Nick,
I'd have to look at Peeping Tom again, but my memory is it was so far above any transfer that film had ever had that I was very pleased with it. Abortion? That's a little extreme - hardly an abortion, although I'm happy to give it a second look. As to The Birds, I completely disagree, as you know. I have seen The Birds projected since I saw it on opening day, right through to my 16mm and 35mm prints - again, I don't care what tools were used to do what, the look of it is grand in my eyes and very representative of the film itself, save for the making the many opticals more of a piece with the production photography - and that's a good thing, not a bad thing. If you've seen my other comments on this set you will know I am VERY hard to please. I just think people who don't know these films from projected prints are just guessing and making assumptions about a lot of stuff. I will NOT not give kudos where they are so clearly due - this film could have looked terrible had they not taken the obvious care they have.peerpee said:
I understand the need in a difficult situation such as this to use powerful digital tools to achieve a cohesive overall look, but my point is that we shouldn't be able to detect digital manipulation this much – ideally we shouldn't be able to detect it at all – and I do believe that it could have been handled much more subtly.Robert Harris said:
Agreed. There are other ways around the problem, but more expensive.
I would only agree in so much as if you were trying to achieve a cohesive look that was there in the first place, i.e. dupe footage replacing damaged sections etc. And even then I could do without it.peerpee said:
You get really defensive, don't you - or is it offensive? The opticals in Affair to Remember are between scenes opticals and are what they are. With The Birds, as you must know, you are dealing with a whole other ball of wax, and I think they've done a commendable job here - more than commendable - see Mr. Harris's comments. Going back to the negative reveals all sorts of things you would NOT HAVE SEEN in the theatrical prints, what with them being generations away from the negative. Universal's job is to not have the effects look WORSE but of a piece and rather like they would have in the theatrical prints. And I feel I have succeeded. If you don't, that's fine, that's what makes horse racing. But you've stated your opinion - you'd rather have a TERRIBLE transfer like The Man Who Knew Too Much - I don't live in that world, I'm afraidScott Calvert said:
One of the problems with The Birds, is that the fx shots had faded, as they were originally dupes. Their replacement, which was done several years ago, in the analogue realm, and done quite nicely, become problematic when scanned directly at high resolution, rather than being printed to film stock for projection.Scott Calvert said:
You don't know that for a fact, do you? I don't think the film elements are less than perfect, I think the element used for this transfer could be better, but my guess is that the color pulsing and radical color changes from shot to shot in some scenes could have absolutely been corrected somewhere along the transfer line. All it takes is commitment and money, and for a major set of films that are major assets, well, I think they should have done it.Scott Calvert said:
Yeah, I finally watched the whole thing all the way through last night as well. Definitely manipulated. Also in the hallway scene when Tippi is dropping off the lovebirds at Rod Taylor's apartment, there is a slow horizontal pan and the grain kind of crawls across the wall in the direction of the pan. UGH. Such a shame as otherwise it's very pretty and with great color.WilliamMcK said:
