The Bride Of Frankenstein (1 Viewer)

[bugmenot]

I agree, but I would want it in Blu Ray. I cant watch a regular movie anymore..haha i am a blu ray snob now.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Does tape hiss on musical recordings drive you nuts, too?

I have no problem with a little grain. I agree with those who'd rather have the movie look the way it did when it was shot rather than have it tidied up with artifical techniques. I don't want to see excessive grain due to a bad print or whatever, but if it was there when the film was originally processed, then it's okay with me...

 

[Corey3rd]

respect the grain. Without it, there would be no image on the film.

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

And wholegrain is rich in fibre!!!

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I respect grain making up the image. I get it. I understand it.

A film should still not look "grainy", though.

People can say that the type of smooth and glass-like images I love on old black and white films make the movie "actually have less detail". I don't buy it for a second, as I've never seen MORE detail in films that I have on the best authored DVDs. Something like DR. RENAULT'S SECRET (1942), as I mentioned already, never looked more striking and vivid, with tons of detail. And it's not grainy looking.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Most of the time, sure. Why not? But then there are times where I love it -- like listening to old Bing Crosby Christmas recordings.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I would love it on Blu-ray, but I can watch SD DVD all day long because I'm in love with movies.





Crawdaddy

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

I think there's a distinction to be made between titles that were less grainy looking to begin with and those that have had the grain removed electronically. Also, take into account the generation of the materials used for the transfer

 

[Corey3rd]

I want the fine grain 35mm source for a DVD transfer. I don't want a 16mm bathtub dupe.

At this point, I hold people who complain about grain on the same level as folks who claim that all black and white films would be better colorized. It's on par with saying "I want to watch it like it was shot on video!" Sorry if the cinematic process hurts your delicate eyeballs, but I don't want to see a film that's ultimately a computer's reinterpretation of a movie.

 

[Patrick McCart]

The transfer on the Legacy collection doesn't look that grainy outside of the opticals and effect shots.

I think some people have unrealistic expectations. I'll take thicker film grain over it being filtered out. Take a look at the mess that was Universal's original transfer for The Invisible Man.

 

[Dan M]

Amen, brother Crawdaddy

As for grain, the simple solution to this ongoing debate is to let the user decide if grain is what they want by letting the hardware remove it via onboard DNR . This way those of us who accept grain and even welcome it can choose to disable the DNR on their respective players...I cant think of a better way to appease both camps

It's all good

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Don't include me in that group, as I am basically anti-colorization and I am a big fan of glorious black and white films.

 

[Jack Theakston]

My problem with DNR is that the post houses doing the transfers on these films are often too liberal with it. Applied in the right amount, it does its job, but most of these films end up a smeary mess. Similarly, there are some excellent optical tracks rendered useless and distorted by low bitrates and too much EQing.

Films like DOCTOR RENAULT'S SECRET look so good because they have the original camera negative or a first generation element like a fine grain, that are devoid of excessive grain that is built up from repeating copying. I don't know what sort of element they have for BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, but it looks far better than FRANKENSTEIN, which is several generations removed from the original.

That being said, removing all of the grain with a lot of DNR is tantamount to taking a photo, xeroxing it, and then taking another photograph of it with Vaseline smeared over the lens. You're not really taking away grain selectively, you're simply just smoothing everything out injudiciously, sacrificing tones that were supposed to be there.

Anecdotal, but a friend of mine saw a reel at UCLA of a print that was struck from what was left of the original neg to FRANKENSTEIN and he said it looked like it was shot yesterday, so these films didn't "always look like that," and people on other sites are much misled by this assumption.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I'm not sure it's DNR I'm championing, at any rate. Because the beautifully clean and crisp transfers I enjoy certainly don't appear as though they're smeared with Vasoline!

I like your description of the "fine grain neg" versus the "multi-duped copy".

 

[Jim Peavy]

Certainly the orig. DVD release of Bride was too grainy, I think we'd all agree with that (why, I don't know). They did much better with the 2nd release.

That having been said, I'd love a 75th anniv. edition. Bride is one of the jewels of the '30s horror cycle, no doubt.

 

[Deco King]

I think Bride is just a great stand alone movie altogether , and not just as part of the Universal Monster Movie series.

It is a far greater film in my opinion than all the other movies Universal made during the period 1931 - 1945.

I'd love to see one frame of the Technicolor test they did of Boris Karloff's makeup for Bride , that was shot according to the late Forrest J Ackerman's Famous Monsters Of Filmland magazine!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The Technicolor test was done for SON OF FRANKENSTEIN in November, 1938. It was lost, then found in the early 1980's, then lost again!

Here's a frame from the Karloff 16mm Kodachrome home movies taken on the set:

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

At least BRIDE has been released twice with a 35mm transfer. It can wait. I'd much rather have a DVD of THE OLD DARK HOUSE from 35mm before another BRIDE release. What I've heard (which may or may not be the case, of course) is that Kino had to shell out so much to the Priestley estate for the DVD rights that they couldn't afford what Universal was asking for usage of their restored 35mm print, so they had to go with 16mm. :-(

A DVD of ISLAND OF LOST SOULS (Paramount, but owned by Universal) would also be preferred before another release of BRIDE, at least by this Universal horror fan.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

You have a good point. I've seen clips of the 35mm print of THE OLD DARK HOUSE on the Universal Horrors documentary, and it looked amazing. Maybe it will make it to DVD and Blu-ray one day.

 

[Matt Stieg]

The Old Dark House is in the hands of the Douris Corporation, NOT Universal, and the Douris Corp is notoriously difficult to deal with.