Lord Dalek
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2005
- Messages
- 7,107
- Real Name
- Joel Henderson
So is it in synch on the old Laserdisc/DVD which didn't have true stereo music?
It's an error on the new 5.1 track. I first noticed it at screening of the restored version. It turns out I even made a convenient mp3 demonstrating this.On which version? Or both?
Great work. Thanks, Neil.!!It's an error on the new 5.1 track. I first noticed it at screening of the restored version. It turns out I even made a convenient mp3 demonstrating this.
The first 12 seconds are the mono track and the remix starts at 14 seconds. Note the music after Michael shouts, "Rocco, alive!"
Phillip,American Society of Cinematographers, a Top 100 list
I’ve not seen the 4k, only the Raro Blu. Used to have a dye transfer print. The positive they mention is not the basis for the restoration. That’s their reference. The image harvest is OCN.Phillip,
So I have been taking a look at the list for the last two days
Trying to assemble the 31 films I have not yet enjoyed. my cousin was given a new 4K version from 2022 of Bernardo Bucci's, the conformist, 1970.
This copy he has is in 4K, it is from Japan, and seems to be a restoration from the 35 mm camera positive.
It includes the original soundtrack in 96/24 PCM stereo… Which I just love
it includes the following text at the beginning of the movie:
I've translated it in Google translate:
"
The Conformist, 1970
"The 4K restoration of I/ conformista (Bernardo Bertolucci, 1970) was created by the Cineteca di Fondazione
Bologna, in collaboration with Minerva Films and under the aegis of the Bernardo Bertolucci Foundation, starting
from the image and sound negatives preserved at CSC - Cineteca Nazionale.
A 35mm positive print, made in 2009 at Luce-Cinecittà under the supervision of Bernardo Bertolucci
and Vittorio Storaro, was used as a reference for the installation of the lights.
Work carried out at the L'Immagine Ritrovata laboratory in 2022."
I'm going to include a brief screen, grab from my phone here, let me know what you think
Mr. Harris, I would love your opinion on this.
especially to know if you were aware of it
@Robert Harris thoughts..
The conformist, 1970 restored
Ah.I’ve not seen the 4k, only the Raro Blu. Used to have a dye transfer print. The positive they mention is not the basis for the restoration. That’s their reference. The image harvest is OCN.
This premise is overly reductive, and it's especially untrue for these particular films and this particular cinematographer. Gordon Willis was an artist in his own right; he was no mere technician or worker for hire.A cinematographer is hired on a film to fulfill the vision of a director, isn’t he? If the director chooses to change the look of the work the cinematographer has created for him at a later date, why is this such an issue? After all, it is the director who creates the vision, not the cinematographer. The cinematographer is merely a worker for hire.
OuchThis premise is overly reductive, and it's especially untrue for these particular films and this particular cinematographer. Gordon Willis was an artist in his own right; he was no mere technician or worker for hire.
That comment may hold true for the DP of Happy Days but I can assure you thatA cinematographer is hired on a film to fulfill the vision of a director, isn’t he? If the director chooses to change the look of the work the cinematographer has created for him at a later date, why is this such an issue? After all, it is the director who creates the vision, not the cinematographer. The cinematographer is merely a worker for hire.
As is the director. I’ll not get back into a discussion of The Godfather(s), but it should be understood that those works were done fully during Covid, and control was not easy for any members of the team.A cinematographer is hired on a film to fulfill the vision of a director, isn’t he? If the director chooses to change the look of the work the cinematographer has created for him at a later date, why is this such an issue? After all, it is the director who creates the vision, not the cinematographer. The cinematographer is merely a worker for hire.
You may be correct when it comes to a B production, and the desire is to get a decent and useable exposure and an image of the actors.Any artist who takes compensation for a commission is at the behest of the one paying the commission.
I worked as an artist my entire life. I was hired for my talent, my technical skills, my taste and my vision, but if any of those were in conflict with the one paying for my services it is my obligation as a professional to mold my talents to the service of the one paying for my services. I may not like it. I may not agree with it, but those are the compromises one must make in any commercial application of art.
If I am creating art for myself as an artiste I could do as I liked and you can take it or leave it. But that is not what is happening here. Cinematography is an art in service of a commercial application. Cinematographers can be artistes if they are in control of their project but most are not. They are working for others.
Any artist who takes compensation for a commission is at the behest of the one paying the commission.
I worked as an artist my entire life. I was hired for my talent, my technical skills, my taste and my vision, but if any of those were in conflict with the one paying for my services it is my obligation as a professional to mold my talents to the service of the one paying for my services. I may not like it. I may not agree with it, but those are the compromises one must make in any commercial application of art.
If I am creating art for myself as an artiste I could do as I liked and you can take it or leave it. But that is not what is happening here. Cinematography is an art in service of a commercial application. Cinematographers can be artistes if they are in control of their project but most are not. They are working for others.
Love it.whatever Gordie wants."
Awesome awesome awesome awesome awesomeHere's an interesting bit of reality.
I was having lunch with David Lean at a lovely spot just across from what were the Warner Hollywood Studios on Santa Monica.
We were taking a break, and I asked him if he ( and other major directors) were always in control - always knew what had to be done.
He told me a story about a shot in Lawrence. I recall him asking if I knew the sequence after the slaughter of the Turks - and he stopped and said "Of course you do..."
He had arrived on location, had looked around at ten thousand extras, a multitude of animals, and his leads - all waiting for him to "Direct."
He had no idea how to set up the shots, where to put the camera or actors, how to deal with the huge number of background players -
and got an immediate case of diarrhea.
He had to be driven back to his hotel in town, shower, change, and be driven back, which took well over an hour.
When he returned, he still had no idea how to handle the sequence. But didn't have to.
Freddie had set it all up. Shot it. Done deal. As it is in the finished film.
Point?
And another.
When we feted Freddie at Dartmouth c. 1990, and ran a dye transfer print of Zhivago, he was presented with his award, and I had arranged for a telegram from David. In the missive he referred to Freddie not as his cameraman, but as his production partner.
Lawrence, Zhivago, Ryan without Freddie would be very different films.
The Godfather(s) without Gordon Willis - very different films.
DPs are not generally hired hands, who can shoot film and then clean out the barn.
Any artist who takes compensation for a commission is at the behest of the one paying the commission.
Extraordinary insight from an extraordinary, hard-working lover of cinemaHere's an interesting bit of reality.
I was having lunch with David Lean at a lovely spot just across from what were the Warner Hollywood Studios on Santa Monica.
We were taking a break, and I asked him if he ( and other major directors) were always in control - always knew what had to be done.
He told me a story about a shot in Lawrence. I recall him asking if I knew the sequence after the slaughter of the Turks - and he stopped and said "Of course you do..."
He had arrived on location, had looked around at ten thousand extras, a multitude of animals, and his leads - all waiting for him to "Direct."
He had no idea how to set up the shots, where to put the camera or actors, how to deal with the huge number of background players -
and got an immediate case of diarrhea.
He had to be driven back to his hotel in town, shower, change, and be driven back, which took well over an hour.
When he returned, he still had no idea how to handle the sequence. But didn't have to.
Freddie had set it all up. Shot it. Done deal. As it is in the finished film.
Point?
And another.
When we feted Freddie at Dartmouth c. 1990, and ran a dye transfer print of Zhivago, he was presented with his award, and I had arranged for a telegram from David. In the missive he referred to Freddie not as his cameraman, but as his production partner.
Lawrence, Zhivago, Ryan without Freddie would be very different films.
The Godfather(s) without Gordon Willis - very different films.
DPs are not generally hired hands, who can shoot film and then clean out the barn.
And I thought I had read every anecdote about David Lean there is to read. You sir, have made my day! (And offered a sterling example of the DP's role in a production.)Here's an interesting bit of reality.
====
He had no idea how to set up the shots, where to put the camera or actors, how to deal with the huge number of background players -
and got an immediate case of diarrhea.
He had to be driven back to his hotel in town, shower, change, and be driven back, which took well over an hour.
When he returned, he still had no idea how to handle the sequence. But didn't have to.
Freddie had set it all up. Shot it. Done deal. As it is in the finished film.