Someone at Fox - please evaluate (1 Viewer)

[FoxyMulder]

It's the old half full/half empty way of looking at things. We may complain about not having any butter for our bread but when you're hungry, you're grateful for just the bread.

The half full/half empty glass thing, nah i don't look at it that way, i ask what's in the glass, being grateful for the bread, nah again, i'm not going to be grateful for just anything they give us, stop being so cheap and give me the butter too.

 

[Doug Bull]

"There are several solid barometers for color balancing. One - flesh tones (not too pink, not too ruddy orange). We all know what flesh looks like."

Yes, a point I've made several times in this thread. I think flesh tones are as good or better a point of reference as anything else.

I agree, but then I wonder just what are the correct skin tones?
Often skin tones and color schemes varied from film to film and from studio to studio.
Each Studio seem to have their own look.

Here are some examples of Technicolor 35mm frame scans showing how the colors actually look on film.
Be aware that when projected by carbon Arc these frames would have produced a slight blue tinge.

(MGM)

(Universal)

(Universal)

(20th Century Fox)

(Warner Bros)

(UA)

(Columbia)

These give a general idea, but as I said, they could vary from film to film, so I'm not too sure this overlarge posting by me actually proves very much.

(To me "The Music Man" clip from 60s shows an improvement in skin tones)

Doug.

 

[Mark Booth]

Some people seem to be forgetting that Fox doesn't gift these Blu-rays to us, we PAY for them. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with a customer expecting to get the best quality product possible for his/her money. When Fox (or any other studio) does a shoddy job of transferring a film to Blu-ray, it's says more than that they just don't care about their films, it also says they don't care about their customers.

If some of you are happy with mediocrity, more power to you. But don't expect me to bury my head in the sand while Fox spits out crappy transfers to Blu.

Mark

 

[ROclockCK]

The half full/half empty glass thing, nah i don't look at it that way, i ask what's in the glass, being grateful for the bread, nah again, i'm not going to be grateful for just anything they give us, stop being so cheap and give me the butter too.

The thing is Malcolm, this kind of discussion would only occur with a mature 'end state' collector's medium:

[*]With VHS and Beta we were happily renting just about anything available, simply because it was available. Anyone recall how horrible Fox titles looked like via those early Magnetic video tapes? I still shudder...
[*]With Laserdisc we were mostly grateful for digital stereo sound and anything even resembling OAR.
[*]With DVD, we were not only tickled with the OAR and digital sound, but also a wave of newly created retrospective features and commentaries, all available widely at mass market prices.
[*]With Blu-ray though, it's seems we're becoming awfully picky...and with some justification too, because we know many of these titles are seeing their last best showcase in hard media form. So if this stuff isn't right yet, then when? IMO, likely never...
[/list]
I just don't think the studios - speaking vis-à-vis this topic, Fox - are doing a bad job of that overall...more often than not, significantly improving these vintage titles, or at least giving them a final best recovery effort before finally moving on.

It's just rather sad that some very good recovery work by this studio is being unfairly lumped in with their more controversial transfers.

 

[Michael1]

Doug Bull, I think it's more a question of variations from print to print and from one clip of surviving material to another, rather than variations from studio to studio. To me, the color palette in almost all of those still frames you posted is way off, and I'm not just talking about the flesh tones. If they're from actual IB tech prints, which don't fade, maybe they were from bad prints

 

[FoxyMulder]

Doug Bull, I think it's more a question of variations from print to print and from one clip of surviving material to another, rather than variations from studio to studio. To me, the color palette in almost all of those still frames you posted is way off, and I'm not just talking about the flesh tones. If they're from actual IB tech prints, which don't fade, maybe they were from bad prints

Doug has already said when projected via carbon arc the colours would change and they would have a bit more blue in them, now wouldn't the fimmakers be aware of this and carefully light the production to take account of the carbon arc projection.

The question is do the studio's take into account the original projected image as it would be seen via carbon arc or do they use modern Xenon bulb projection technology which would produce a different look. ?

 

[Doug Bull]

Doug Bull, I think it's more a question of variations from print to print and from one clip of surviving material to another, rather than variations from studio to studio. To me, the color palette in almost all of those still frames you posted is way off, and I'm not just talking about the flesh tones. If they're from actual IB tech prints, which don't fade, maybe they were from bad prints

If that's the case then I must have an awful lot of bad prints.

 

[Michael1]

I don't know if they're clips from bad prints, or if they would look honetly very different when projected via carbon arc (I doubt it), or whatever. I do know the color in almost all of those frames except THE MUSIC MAN looks very unnatural to me because it's weighted very, very much towards one end of the spectrum. Most of the frames almost look some weird form of two-strip Techicolor. To focus on a single example, do you really feel the frame from EASTER PARADE with Fred Astair and Ann Miller looks remotely natural or "correct" in terms of either the flesh tones or the overall color palette?

 

[Will Krupp]

If that's the case then I must have an awful lot of bad prints.

I hope you kept your receipts!!

I don't know if they're clips from bad prints, or if they would look honetly very different when projected via carbon arc (I doubt it), or whatever.

Oh dear. I have a sneaking suspicion that very soon you're going to get "educated" pretty quickly, whether you want it or not.

Now...........DUCK!!!!!!

 

[JohnMor]

Some people seem to be forgetting that Fox doesn't gift these Blu-rays to us, we PAY for them. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with a customer expecting to get the best quality product possible for his/her money. When Fox (or any other studio) does a shoddy job of transferring a film to Blu-ray, it's says more than that they just don't care about their films, it also says they don't care about their customers.

If some of you are happy with mediocrity, more power to you. But don't expect me to bury my head in the sand while Fox spits out crappy transfers to Blu.

Mark

While I completely agree with you in principle, Mark, imo there is a HUGE difference between what Fox is putting out on these particular blu-rays (with a couple of exceptions like The King and I) and "crappy" "mediocrity." Slight color differences aside, we have nothing in these blus on the level of the initial Patton (or Paramount's My Fair Lady issue), which is more akin to what I would reserve those descriptions for.

 

[Doug Bull]

Michael you've been watching too many DVDs.

In both work and pleasure I've been immersed in handling actual 35mm films for over 60 years and believe me those displayed scans are absolutely the exact way they appear when you hold the actual film in your hand.
I could scan countless thousands of 35mm film frames and they would all come out the same way, because that's how they are.

The actual film appearance does change slightly when projected by carbon arc.
Now if I projected those films by Xenon then those film scans would look pretty much the same as the frames I displayed.
I wouldn't recommend you come to my place to watch "Easter Parade" projected via Xenon, as you might well be disappointed by what you see.

Doug.

 

[haineshisway]

They wouldn't have a bit more blue in them, they would, if they were properly timed IB prints, look normal, not all yellow and grungy. The ONLY frame that looks absolutely correct and is perfect in regards to the dye transfer look is the one from The Music Man. That's it.

 

[haineshisway]

Doug has already said when projected via carbon arc the colours would change and they would have a bit more blue in them, now wouldn't the fimmakers be aware of this and carefully light the production to take account of the carbon arc projection.

The question is do the studio's take into account the original projected image as it would be seen via carbon arc or do they use modern Xenon bulb projection technology which would produce a different look. ?

Any print up through the mid-1970s would have been specifically timed for carbon arc. Again, none of those frames look like what an IB print would look like if projected via carbon arc save for The Music Man. The fact that that one looks correct while the others don't is an interesting thing. And yes, there were definitely bad IB prints, but I have never once, in all my years of collecting thousands of 16mm and 35mm dye transfer prints seen anything that looks yellow and grungy like many of those frames. Never. Not once. Take from that what you will.

 

[Doug Bull]

Any print up through the mid-1970s would have been specifically timed for carbon arc. Again, none of those frames look like what an IB print would look like if projected via carbon arc save for The Music Man. The fact that that one looks correct while the others don't is an interesting thing. And yes, there were definitely bad IB prints, but I have never once, in all my years of collecting thousands of 16mm and 35mm dye transfer prints seen anything that looks yellow and grungy like many of those frames. Never. Not once. Take from that what you will.

The Music Man is a much later print than the others. Colors were changing in the sixties. Skin tones were becoming softer. I could show dozens of examples such as,

It appears I've been very, very unlucky in my acquisition of hundreds of original Technicolor nitrate and safety 35mm prints from the 40s and 50s obtained from many, many different sources from all around the world.
Or so it might appear if you believe Bruce.

Maybe he could scan something from the 40s or 50s (untouched as I have) from his thousands of films and show us the results. hmmm.
But then again maybe I am just the most unluckiest collector in the World.

Certainly it's not the scanner, because the results reflect the exact identical color as on the physical film itself.

I will admit however that there are some movies from that period that have been given a much softer color appearance.
That was probably the choice of the director. I've found from experience that Westerns and Musicals often went for that bright orange/ brown look as those displayed.
British Technicolor was always soft, as in Pastel colors.

Doug.

 

[John Hermes]

The Music Man is a much later print than the others. Colors were changing in the sixties. Skin tones were becoming softer. I could show dozens of examples such as,

mflady1.jpg

It appears I've been very, very unlucky in my acquisition of hundreds of original Technicolor nitrate and safety 35mm prints from the 40s and 50s obtained from many, many different sources from all around the world.
Or so it might appear if you believe Bruce.

Maybe he could scan something from the 40s or 50s (untouched as I have) from his thousands of films and show us the results. hmmm.
But then again maybe I am just the most unluckiest collector in the World.

Certainly it's not the scanner, because the results reflect the exact identical color as on the physical film itself.

I will admit however that there are some movies from that period that have been given a much softer color appearance.
That was probably the choice of the director. I've found from experience that Westerns and Musicals often went for that bright orange/ brown look as those displayed.
British Technicolor was always soft, as in Pastel colors.

Doug.

I've had a lot of 16mm and 35mm IB Tech prints myself over the years. Many of the early 1950s prints I owned had the look of those yellow-biased scans you displayed here. Too much color saturation in skin a lot of the time too. The 1960s IB prints were always my favorites with their clean, pure colors and neutral skintones.

 

[haineshisway]

The Music Man is a much later print than the others. Colors were changing in the sixties. Skin tones were becoming softer. I could show dozens of examples such as,

mflady1.jpg

It appears I've been very, very unlucky in my acquisition of hundreds of original Technicolor nitrate and safety 35mm prints from the 40s and 50s obtained from many, many different sources from all around the world.
Or so it might appear if you believe Bruce.

Maybe he could scan something from the 40s or 50s (untouched as I have) from his thousands of films and show us the results. hmmm.
But then again maybe I am just the most unluckiest collector in the World.

Certainly it's not the scanner, because the results reflect the exact identical color as on the physical film itself.

I will admit however that there are some movies from that period that have been given a much softer color appearance.
That was probably the choice of the director. I've found from experience that Westerns and Musicals often went for that bright orange/ brown look as those displayed.
British Technicolor was always soft, as in Pastel colors.

Doug.

People are free to believe whomever they so choose. But I've seen early Fox tech prints projected properly for the way they were timed and I just hate to tell you they did not look like your frames. Your frames look like two-color Technicolor or TruColor. By the end of the 1940s, where there were certainly some golden-hued Tech stuff, things had changed, color-wise. And if you think it hadn't, please do explain White Christmas (not Yellow Christmas) and The Ten Commandments - think those were yellow, too? Because they were not. And I never saw a good reason to snip frames out of my prints, so I don't have any to scan. Can you imagine? Yeah, let me just snip out a few frames from Vertigo - who'll mind? But if you must feel the winner, go ahead. None of this is a win situation for anyone, I'm afraid and you can post all the yellow frames you like and people can either believe or not that that's the way these things looked in the 1950s. Of course, that would mean - and really understand this - that every single transfer of a 1950s film has been done incorrectly or they'd be all yellow like your frames. Bigger Than Life? I don't see a yellow cast to the Criterion transfer, do you? All that Heaven Allows via Criterion - I don't see a yellow cast, but I do see a boatload of electric blue and most especially pure whites. Can you please point to the pure whites in any of your yellow frames. Think they were projected via carbon arc as all yellow? Not me. Breakfast at Tiffany's? I don't see a yellow hue and I don't see any yellow hue cast over The Ten Commandments or White Christmas transfers, so those must be travesties of the highest order, no? And Sony - what were they thinking with the gorgeous new The Man from Laramie transfer that doesn't have a golden hue to it like your Columbia frame? Cause for a recall? You see the problem here, I'm sure.

 

[Doug Bull]

Thanks John.
Maybe I don't need to return my collection after all.

Just to eat humble pie, as some here are afraid of doing.
Here is a comparison of my original 35mm frame and a scan from the DVD of Universal's "TOMAHAWK" (actually a nice looking DVD)
Not hard to tell which one looks better.
35mm (I scanned that frame several years ago. It looks as if I removed the blue sky as I was experimenting with photos back then)

The DVD

As I say, a nice looking DVD.

Doug.

 

[John Hermes]

People are free to believe whomever they so choose. But I've seen early Fox tech prints projected properly for the way they were timed and I just hate to tell you they did not look like your frames. Your frames look like two-color Technicolor or TruColor. By the end of the 1940s, where there were certainly some golden-hued Tech stuff, things had changed, color-wise. And if you think it hadn't, please do explain White Christmas (not Yellow Christmas) and The Ten Commandments - think those were yellow, too? Because they were not. And I never saw a good reason to snip frames out of my prints, so I don't have any to scan. Can you imagine? Yeah, let me just snip out a few frames from Vertigo - who'll mind? But if you must feel the winner, go ahead. None of this is a win situation for anyone, I'm afraid and you can post all the yellow frames you like and people can either believe or not that that's the way these things looked in the 1950s. Of course, that would mean - and really understand this - that every single transfer of a 1950s film has been done incorrectly or they'd be all yellow like your frames. Bigger than Life? I don't see yellow. All that Heaven Allows via Criterion - I don't see yellow, and I do see a boatload of electric blue. Breakfast at Tiffany's? I don't see yellow and I don't see any yellow in The Ten Commandments or White Christmas transfers, so those must be travesties of the highest order, no? You see the problem here, I'm sure.

Bruce, I had 35mm prints of Dangerous Mission and The Far Horizons (a VistaVision film no less) which had yellow-biased color, similar to what Doug shows here. I have seen many 16mm prints with that look. One reason I like the 1960s IB Tech is that I've never seen a bias like that, which I don't find appealing at all. I'm certainly not saying all the early 1950s Tech prints look that way, they don't, but some do, and I've owned them.

 

[Doug Bull]

People are free to believe whomever they so choose. But I've seen early Fox tech prints projected properly for the way they were timed and I just hate to tell you they did not look like your frames. Your frames look like two-color Technicolor or TruColor. By the end of the 1940s, where there were certainly some golden-hued Tech stuff, things had changed, color-wise. And if you think it hadn't, please do explain White Christmas (not Yellow Christmas) and The Ten Commandments - think those were yellow, too? Because they were not. And I never saw a good reason to snip frames out of my prints, so I don't have any to scan. Can you imagine? Yeah, let me just snip out a few frames from Vertigo - who'll mind? But if you must feel the winner, go ahead. None of this is a win situation for anyone, I'm afraid and you can post all the yellow frames you like and people can either believe or not that that's the way these things looked in the 1950s. Of course, that would mean - and really understand this - that every single transfer of a 1950s film has been done incorrectly or they'd be all yellow like your frames. Bigger Than Life? I don't see a yellow cast to the Criterion transfer, do you? All that Heaven Allows via Criterion - I don't see a yellow cast, but I do see a boatload of electric blue and most especially pure whites. Can you please point to the pure whites in any of your yellow frames. Think they were projected via carbon arc as all yellow? Not me. Breakfast at Tiffany's? I don't see a yellow hue and I don't see any yellow hue cast over The Ten Commandments or White Christmas transfers, so those must be travesties of the highest order, no? And Sony - what were they thinking with the gorgeous new The Man from Laramie transfer that doesn't have a golden hue to it like your Columbia frame? Cause for a recall? You see the problem here, I'm sure.

Oh spare me please.
"If you must feel the Winner?" what a childish and utterly insulting statement.
I shouldn't even bother responding, but I do wonder why we have conveniently moved to Video reincarnations in reference to my first postings regarding only actual physical film appearance? (and after all I did say that those scans wouldn't prove much) They were but a minuscule example of film appearance in the 40s and 50s.
I never hinted that Video should represent those frames.
Sometimes I just read, scratch my head and wonder....

And Bruce for your information a lot of my scans are from frames that were excised from prints by others for repair purposes. I collected them from Cinema managers, Projectionists and film exchanges when I was a Kid.
All other scans of mine have been made directly from 35mm prints without damaging or removing one single frame (It might surprise you that it's something that I also would never do)
It might also surprise you to learn that you can actually scan a film without damaging one single iota of celluloid. It's pretty simple actually.
But then what would I know.

Doug.

 

[Mark Booth]

While I completely agree with you in principle, Mark, imo there is a HUGE difference between what Fox is putting out on these particular blu-rays (with a couple of exceptions like The King and I) and "crappy" "mediocrity." Slight color differences aside, we have nothing in these blus on the level of the initial Patton (or Paramount's My Fair Lady issue), which is more akin to what I would reserve those descriptions for.

You apparently agree regarding 'The King and I'. I don't own 'Desk Set', and won't, now that I've seen Chuck's video. It's overly blue enough to be called crappy!

Mark