.

Someone at the studio needs to explain to stockholders that they have shares in a studio that has a history and back catalog to maintain, the final say is surely with those in charge and not the stockholder. It doesn't matter if a catalog title sells 3000 units, spend the $150,000 on it and look on it as a long term investment, look to recoup the money long term, at the moment it's short term thinking and the need to have an impressive debut that is damaging the film industry, ( in my opinion )

I would also add that some of these films have earned their profit, no matter how old they are, the studio should also take that into account.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to fund your preservation of the catalog titles by using the huge money made off of the newer movies, use part of that profit and ensure your history is saved with the highest standards currently possible, they will still make a profit overall, just slightly less using that business model.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, I'm not going to get into a long drawn out discussion on what Paramount does with their profits as I have no knowledge of it and neither do any of you.