Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by SeanAx, Apr 26, 2012.
Who owns the rights to the 1993 version?
I think Warner owns the 1993 version.
The fact that they are offering a blu-ray release adds quite a bit of confidence that this is better than the 1998 Artisan disc. That was outstandingly poor and there's no way they would get away with releasing that one on blu-ray.
Also, notice that Olive doesn't release all of its licensed films on blu-ray. The Buccaneer (1938) and Pony Express were both DVD only, yet the video quality was quite strong enough on the DVD that they could have passed off an upconversion if they wanted to.
This should actually be a cause of relief. It specifies "Restored of a Finegrain 35mm print" -- far more reassuring than releases like The Quiet Man or Rio Grande. Those releases never promised anything more than being "digitally remastered." What it is remastered from is never specified on the Artisan discs, though most of the time it was from the same VHS transfer used years ago. "Restored" is one word I never saw being associated with an Artisan release, unless it was "Restored audio."
I do agree with some of the concerns that some Olive Film titles have less-than stellar HD transfers compared to benchmark studio or Criterion releases, though I certainly wouldn't lump them with the majority of the Republic/Artisan DVDs. They can only be an improvement.
I saw a HD broadcast version of 'Body Snatchers' a while back; it was decent but no socks were blown off. And that's what I think we'll get on BD.
I never saw any DVD copy of IOTBS, but did watch the Criterion LD some months ago, and it was just shockingly awful, with contrast blown right out of the water. I had to take the TV settings down to practically nothing to make it watchable, and even then it was just barely so.
Hi John. Are you familiar w/ the DVD? If so, how did the HD broadcast compare?
No Doug; I've been waiting a long time for someone to produce a worthy edition, and that includes decent supplements.
Would the original camera negative have been full frame? Years ago I saw a 16mm print that I'm,sure was full frame (1.33:1) and not panned/scanned like the later full frame releases of the movie on Laser and DVD (including Criterion).
The original camera negative would have an image area of 1.37:1.
In the early years of non-anamorphic widescreen, the films were protected for open matte while composed for widescreen in the various studio ratios. This illustration from the May 1953 issue of American Cinematographer illustrates how the compositions were achieved with the modified view-finders.
This is precisely how Don Siegel and Ellsworth Fredericks would have photographed IOTBS.
I had posted the JG info from memory which is always a dangerous thing!
Republic announced their widescreen house ratio on August 18, 1953. Their ratios ranged from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1.
JOHNNY GUITAR began filming in mid-October.
When released in August 1954, Exhibitor listed the AR as 1.85:1 and Variety listed 1.66:1.
Based on that information, I would suggest 1.66:1 as the correct ratio for JOHNNY GUITAR.
The Perspecta track was transferred to a modern configuration that allows it to be heard successfully in today’s sound formats. The entire track was done for Paramount around 2005, I so I hope it can be included in this release. I erred about a surround track. Sorry.
I also heard a rumor that the full frame version was actually taken from a wide screen print as the camera original wasn't found and it is somewhat grainy because of this...in effect, a pan and scan version? Maybe this was discussed and I missed it.
At the time we met with Paramount, Mr. Eberenz and I had proposed to take the original 35mm Perspecta optical tracks and decode them utilizing a restored Fairchild integrator to an exact three channel digital copy. Mr. Eberenz had worked on mixing many of the tracks for MGM in 1954/55 and knew precisely what to do.
Yes, the current 1.37:1 version is a pan and scan from the 2.00:1 element.
About 30 years ago, a well known film collector in New Jersey had an original 16mm print of the full frame 1.37:1 version without the opening and closing wraparounds. I believe he sold the print in the Big Reel. Who knows where it wound up?
I tried finding INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS on Amazon, as someone mentioned they ordered it. No problem with HIGH NOON, but after looking a bit, the 1956 Olive release is there, but Amazon mistakenly have added  after the title, so you may have to scroll down to find it.
It can be found by entering this ASIN in the Amazon search box: B007Y1NPSM
Note that what comes up first is the Amazon Search Results layout, which defaults to having the item release date after the title, in this case (2012). To get the correct incorrect "1978" you have to click through to the single item page.
Sean: This is slightly off topic but I would like to make a suggestion to the good people at Olive. I just watched a terrific Allied Artists film (now owned by Paramount) called RIOT IN CELL BLOCK 11. It's directed by Don Siegel and composed for 1.85:1. So far as I know, it's never been on DVD and would be an excellent release.
I second that emotion.
The little Sci-Fi paranoia film that could, ok if any of you could tell me, how is Olive Films releases in HD? I don’t have a single one as of yet, but if they now are going to be going thru the Republic Catalog that could change real quick. Back to the opening statement, IOTBS could be presented so many ways and I don’t know if it would make everyone happy, the only way for that to happen would for it to be a two disc set SuperScope and Director version on separate disc, also add the option of original ending and no narration (The Pure Cut) that has been mentioned, love this film, and if this can get WB to look at Hawks “Thing” for a high def release, it make it all the better.
High Noon, just waiting to fawn over Grace Kelly and watch as Cooper kicks ass
IOTBS will be sourced from a fine grain print. The only aspect ratio should be 2:1.
yep i know, and i am ok with that, because it was OAR, but also the other Aspect Ratio would have been a nice extra
You can only get the full 1.37:1 aspect ratio from the negative which doesn't exist.