CAMELOT - WARNER VID, YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED. (1 Viewer)

[Scott Calvert]

Bruce - I don't think the coloring being off was in dispute but rather the means to correct it without causing worse problems to other aspects of the color. Are you saying those claims are false and that Mr. Harris, while accepting that reasoning in that interview, has since retracted from that position? Because everything I've read is that he still endorses that release of The Searchers.
As for Camelot - we have varying recollections on this thread alone about the coloring. Hard to fault Warner in my view.

You seem to find it hard to fault any video product at any time. Even Patton.
Wondering what your agenda is.

 

[KPmusmag]

I have seen the same print of certain older films (which have been passed around to certain LA theaters) look different in each theater!
Of all the films I have seen more than 5 times in a theater (there aren't many) they each looked different. Of course video will always look different than film in a theater.
I must say I have been satisfied with most of the blu-ray transfers I have seen - there are just a few exceptions (The Greatest Story Ever Told & My Fair Lady) Other exceptions are films with excessive DNR (Patton)
But of the 200+ films I own on Blu-ray maybe only 3 or 4 have been disappointing

I saw THE SOUND OF MUSIC multiple times in 1990 when it played at the Plitt Century (where I also saw MY FAIR LADY and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA). After a few weeks, they moved it to a different auditorium, and it suddenly looked rather cold and blue, whereas in the first auditorium it looked warm and golden (in a good way). Then, after a few more weeks, it moved to a tiny auditorium upstairs where it looked warm once again.
It is interesting to me that CAMELOT has been released in the deluxe digibook format, whereas THE MUSIC MAN and GIGI were not, despite the fact that they are generally regarded to be better films than CAMELOT. Obviously, Warners must consider CAMELOT a prestige film; you would think they would go to every effort to make certain that it was presented at its best.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert /t/320441/camelot-warner-vid-you-should-be-ashamed/30#post_3922164
You seem to find it hard to fault any video product at any time. Even Patton.
Wondering what your agenda is.

Patton was a case where I like the movie too much to let the problem dissuade me from watching it, and I disagreed with the "unwatchable" state. It was certainly watchable, and IMO certainly more watchable than the DVD. It also was the first heavy DNR release I can recall and it took me a bit to understand the "wrongness" of the look Mr. Harris was describing. Even then, it didn't distract me personally enough from enjoying the release in comparison to the DVD. If they correct the DNR problem I will upgrade it because I like the film THAT much. I wasn't gonna let some DNR detract from my enjoyment of the film in the best available, if flawed, home video presentation.

My agenda is pretty plain: I think the HTF crowd is far too caught up in their hyperbole, and they conveniently try to ignore reality of bringing a video release to market.

It also irks me that DVDs and Laserdiscs are referred to as "preferable" to new Blu-ray releases, despite those DVDs and LDs being riddled with video noise, compression artifacts, and other video shortcomings of their era which are FAR worse than their new Blu-ray counterparts (see: The Last Temptation of Christ Criterion DVD vs. Blu-ray discussion).

Additionally, things like budgets for preparing a home video release are considered non-factors by the enthusiast crowd when they absolutely should be understood for context. I wouldn't be surprised if Camelot sells less than 2000 copies on Blu-ray over the next year. It's a 40+ year old film with a devoted, but hardly large, audience. They could probably spend endless money and still not satisfy everyone of the enthusiast fans. Most titles are simply not going to have the budgets necessary to scour the vaults for the film elements without reservation.

Then there is the absence of knowing exactly what condition the elements they do evaluate are in.

So, take Camelot's soundtrack as an example. There could be legit element reasons why they have the altered soundtrack on the disc rather than the original one. Maybe the condition of the original one is problematic in some way that prevents release. Maybe the condition is fixable, but not within the allotted budget of the release. Maybe they didn't even have the budget to even locate and evaluate the original mix. Etc.

My point being: if all releases could be done in a vacuum they'd probably all be better to some degree. But there's a law of diminishing returns. Spend $50,000 and get 98% of consumers satisfied. Spend $100,000 and get 99% satisfied. Spend $500,000 and get 99.5% satisfied. That .5% is simply not worth spending $400,000. (Just an example and not in specific reference to any specific release).

Let's say Camelot sells 3000 copies, which is generous in my view. That's about $18 to WHV for every sale (half MSRP), in which they made $54,000. They also have the HD source they can license to broadcast and streaming services. Still, I doubt that Camelot is gonna be in high demand for such services. $50,000 is about the limit of what I would budget for this release as a reasonable executive, which is a pittance for authoring a Blu-ray.

These are my points, and my agenda. It's not a perfect world, and perfect releases are not automatic because of that. Do I want every release to be the best it can be? Yes. Do I understand that real world restraints often cause it to be 99% of what it could be? Yes. This second point is where I find I disagree with many of the extra-enthused.

 

[JoHud]

It is interesting to me that CAMELOT has been released in the deluxe digibook format, whereas THE MUSIC MAN and GIGI were not, despite the fact that they are generally regarded to be better films than CAMELOT. Obviously, Warners must consider CAMELOT a prestige film; you would think they would go to every effort to make certain that it was presented at its best.

Keep in mind that those two were released before digibook packaging was more of the norm.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by KPmusmag /t/320441/camelot-warner-vid-you-should-be-ashamed/30#post_3922175
It is interesting to me that CAMELOT has been released in the deluxe digibook format, whereas THE MUSIC MAN and GIGI were not, despite the fact that they are generally regarded to be better films than CAMELOT. Obviously, Warners must consider CAMELOT a prestige film; you would think they would go to every effort to make certain that it was presented at its best.

The digibooks are an inexpensive way to raise the MSRP, allowing each copy to sell for more while giving the consumers more for their money. When you see a former digibook release subsequently released in normal packaging that's usually an indicator that it's a title that has sold beyond its original estimation (and pressing of discs), and therefore doesn't need to inflate the MSRP to recoup the cost of its production.

As The Music Man was disappointing in its number of sales, the digibook packaging could have helped it recoup its investment. Instead, WB has no desire to repress the disc, and its now OOP.

 

[JoHud]

Actually, The Music Man was brought back in print earlier this year, so I guess it did well enough to earn a repressing.

 

[Brandon Conway]

^ That's good to know. They probably finally sold out of the original run and made a small supplemental run.

 

[rsmithjr]

These are my points, and my agenda. It's not a perfect world, and perfect releases are not automatic because of that. Do I want every release to be the best it can be? Yes. Do I understand that real world restraints often cause it to be 99% of what it could be? Yes. This second point is where I find I disagree with many of the extra-enthused.

I want to endorse most of what you say here, especially the economic points. Remasters and restorations are being done today for general preservation, not specifically for Blu-ray in most cases.
It is also the case that there are films that we really cannot definitively say what the correct version/sound mix/color look is supposed to be, given everything that has happened to the film in the last 50 years or more. The standard "like it looked/sounded in the theatre" will also evoke different memories for each of us, partly based on the generation of the print, the condition of the print, the theatre and its operation, our own state of mind during initial viewing, and the fallability of our own memories.
This is also true of films that I projected and saw 100 times or more. I ran Dr. Zhivago 175 times in 35mm, and also saw the original 70mm prints (the latter were unbelievably grainy). The Blu-ray has a slightly different color balance and a much cleaner grain structure than the prints. It's not the same, it's better. In any case, it may well be the last time that Warners does anything to remaster it.
Posterity is likely going to remember these Blu-ray disks as the final version of any film, for better or for worse. Sometimes both at the same time.

 

[David Weicker]

Patton was a case where I like the movie too much to let the problem dissuade me from watching it, and I disagreed with the "unwatchable" state. It was certainly watchable, and IMO certainly more watchable than the DVD. It also was the first heavy DNR release I can recall and it took me a bit to understand the "wrongness" of the look Mr. Harris was describing. Even then, it didn't distract me personally enough from enjoying the release in comparison to the DVD. If they correct the DNR problem I will upgrade it because I like the film THAT much. I wasn't gonna let some DNR detract from my enjoyment of the film in the best available, if flawed, home video presentation.
My agenda is pretty plain: I think the HTF crowd is far too caught up in their hyperbole, and they conveniently try to ignore reality of bringing a video release to market.
It also irks me that DVDs and Laserdiscs are referred to as "preferable" to new Blu-ray releases, despite those DVDs and LDs being riddled with video noise, compression artifacts, and other video shortcomings of their era which are FAR worse than their new Blu-ray counterparts (see: The Last Temptation of Christ Criterion DVD vs. Blu-ray discussion).
Additionally, things like budgets for preparing a home video release are considered non-factors by the enthusiast crowd when they absolutely should be understood for context. I wouldn't be surprised if Camelot sells less than 2000 copies on Blu-ray over the next year. It's a 40+ year old film with a devoted, but hardly large, audience. They could probably spend endless money and still not satisfy everyone of the enthusiast fans. Most titles are simply not going to have the budgets necessary to scour the vaults for the film elements without reservation.
Then there is the absence of knowing exactly what condition the elements they do evaluate are in.
So, take Camelot's soundtrack as an example. There could be legit element reasons why they have the altered soundtrack on the disc rather than the original one. Maybe the condition of the original one is problematic in some way that prevents release. Maybe the condition is fixable, but not within the allotted budget of the release. Maybe they didn't even have the budget to even locate and evaluate the original mix. Etc.
My point being: if all releases could be done in a vacuum they'd probably all be better to some degree. But there's a law of diminishing returns. Spend $50,000 and get 98% of consumers satisfied. Spend $100,000 and get 99% satisfied. Spend $500,000 and get 99.5% satisfied. That .5% is simply not worth spending $400,000. (Just an example and not in specific reference to any specific release).
Let's say Camelot sells 3000 copies, which is generous in my view. That's about $18 to WHV for every sale (half MSRP), in which they made $54,000. They also have the HD source they can license to broadcast and streaming services. Still, I doubt that Camelot is gonna be in high demand for such services. $50,000 is about the limit of what I would budget for this release as a reasonable executive, which is a pittance for authoring a Blu-ray.
These are my points, and my agenda. It's not a perfect world, and perfect releases are not automatic because of that. Do I want every release to be the best it can be? Yes. Do I understand that real world restraints often cause it to be 99% of what it could be? Yes. This second point is where I find I disagree with many of the extra-enthused.

Very well put.
David

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by rsmithjr /t/320441/camelot-warner-vid-you-should-be-ashamed/30#post_3922204
I want to endorse most of what you say here, especially the economic points. Remasters and restorations are being done today for general preservation, not specifically for Blu-ray in most cases.
It is also the case that there are films that we really cannot definitively say what the correct version/sound mix/color look is supposed to be, given everything that has happened to the film in the last 50 years or more. The standard "like it looked/sounded in the theatre" will also evoke different memories for each of us, partly based on the generation of the print, the condition of the print, the theatre and its operation, our own state of mind during initial viewing, and the fallability of our own memories.
This is also true of films that I projected and saw 100 times or more. I ran Dr. Zhivago 175 times in 35mm, and also saw the original 70mm prints (the latter were unbelievably grainy). The Blu-ray has a slightly different color balance and a much cleaner grain structure than the prints. It's not the same, it's better. In any case, it may well be the last time that Warners does anything to remaster it.
Posterity is likely going to remember these Blu-ray disks as the final version of any film, for better or for worse. Sometimes both at the same time.

All very good points.

There are efforts to preserve/restore outside of immediate returns via home video / broadcast / streaming / rental sales. And I don't want to dismiss such efforts outright, and I applaud any company doing it. But knowing whether or not a video release was prepped as part of that larger effort is ambiguous in most cases at best.

 

[haineshisway]

Bruce - I don't think the coloring being off was in dispute but rather the means to correct it without causing worse problems to other aspects of the color. Are you saying those claims are false and that Mr. Harris, while accepting that reasoning in that interview, has since retracted from that position? Because everything I've read is that he still endorses that release of The Searchers.
As for Camelot - we have varying recollections on this thread alone about the coloring. Hard to fault Warner in my view.

Having been in a telecine room and seeing what can and can't be accomplished, there was no reason for the yellow push on The Searchers. It was a choice and a wrong one, clearly. And it's not the only transfer from this company where it's happened - not every negative can have the exact same problems. I can't and won't speak for Mr. Harris, but we've discussed The Searchers and lots of other transfers a lot - mostly we agree, sometimes we don't, but he's a great guy who knows his stuff - what he can and cannot say in a public forum I'm sure sometimes comes into play, although I don't even want to say that. All it's about for me is having a transfer of The Searchers with perfect color - it deserves it as it's one of the greatest color films ever made.
I occasionally harp on color ad nauseum because it's the least understood part of transfers - people will rail on about lossy and lossless, even though in most cases if they were put to a blind test they wouldn't be able to tell the difference - not all cases, but a lot - or they'll rail on about the aspect ratio if it's a millimeter off - well, you know. But color gets the pass because people just don't know the films well enough. Some do, and therefore when those some post they should be listened to because they're only trying to say "Hey, this isn't right" - not cause trouble, but to point out something that's not the way it should be. I never come from a negative place - I only want folks to know when something isn't right color-wise. I think it's important. And I never post about a color film if it's one that I'm not that familiar with - but where I've owned dye transfer or perfect color prints of films then I really know what they should look like. The debate on The Searchers was long and wild and wooly, and I was derided on every forum because I wouldn't shut up about it - eventually, as I said, some realized that I was right and that it was off. The reasons for it being so vary but I am here to tell you if either Mr. Harris or I were allowed in a telecine room with a fresh scan off those elements, we could come out with a reasonable approximation of a dye transfer print that would knock your socks off. The clarity off that negative was wonderful. Make the color right and voila - brilliance and justice for Mr. Hoch's amazing work.
Back to Camelot - I think enough people here and elsewhere understand that there is too much brown in the transfer.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Patton was a case where I like the movie too much to let the problem dissuade me from watching it, and I disagreed with the "unwatchable" state. It was certainly watchable, and IMO certainly more watchable than the DVD. It also was the first heavy DNR release I can recall and it took me a bit to understand the "wrongness" of the look Mr. Harris was describing. Even then, it didn't distract me personally enough from enjoying the release in comparison to the DVD. If they correct the DNR problem I will upgrade it because I like the film THAT much. I wasn't gonna let some DNR detract from my enjoyment of the film in the best available, if flawed, home video presentation.
My agenda is pretty plain: I think the HTF crowd is far too caught up in their hyperbole, and they conveniently try to ignore reality of bringing a video release to market.
It also irks me that DVDs and Laserdiscs are referred to as "preferable" to new Blu-ray releases, despite those DVDs and LDs being riddled with video noise, compression artifacts, and other video shortcomings of their era which are FAR worse than their new Blu-ray counterparts (see: The Last Temptation of Christ Criterion DVD vs. Blu-ray discussion).
Additionally, things like budgets for preparing a home video release are considered non-factors by the enthusiast crowd when they absolutely should be understood for context. I wouldn't be surprised if Camelot sells less than 2000 copies on Blu-ray over the next year. It's a 40+ year old film with a devoted, but hardly large, audience. They could probably spend endless money and still not satisfy everyone of the enthusiast fans. Most titles are simply not going to have the budgets necessary to scour the vaults for the film elements without reservation.
Then there is the absence of knowing exactly what condition the elements they do evaluate are in.
So, take Camelot's soundtrack as an example. There could be legit element reasons why they have the altered soundtrack on the disc rather than the original one. Maybe the condition of the original one is problematic in some way that prevents release. Maybe the condition is fixable, but not within the allotted budget of the release. Maybe they didn't even have the budget to even locate and evaluate the original mix. Etc.
My point being: if all releases could be done in a vacuum they'd probably all be better to some degree. But there's a law of diminishing returns. Spend $50,000 and get 98% of consumers satisfied. Spend $100,000 and get 99% satisfied. Spend $500,000 and get 99.5% satisfied. That .5% is simply not worth spending $400,000. (Just an example and not in specific reference to any specific release).
Let's say Camelot sells 3000 copies, which is generous in my view. That's about $18 to WHV for every sale (half MSRP), in which they made $54,000. They also have the HD source they can license to broadcast and streaming services. Still, I doubt that Camelot is gonna be in high demand for such services. $50,000 is about the limit of what I would budget for this release as a reasonable executive, which is a pittance for authoring a Blu-ray.
These are my points, and my agenda. It's not a perfect world, and perfect releases are not automatic because of that. Do I want every release to be the best it can be? Yes. Do I understand that real world restraints often cause it to be 99% of what it could be? Yes. This second point is where I find I disagree with many of the extra-enthused.

Please. Most of the issues with BDs involve concious aesthetic decisions made my misguided individuals. It doesn't cost any more money to fiddle the color grading tools one way vs another. Same with DNR, same with sharpening, same with encoding. "Money" is being used here as a scapegoat.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Please. Most of the issues with BDs involve concious aesthetic decisions made my misguided individuals. It doesn't cost any more money to fiddle the color grading tools one way vs another. Same with DNR, same with sharpening, same with encoding. "Money" is being used here as a scapegoat.

Then we simply disagree. My understanding of color timing is that it can't all be done with simple digital tweaks, but has limitations based on elements, separation master, etc. Obviously technology can improve with time to do more digitally but everything I've read is that it's just not that simple.
As for DNR and sharpening those are of course digital tools that can be misused. This has for the most part been rectified in the last few years, and was fortunately just a handful of titles with significant issues with DNR back in 2008-9-ish.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by haineshisway /t/320441/camelot-warner-vid-you-should-be-ashamed/30#post_3922227
Having been in a telecine room and seeing what can and can't be accomplished, there was no reason for the yellow push on The Searchers. It was a choice and a wrong one, clearly. And it's not the only transfer from this company where it's happened - not every negative can have the exact same problems. I can't and won't speak for Mr. Harris, but we've discussed The Searchers and lots of other transfers a lot - mostly we agree, sometimes we don't, but he's a great guy who knows his stuff - what he can and cannot say in a public forum I'm sure sometimes comes into play, although I don't even want to say that. All it's about for me is having a transfer of The Searchers with perfect color - it deserves it as it's one of the greatest color films ever made.
I occasionally harp on color ad nauseum because it's the least understood part of transfers - people will rail on about lossy and lossless, even though in most cases if they were put to a blind test they wouldn't be able to tell the difference - not all cases, but a lot - or they'll rail on about the aspect ratio if it's a millimeter off - well, you know. But color gets the pass because people just don't know the films well enough. Some do, and therefore when those some post they should be listened to because they're only trying to say "Hey, this isn't right" - not cause trouble, but to point out something that's not the way it should be. I never come from a negative place - I only want folks to know when something isn't right color-wise. I think it's important. And I never post about a color film if it's one that I'm not that familiar with - but where I've owned dye transfer or perfect color prints of films then I really know what they should look like. The debate on The Searchers was long and wild and wooly, and I was derided on every forum because I wouldn't shut up about it - eventually, as I said, some realized that I was right and that it was off. The reasons for it being so vary but I am here to tell you if either Mr. Harris or I were allowed in a telecine room with a fresh scan off those elements, we could come out with a reasonable approximation of a dye transfer print that would knock your socks off. The clarity off that negative was wonderful. Make the color right and voila - brilliance and justice for Mr. Hoch's amazing work.
Back to Camelot - I think enough people here and elsewhere understand that there is too much brown in the transfer.

I don't mind advocacy, and sorry if I'm drudging up an old topic in regards to The Searchers - obviously there have been weeks of off the record conversations that I'm not privy to. I can only go off of the public statements by Mr. Harris, which endorsed the disc with reservations, and made claims that seemed reasonable as to why those decisions were made, partly per his conversation with Mr. Price. We're talking 2005-2006 era mastering here, so perhaps now it could be rectified if Warner decided to do so. Or, like you claim, perhaps even then they could have done it and decided not to because... your guess is as good as mine. Seems illogical to purposely alter it then make public statements as to why they were painted into a corner with making certain decisions.

Camelot - I'd say there's far from a consensus. Greg, for instance, seems to recall that this blu-ray reflects his (re-release) experience with the film from 35 years ago. And he's brought up great points about generational differences in film presentation.

Ultimately, my biggest beef is for rhetoric such as "someone should be crucified". I just feel that's a disservice to everyone, and makes any inquiry into any possible legit problem more likely to be ignored. Honey vs. vinegar and such analogies. If Mr. Price is truly as incompetent and purposely misleading towards the public as many are claiming than perhaps people should petition those with contacts to have him removed. I think the attacks toward him border on the fanatical, and definitely push me to not give weight to the opinions of those using such rhetoric.

 

[Robert Harris]

I don't mind advocacy, and sorry if I'm drudging up an old topic in regards to The Searchers - obviously there have been weeks of off the record conversations that I'm not privy to. I can only go off of the public statements by Mr. Harris, which endorsed the disc with reservations, and made claims that seemed reasonable as to why those decisions were made, partly per his conversation with Mr. Price. We're talking 2005-2006 era mastering here, so perhaps now it could be rectified if Warner decided to do so.  Or, like you claim, perhaps even then they could have done it and decided not to because... your guess is as good as mine. Seems illogical to purposely alter it then make public statements as to why they were painted into a corner with making certain decisions.
Ultimately, my biggest beef is for rhetoric such as "someone should be crucified". I just feel that's a disservice to everyone, and makes any inquiry into any possible legit problem more likely to be ignored. Honey vs. vinegar and such analogies. If Mr. Price is truly as incompetent and purposely misleading towards the public as many are claiming than perhaps people should petition those with contacts to have him removed. I think the attacks toward him border on the fanatical, and definitely push me to not give weight to the opinions of those using such rhetoric.

Mr. Price is neither "incompetent nor purposely misleading."
Enough time has elapsed to give me a bit of comfort in discussing this further.
The Searchers, as case in point, is a difficult beast. Mr. Price was faced with a myriad of tech problems -- unfortunely, few of which that could be properly and fully dealt with by WB at that time. Note that I'm not referencing Mr. Price here, as it was not his capabilities that come into question, but rather, labs and post houses, in general.
The digital work on The Searcers was already under way, as I was proving a new system over at CineSite. WB was neither privy to, nor had the ability to use that system, which could have solved the problems. What occurred, is that The Searchers went through the best processing available, which was unable to solve some of the problems. With specificity, the occasional off-casts were a by-product of how the entire job had to be handled. Yellow is the key to controlling both a lack of contrast, as well as getting as close as possible to proper color.
With both a faded original, as well as problematic masters, the film was pretty much as good as it could be under those circumstances.
As to Mr. Price's capabilities, consider North by Northwest and Ben-Hur. I don't believe either could look better.
The bottom line is that what one is dealing with is the state of a rapidly moving art, and not personalities.
RAH

 

[MatthewA]

I wish I could add to the amount of knowledge in this thread that others have done already, but I can't. Being born in the 1980s, I missed the Roadshow era and the original releases of many of these films, never mind the 3-strip Technicolor era. I know I missed out on something great, and I would like to be able to see these films as close to their original intent as possible, and I want that for future generations of film lovers, too. Color accuracy is a huge part of it. Bruce states accurately that color is not talked about enough in reviews, but how can they when they do not have a source of reference? Outside of intrepid film collectors (for whom my respect is undying), the public has no frame of reference other than past video releases. The studios, I assume, do. Why don't they use it?

As for the brown tones, it's not just Warner who seems to have a brown fetish. Fox seems to be timing fleshtones a little to the brown side, too, especially on The Sound of Music and An Affair to Remember, although the DVDs had pinkish fleshtones. Based on my observation of the pigmentation of human skin in the sunlight, it should be somewhere between those two extremes unless there is an overriding reason why they shouldn't. But my opinion about what they "should" be isn't the point. I didn't make Camelot, The Searchers, or any of these films so it isn't my call. Unfortunately, with the directors and DPs long dead, all we have are IB Tech reference prints, and the assumption that there were no mistakes in the workflow at Technicolor. Perhaps there are Technicolor timing cards still around. Nevertheless, rather than attacking people by name (especially since these films wouldn't even be out if any studio but Warner had made them), what can we do about it?

I hate to think what will happen when those who know and care are gone and their successors are left holding the keys. Right now I'm grateful they acknowledge these films exist!

I look forward to having the "right color" debate again when Cinderella comes out.

 

[haineshisway]

I wish I could add to the amount of knowledge in this thread that others have done already, but I can't. Being born in the 1980s, I missed the Roadshow era and the original releases of many of these films, never mind the 3-strip Technicolor era. I know I missed out on something great, and I would like to be able to see these films as close to their original intent as possible, and I want that for future generations of film lovers, too. Color accuracy is a huge part of it. Bruce states accurately that color is not talked about enough in reviews, but how can they when they do not have a source of reference? Outside of intrepid film collectors (for whom my respect is undying), the public has no frame of reference other than past video releases. The studios, I assume, do. Why don't they use it?
As for the brown tones, it's not just Warner who seems to have a brown fetish. Fox seems to be timing fleshtones a little to the brown side, too, especially on The Sound of Music and An Affair to Remember, although the DVDs had pinkish fleshtones. Based on my observation of the pigmentation of human skin in the sunlight, it should be somewhere between those two extremes unless there is an overriding reason why they shouldn't. But my opinion about what they "should" be isn't the point. I didn't make Camelot, The Searchers, or any of these films so it isn't my call. Unfortunately, with the directors and DPs long dead, all we have are IB Tech reference prints, and the assumption that there were no mistakes in the workflow at Technicolor. Perhaps there are Technicolor timing cards still around. Nevertheless, rather than attacking people by name (especially since these films wouldn't even be out if any studio but Warner had made them), what can we do about it?
I hate to think what will happen when those who know and care are gone and their successors are left holding the keys. Right now I'm grateful they acknowledge these films exist!
I look forward to having the "right color" debate again when Cinderella comes out. 

A lovely post.

 

[haineshisway]

Mr. Price is neither "incompetent nor purposely misleading."
Enough time has elapsed to give me a bit of comfort in discussing this further.
The Searchers, as case in point, is a difficult beast. Mr. Price was faced with a myriad of tech problems -- unfortunely, few of which that could be properly and fully dealt with by WB at that time. Note that I'm not referencing Mr. Price here, as it was not his capabilities that come into question, but rather, labs and post houses, in general.
The digital work on The Searcers was already under way, as I was proving a new system over at CineSite. WB was neither privy to, nor had the ability to use that system, which could have solved the problems. What occurred, is that The Searchers went through the best processing available, which was unable to solve some of the problems. With specificity, the occasional off-casts were a by-product of how the entire job had to be handled. Yellow is the key to controlling both a lack of contrast, as well as getting as close as possible to proper color.
With both a faded original, as well as problematic masters, the film was pretty much as good as it could be under those circumstances.
As to Mr. Price's capabilities, consider North by Northwest and Ben-Hur. I don't believe either could look better.
The bottom line is that what one is dealing with is the state of a rapidly moving art, and not personalities.
RAH

That's why I said I don't think about Ned Price I hope they revisit this in our lifetime and use the tools available to do it proper justice. I've seen wonders worked on far more problematic elements - bring it on, I say!

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /t/320441/camelot-warner-vid-you-should-be-ashamed/30#post_3922277
Mr. Price is neither "incompetent nor purposely misleading."
Enough time has elapsed to give me a bit of comfort in discussing this further.
The Searchers, as case in point, is a difficult beast. Mr. Price was faced with a myriad of tech problems -- unfortunely, few of which that could be properly and fully dealt with by WB at that time. Note that I'm not referencing Mr. Price here, as it was not his capabilities that come into question, but rather, labs and post houses, in general.
The digital work on The Searcers was already under way, as I was proving a new system over at CineSite. WB was neither privy to, nor had the ability to use that system, which could have solved the problems. What occurred, is that The Searchers went through the best processing available, which was unable to solve some of the problems. With specificity, the occasional off-casts were a by-product of how the entire job had to be handled. Yellow is the key to controlling both a lack of contrast, as well as getting as close as possible to proper color.
With both a faded original, as well as problematic masters, the film was pretty much as good as it could be under those circumstances.
As to Mr. Price's capabilities, consider North by Northwest and Ben-Hur. I don't believe either could look better.
The bottom line is that what one is dealing with is the state of a rapidly moving art, and not personalities.
RAH

Makes complete sense. Thank you.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by haineshisway /t/320441/camelot-warner-vid-you-should-be-ashamed/30#post_3922303
That's why I said I don't think about Ned Price I hope they revisit this in our lifetime and use the tools available to do it proper justice. I've seen wonders worked on far more problematic elements - bring it on, I say!

I wish others would be as measured with their tone as you've been Bruce. My apologies if earlier I was having difficulty grasping where you were coming from.

With The Searchers a new home video release very well could happen eventually. The prestige of the title certainly would warrant it, and it fortunately has Mr. Wayne's enduring popularity to make it possibly worthwhile financially as well.