HAMMER FILM BLU-RAYS IN THE U.K. ... getting closer to the Holy Grail (DRACULA, 1958)... (1 Viewer)

[Richard--W]

Color is closer to right than to wrong, and closer to right than the Warner Brothers DVD. That having been said, I reiterate: Only a handful of fanatics fail to realize that the BFI transfer is too soft and too dim in its entirety. There are contrast / brightness issues throughout. There is also evidence of color manipulation, like the blood that turns bright purple in the transfusion bottle. It was always dark red blood in every 35mm projection I saw over the years.

 

[Richard--W]

... but i did not say that this new transfer is "correct", just that it is darker and bluer.

IMHO, i think it was the personal choice of the BFI restoration team to tilt this transfer to a bluer tone.... even the color timing in the raw japanese footage was closer to the WB transfer..... in the documentary they say they had to change the colors to insert it into the BFI film.

it suits the subject matter & works for the film in this 2013 transfer......but did audiences see this on the big screen in 1958?

to me the WB transfer colors look closer to the other hammer films of the period- the mummy, hound of the baskervilles, bridesof dracula, etc.

just my opinion--- respectfully

I also prefer the hard light on the Warner Brothers DVD because it looks like film, even though it's a couple of clicks too bright. That's it's only advantage over the BFI, and it's a big one. I agree with the criticism in a post above that HORROR OF DRACULA is too brown.

Regarding the Hammer titles released on DVD by Warner Brothers you mentioned, Ned Price and his team over at Warner Brothers like to brown and yellow every film they get their hands on. Sometimes they are flamboyant about it, as in the case of The Searchers, sometimes less so. George Feltenstein lets them get away with outrageous shifts in color and density. No matter what he says in interviews, he doesn't really care what the films look like. The proof is in the pudding. Brown and yellow are the signature style of Warner Brothers transfers. Nobody confronts him on it. They only thing they care about at Warner Brothers is making old movies look shiny new to please modern consumers.

The BFI worked from an interpositive check print made from the Original Camera Negative. As I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread, a check print is not conformed to an answer print. Instead, the techinician in charge states that he made the transfer look like the check print -- in other words, before color and density had been finalized. To me, this is inexcusable. Original 35mm imbibition prints struck in 1958 representing the answer print are easily obtainable. The technician goes on to say that he didn't want to make the transfer look like an imbibition print, as if to suggest there's something wrong with that, and ignoring the fact that's what the director and cameraman worked with. Imbibition prints are all audiences saw in 1958 and the decades following. Hammer's Dracula is an imbiition film; the imbibition process gives the film its special character and individuality. That's what the film is.

The new BFI transfer is too soft and too dim. It looks more like a digital scan than film. It has the character of a video scan. It needs a harder light to keep the depth and detail in those dark scenes. Nor is it the mix that Terence Fisher and Jack Asher decided on in 1958. In the imbibition prints, the wall in Van Helsing's room is a faint green. In the BFI transfer, it's a vivid green. In the imbibition prints, the floor tiles behind Dracula's head in the deterioration scene are a blend of grey and black and white, but in the BFI transfer, the floor tiles are alive with color. This suggests to me that some color temperatures are dialed up hotter than they should be while other color temperatures are dialed down lower than they should be. The color is largely correct, but the temperatures are off-kilter. Like when Van Helsing stands in the foreground under the light in the inn, his long coat is inappropriately blackened. Sometimes, clothes and carpets have more texture than faces. There is an absence of detail and resolution in the faces.

However, this new transfer with its modern color and dimness works okay on hi-def screens. Like Hammer says, it's a new mix "for a new generation." This blu will meet with acceptance and sell very well, but it is not the film that Terence Fisher and Jack Asher put their names on.

 

[Robert Crawford]

just my opinion--- respectfully

It doesn't seem much of that along with so many opinions are being stated here. Both sides of this argument have made some disrespectful comments and that needs to stop now.

 

[Richard--W]

If and when Warner Brothers decides to release DRACULA | HORROR OF DRACULA in the USA, I hope they will strike a new transfer from the ocn and finish it in strict accord with the answer print. Problems solved.

 

[John Hodson]

If there is one 'technician' who knows what he's doing at the BFI, if there's one with an impressive track record, who treats classic film with absolute care and respect, if there's one who lovers of cinema know that film is in the safest pair of hands when his name is attached, it's the BFI's Ben Thompson.

However, there are certain folks who, once their opinion is formed, no matter the distance, no matter how bereft of information they are, it is simply impossible to hold a debate with because the to and fro of ideas does not form part of their obdurate character. They are 'right' and that's an end to it.

 

[Reed Grele]

If Mr. Robert Harris is able to view the new DRACULA Blu-ray, I'm sure that we'd all appreciate his valued input, and learned opinion.

I'd even be willing to lend him mine.

 

[Richard--W]

There's an idea. I don't always agree with RAH but I'm also interested in what he thinks of this blu-ray.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

Can i just confirm that everyone who is making judgement about colour etc is viewing on a calibrated TV/PJ ?

 

[kinzoels]

I knew that I would need a region free player for this film, and didn't mind as it is my favorite film..and since it's the only film I'll be watching on it, I'm able to adjust the video specifically for it..however, when I look at the setting's I've chosen, it is clearly evident that I've had to make settings quite unlike my region 1 which plays the rest of my film collection..this to me is a "sort" of red flag that something is not quite right with the transfer (even though It looks real good on my region free settings)... Not everyone has this option, and I don't believe anyone should have to make these drastic adjustments to get this film to look good...and I'd apreciate no one telling me my monitor is off..it's callibrated correctly thank you very much...Now...where's ROBERT HARRIS and his thoughts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sgt Pepper]

You say your monitor is correctly calibrated, can you tell me how ?

I knew that I would need a region free player for this film, and didn't mind as it is my favorite film..and since it's the only film I'll be watching on it, I'm able to adjust the video specifically for it..however, when I look at the setting's I've chosen, it is clearly evident that I've had to make settings quite unlike my region 1 which plays the rest of my film collection..this to me is a "sort" of red flag that something is not quite right with the transfer (even though It looks real good on my region free settings)... Not everyone has this option, and I don't believe anyone should have to make these drastic adjustments to get this film to look good...and I'd apreciate no one telling me my monitor is off..it's callibrated correctly thank you very much...Now...where's ROBERT HARRIS and his thoughts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[marcco00]

i have set my tv settings- using instructions i found online- and for the majority of my collection, these settings are fine.

however, i have about 20 discs where i have to make major adjustments (like the new 'wabash avenue' dvdr).

i am keeping a notebook to track which films i had to adjust settings for.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

This is the problem here we have not got a level playing field with many adjusting the picture to the way they think it should look, this is why in many cases people are seeing different variations of the same film.

i have set my tv settings- using instructions i found online- and for the majority of my collection, these settings are fine.

however, i have about 20 discs where i have to make major adjustments (like the new 'wabash avenue' dvdr).

i am keeping a notebook to track which films i had to adjust settings for.

 

[marcco00]

well that has always been true, with every film released.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

You have lost me with that one.

Unless viewing equipment used is set up to a specific standard no one can make any real judgment on say colour for example. Without this the i am right and your wrong argument is not really possible.

 

[larryKR]

I agree with you tele1962, but the problem is that very few people have their TV's calibrated. If commenting on picture quality was restricted to people with calibrated displays, there would be very few posts.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

Thanks and quite true. But i am afraid that is the way it is and without this the arguments are pretty mute. To much on this thread and many others is relying on opinion rather than fact and this is where conflict arises as to many variables come into the analysis of what is being viewed, things like it's to blue, it's to bright, it's to dark etc.
Brightness/contrast and sharpness are very easy problems to rectify but colour is a whole different ball game and really needs a professional to rectify.

 

[kinzoels]

hello tele1962...in response to you question...my monitor has been calibrated by a certified ISF video calibrator..who, just so happens to be a friend of mine and is an independent, not a Best Buy Geek....we have a deal, I help his son finish his CD album (he's a bass player) and Eddie calibrates my television..I don't care much for quick fix over the internet solutions. Any calibration must start with the room you are viewing in (lighting, distance) and then its taken from there. My friend brought all kinds of meters and things, and when he was finished I noticed a significant difference in my monitors performance. At the very least, basic parameters such as the grayscale is now accurate, and how much color saturation one uses is in then eyes of the beholder. I, for one do not like orange faces like you see in video stores, but a less saturated pallette...hope this answers at least where I'm coming from. Thanks, Kinzoels

 

[Sgt Pepper]

Hello kinzoels, to be honest not really. You say you have had your monitor ISF calibrated and then you are adjusting by eye the colour saturation this in turn will have an effect on greyscale making your calibration useless.
The PQ you see when a monitor is correctly calibrated will be very close to what is on the disk altering this gives a preference rather than reference to the what ever is being viewed.

 

[kinzoels]

You're absolutely right... and I understand all that so I don't need the lesson. If your correctly calibrated monitor is reading a crappy disc,are you gonna sit there for 2 hours or whatever and say "thats how the disc should look!" Of course not, you're gonna make preferred corrections..... Lets say I start reference and If I like it, fine. .if not, I'll go preference. So before you add "this defeats having your set callibrated in the first place" remember another thing, it didnt cost me anything and still allows me the choice between the two.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

This is exactly what i am getting at, if that is how it's suposed to to look why would you want to adjust it? Anyway this is drifting away from the fact unless you view on a correctly calbrated set up you can not make any accurate judgement about colour accuracy etc