- Joined
- Feb 8, 1999
- Messages
- 18,423
- Real Name
- Robert Harris
[COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 255)]Like many of you, I ordered a UniMonsters set from Amazon UK. Great price, great service.[/COLOR]
[COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 255)]Here are my thoughts, after sampling the set:[/COLOR]
Dracula[COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 255)] -[/COLOR]
[COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 255)]An interesting project, as the film was shot FA, meaning image from perf to [/COLOR]perf. Much like S35.
Derived from a nitrate lavender print, which has been under the custody of the Library of Congress -- they're far more involved with older films than one might suspect, and deserve a major share of the glory, when things go right -- and scanned at 6k via wet-gate, with stabilized image, de-flicker, grain management, and dirt and scratch removal.
The film element was also warped.
Dracula is basically a restoration horror story, which end happily. A great deal of digital processing went into making this look as superb as it does, with nary a slip-up toward making anything look digital.
Kudos to Universal and all involved.
Dracula has gorgeous black levels, shadow detail, and normal looking grain structure.
Those who don't know the film may find it slow-moving, and overly leisurely paced. I suggest that you stick with it, as rewards are numerous.
As a point of reference, the point scores in this commentary are based upon how good the image looks vs. the elements available.
Image - 5
Audio - 5 (There is enough high end hiss left in the recording to make it seem authentic. I love it!)
[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Frankenstein[/COLOR] -
Sampling this Blu-ray, I realized for the first time, that I was seeing the pure composites of the windmill sequence. The resolution pulled out of the elements is very impressive.
The majority of the Frankenstein image was harvested from a 1939 nitrate lavender of the re-cut short version of the film. The original negative, of which several reels no longer exist, was in too poor a condition to be the centerpiece of the restoration, with missing shots filled in from other elements.
Beautifully rendered in all respects.
Image - 5
Audio - 5
[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]The Mummy[/COLOR] -
The original negative no longer exists. A fine grain was the basis of the scan, with various replacement sections, as necessary, from other elements.
Image is a slight step down from the earlier films, but is still very representative. Audio has a bit of built-in wow and distortion in music, but nothing to be of concern.
Far nicer looking than I've ever seen.
Image - 4
Audio - 3.5
[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]The Bride of Frankenstein[/COLOR] -
The image for Bride was derived from a nitrate composite lavender. The element, due to extensive restoration work, performed beautifully, shows none of the its built-in problems.
Film jitter, chemical stains, running scratches, film tears, positive and negative dirt, flash frames, film warps, and shifts before and after cuts.
You'd never know it, looking at this Blu-ray.
Image - 5
Audio - 5
[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]The Wolfman [/COLOR]-
One of my personal favorites is down a notch compared with the earlier films. Derived from a dupe picture negative, itself taken from a nitrate fine grain, the image exhibits just a bit too much digital clean-up to be totally pleasing. The scan was at HD level, and has a bit of grain "management." I'm not thrilled with it, but it's not terribly problematic, and is generally okay.
Image - 3.5 (window-boxed main title and opening shot)
Audio - 5
[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Phantom of the Opera (1943) [/COLOR]-
From what I'm led to believe, the history of the original Phantom ends around 1948, at which time, and apparently in celebration of the studio's 46th Anniversary, junked all of their original silent camera negatives.
Happy Anniversary!
The 1943 re-make, which was photographed in three-strip Technicolor, is derived from the original camera negatives, albeit to an interpositive.
The problem is that the IP is flawed, uncorrected, and easily could have been.
Beautiful color comes apart with registration problems.
Occasionally beautiful Occasionally, not.
Image - 1.5 (would have been a 2, but for the window-boxing)
Audio - 5
[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Creature from the Black Lagoon[/COLOR] -
A VERY mixed bag, and an odd one.
Image quality, derived from the OCN have been well handled. I'm at a loss to figure out why the image cuts back and forth from astonishingly beautiful shots to dupes on a reasonably regular basis.
3D is handled well, if not perfectly, and I'll leave it to other to discuss that.
Presuming that the dupe shots are a part of the camera original...
Image - 4
Audio - 5
Bottom line on this set is simple. Six out of nine films, handled with great skill and care. One (Wolfman) less so. Phantom, a bit of a mess, and Creature, at least to me, a big question mark.
A greawt deal of care has gone into most of the films in this set, and should be recognized.
The Universal Monster Collection is Highly Recommended.
I highly suggest that you visit Mr. Koster's thread for far fuller information.
RAH
[COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 255)]Here are my thoughts, after sampling the set:[/COLOR]
Dracula[COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 255)] -[/COLOR]
[COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 255)]An interesting project, as the film was shot FA, meaning image from perf to [/COLOR]perf. Much like S35.
Derived from a nitrate lavender print, which has been under the custody of the Library of Congress -- they're far more involved with older films than one might suspect, and deserve a major share of the glory, when things go right -- and scanned at 6k via wet-gate, with stabilized image, de-flicker, grain management, and dirt and scratch removal.
The film element was also warped.
Dracula is basically a restoration horror story, which end happily. A great deal of digital processing went into making this look as superb as it does, with nary a slip-up toward making anything look digital.
Kudos to Universal and all involved.
Dracula has gorgeous black levels, shadow detail, and normal looking grain structure.
Those who don't know the film may find it slow-moving, and overly leisurely paced. I suggest that you stick with it, as rewards are numerous.
As a point of reference, the point scores in this commentary are based upon how good the image looks vs. the elements available.
Image - 5
Audio - 5 (There is enough high end hiss left in the recording to make it seem authentic. I love it!)
[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Frankenstein[/COLOR] -
Sampling this Blu-ray, I realized for the first time, that I was seeing the pure composites of the windmill sequence. The resolution pulled out of the elements is very impressive.
The majority of the Frankenstein image was harvested from a 1939 nitrate lavender of the re-cut short version of the film. The original negative, of which several reels no longer exist, was in too poor a condition to be the centerpiece of the restoration, with missing shots filled in from other elements.
Beautifully rendered in all respects.
Image - 5
Audio - 5
[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]The Mummy[/COLOR] -
The original negative no longer exists. A fine grain was the basis of the scan, with various replacement sections, as necessary, from other elements.
Image is a slight step down from the earlier films, but is still very representative. Audio has a bit of built-in wow and distortion in music, but nothing to be of concern.
Far nicer looking than I've ever seen.
Image - 4
Audio - 3.5
[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]The Bride of Frankenstein[/COLOR] -
The image for Bride was derived from a nitrate composite lavender. The element, due to extensive restoration work, performed beautifully, shows none of the its built-in problems.
Film jitter, chemical stains, running scratches, film tears, positive and negative dirt, flash frames, film warps, and shifts before and after cuts.
You'd never know it, looking at this Blu-ray.
Image - 5
Audio - 5
[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]The Wolfman [/COLOR]-
One of my personal favorites is down a notch compared with the earlier films. Derived from a dupe picture negative, itself taken from a nitrate fine grain, the image exhibits just a bit too much digital clean-up to be totally pleasing. The scan was at HD level, and has a bit of grain "management." I'm not thrilled with it, but it's not terribly problematic, and is generally okay.
Image - 3.5 (window-boxed main title and opening shot)
Audio - 5
[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Phantom of the Opera (1943) [/COLOR]-
From what I'm led to believe, the history of the original Phantom ends around 1948, at which time, and apparently in celebration of the studio's 46th Anniversary, junked all of their original silent camera negatives.
Happy Anniversary!
The 1943 re-make, which was photographed in three-strip Technicolor, is derived from the original camera negatives, albeit to an interpositive.
The problem is that the IP is flawed, uncorrected, and easily could have been.
Beautiful color comes apart with registration problems.
Occasionally beautiful Occasionally, not.
Image - 1.5 (would have been a 2, but for the window-boxing)
Audio - 5
[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Creature from the Black Lagoon[/COLOR] -
A VERY mixed bag, and an odd one.
Image quality, derived from the OCN have been well handled. I'm at a loss to figure out why the image cuts back and forth from astonishingly beautiful shots to dupes on a reasonably regular basis.
3D is handled well, if not perfectly, and I'll leave it to other to discuss that.
Presuming that the dupe shots are a part of the camera original...
Image - 4
Audio - 5
Bottom line on this set is simple. Six out of nine films, handled with great skill and care. One (Wolfman) less so. Phantom, a bit of a mess, and Creature, at least to me, a big question mark.
A greawt deal of care has gone into most of the films in this set, and should be recognized.
The Universal Monster Collection is Highly Recommended.
I highly suggest that you visit Mr. Koster's thread for far fuller information.
RAH