John Hodson
Senior HTF Member
Indeed.Robert Harris said:This situation, as the noble Mr. Kimmel has wisely spoken, remains as "wait and see." RAH
Indeed.Robert Harris said:This situation, as the noble Mr. Kimmel has wisely spoken, remains as "wait and see." RAH
Sounds promising! Thanks for the mini-review!Reed Grele said:My fears of a "too blue" color timing have now been alleviated. Colors (especially reds, greens, and blues) are always bright and robust even in dark scenes. The screen captures that have been circulating that appeared overly cold and bluish do not come off that way when watching in real time. Yes, the night time scenes, especially the ones with fog and mist do come off a bit colder than indoor and daylight scenes, but they look right to me.
I think that most fans of this classic film will be satisfied with the transfer. IMHO, it's the best the film has ever looked and sounded on home video.
bgart13 said:To Robert Harris:
When restorative work is done on a film (I honestly don't know if this is the right term, so my apologies if not, Mr. Harris), is the ultimate goal to make the final product reflect the image directly from the negative (though in positive) or to look like it would've appeared from a print at the time (in the case of DRACULA, a Technicolor print)?
I ask because I received DRACULA the other day and watched it last night. I watched the doc on restoring the feature and after listening to what the BFI chap had to say directly (with my own ears and in context of the program), I now understand what their aim was decided to be (more than I understood before). But this led me to wonder - was it right for them to aim to make the movie look as it was shot (which they did, according to the doc) or should the BFI have aimed to make it look like a Technicolor print when released. In context of what their final decision was, the disc looks very nice, very pleasing, very colorful and detailed (though soft at times, which is likely due to materials).
Thanks.
Ben
Your terms are fine.bgart13 said:To Robert Harris:
When restorative work is done on a film (I honestly don't know if this is the right term, so my apologies if not, Mr. Harris), is the ultimate goal to make the final product reflect the image directly from the negative (though in positive) or to look like it would've appeared from a print at the time (in the case of DRACULA, a Technicolor print)?
I ask because I received DRACULA the other day and watched it last night. I watched the doc on restoring the feature and after listening to what the BFI chap had to say directly (with my own ears and in context of the program), I now understand what their aim was decided to be (more than I understood before). But this led me to wonder - was it right for them to aim to make the movie look as it was shot (which they did, according to the doc) or should the BFI have aimed to make it look like a Technicolor print when released. In context of what their final decision was, the disc looks very nice, very pleasing, very colorful and detailed (though soft at times, which is likely due to materials).
Thanks.
Ben
There is no scene that is too dark in this transfer. You should check your viewing settings - there are dark sequences which look as they should - with both shadows and moodily-lit sections. I'd have to look at the other scene you mentioned, as I don't recall anything like that.kinzoels said:Hello ALL..I like his transfer save for 2 things...It is dark at times and the optimum way for me to view it is "house lights off at night". Because I run my contrast a little high, the scene where Harker and Dracula enter Harkers room to the end of Dracula leaving the castle appeared somewhat noisy (video) compared to how clean the rest of the disc looked. I had a friend of mine who is very educated in film take a look and he felt that there could have been either "restorative efforts" done at this spot or possibly a different source was used. I'd like to hear from others on this matter..Now that the disc is out I would hope Mr. Harris has had a chance to see it, and thats one opinion that would be very important for all of us to hear.
haineshisway said:Some shots are breathtakingly good, although, for me, the first ten minutes or so are not as good as what follows, color-wise. I agree with you on the first reel here - which is also softer than the rest (almost but not quite blurry). Once past that, the film looks pretty damn good, IMO.
Hi Charles,Charles Smith said:We watched DRACULA, projected, at Reed's house yesterday evening. It was stupendous. I'm ordering my own copy as we speak.
For my money the image is beautifully film-like and as colorful, bright and detailed as you could ask. I was so taken with it, and so enjoying the film, that I actually forgot about the screen grabs I'd seen posted. Didn't even think to compare my memory of them with what I was seeing. At no time was an image too dark, or cast in blue, or any such thing. Those lovely Hammer colors were all there, in spades, and I truly felt I was seeing an acceptable equal to a nicely projected 35mm print.
I have a sort of personal benchmark for that -- not that I can claim to have eyes as trained in this as others here, so someone like Peter Apruzzese, if he reads this thread, might correct my impression -- but a few years back, I marveled at Hammer's BRIDES OF DRACULA in an original pristine 35mm print at the Lafayette Theatre, and that is the kind of texture and light and color and detail I see on this BD. The audio, too, is rich and powerful. Crank it up.
And what a treat to have the original main titles, and the additional restored shots which add a welcome boost in overall effect. If only the rest of the Hammer catalog could be the equal of this release.
How is their track record on quality?John Hodson said:More Hammer on BD coming in the UK, Final Cut Entertainment are releasing The Brides of Dracula in June and The Evil of Frankenstein in July as duel DVD/BD packages. Final Cut are using HD masters supplied by Universal and there will be supplements in each case.