Originally Posted by dmiller68
This is one of my favorite WWII movies. I may have to pick this up. Thanks for the review.
I've been following the thread and hoping someone would ask a question like this. I thought all things were possible with today's technology (color correction and all the rest I keep reading about) - assuming little or no constraints on time or money. I bought the last DVD set in early 2007 but never got around to watching it (though I've seen the movie umpteen times). It seems I didn't miss much. I preordered the BD on day one, but the thing that most concerns me about the transfer are the horrendous-sounding 'awkward brownish green with red highlights' skin tones you describe. I'll still get the BD, but nothing takes me out of a movie faster than skin tone issues. As long as they're consistent, I can live with a sub-par rendition, otherwise....... I mentioned the infamous first laserdisc editon of My Fair Lady on another thread; the one that was so washed out it looked almost sepia. That and the image that reminded one of anaglyph-3D without the glasses resulted in a mass return to the stores, who took them back without question. Then came the gorgeous laser box-set in late1994, following your miraculous restoration. It would seem, to this tech-illiterate, that if you were able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, restoring - with tools that must seem primitive by today's standards - images and color to such an astonishing degree, why couldn't the Navarone techs at least be able to correct the skin-tone problems here? Was even that part an insurmountable tech issue, or a money one (understandable in today's climate)? My question is no reflection on Mr. Crisp. I'm just very curious. (Miramax's Talented Mr. Ripley, English Patient and Quiet American have been released on BD in the UK in what are said to be 'phone-in' jobs. This with BDs in Canada being transferred - lazily or cheaply? - in 1080i feeds into whatever skepticism I have concerning 'unsalvageable' catalog titles. Also available in the UK are El Cid and Fall of the Roman Empire, but I'm afraid to touch them!)Robert Harris said:Quote:Originally Posted by Mark Anthony
Hi, RAH,
I realise this is a bit of a crystal ball question, but is there any restorative techniques currently in development, that may be able to improve this in the longer term, or is this basically as good as it gets or is ever likely to get?
Might it be possible to use alternative technologies to help a handful of shots? Possibly. I've not examined the original elements, but knowing Columbia's Grover Crisp, my take would be that it's as good as it gets. He leaves no stone unturned when it comes to saving their library.
RAH
Originally Posted by marsnkc
I've been following the thread and hoping someone would ask a question like this. I thought all things were possible with today's technology (color correction and all the rest I keep reading about) - assuming little or no constraints on time or money. I bought the last DVD set in early 2007 but never got around to watching it (though I've seen the movie umpteen times). It seems I didn't miss much. I preordered the BD on day one, but the thing that most concerns me about the transfer are the horrendous-sounding 'awkward brownish green with red highlights' skin tones you describe. I'll still get the BD, but nothing takes me out of a movie faster than skin tone issues. As long as they're consistent, I can live with a sub-par rendition, otherwise.......
I mentioned the infamous first laserdisc editon of My Fair Lady on another thread; the one that was so washed out it looked almost sepia. That and the image that reminded one of anaglyph-3D without the glasses resulted in a mass return to the stores, who took them back without question. Then came the gorgeous laser box-set in late1994, following your miraculous restoration.
It would seem, to this tech-illiterate, that if you were able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, restoring - with tools that must seem primitive by today's standards - images and color to such an astonishing degree, why couldn't the Navarone techs at least be able to correct the skin-tone problems here? Was even that part an insurmountable tech issue, or a money one (understandable in today's climate)? My question is no reflection on Mr. Crisp. I'm just very curious.
(Miramax's Talented Mr. Ripley, English Patient and Quiet American have been released on BD in the UK in what are said to be 'phone-in' jobs. This with BDs in Canada being transferred - lazily or cheaply? - in 1080i feeds into whatever skepticism I have concerning 'unsalvageable' catalog titles. Also available in the UK are El Cid and Fall of the Roman Empire, but I'm afraid to touch them!)
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
but knowing Columbia's Grover Crisp, my take would be that it's as good as it gets. He leaves no stone unturned when it comes to saving their library.
RAH
I second that comment. Universal can sure use the help.FoxyMulder said:Any chance, that sometime in the near future, Universal might hire Mr Crisp to oversee their blu ray releases.
I think it is because the film didn't have anti-inhalation backing, which is a layer in the emulsion that stops light from reflecting off 'shallow' emulsion layers back out towards the lens, which creates the appearance of a pseudo back-light around dark objects. The CinemaScope films in the Budd Boetticher set suffer from halation, that looks like really bad edge enhancement too. But the quality of the films means it doesn't really bother me that much.FoxyMulder said:Just a quick question to help with my knowledge base on such matters.
The "force field halo's." I have seen this on Vera Cruz too which i watched recently, is this a result of something they did at the lab when processing the film or an issue with the the camera lens and some abnormal lighting situation at the time of filming.
Is the issue with these force fields on the original negative of both Guns and Vera Cruz, i'm guessing yes with Guns but not so sure about the latter movie.
Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
Just finished watching The Guns of Navarone on Blu-ray.
First time viewing this film anywhere. Actually caught RAH's thread
on it this evening, post-viewing, so I can somewhat relate to some of
the element issues that he brings up.
First of all, I loved this film. Exceptional cast and captivating story.
The film's final climax, within the German fortress, is impressive in
scale and quite exciting to watch.
Was never a fan of David Niven. For the few films I have seen him
in during my lifetime, he always came across as a rather dry, rigid
British actor. This was the first time I saw Mr. Niven in a more
relaxed role, and I actually felt his presence here was a refreshing one.
Going into this film, I was unaware of any element problems. There
were a few short snippets where grain was abundantly evident, but other
than that, I didn't really notice many of the anomalies that Robert Harris
mentioned.
I would say that's a good thing. For the most part, I thought the transfer
looked pretty damn good. So, if I didn't notice any glaring problems, then
I doubt anything is going to stand out for the rest of you.
I do agree that unlike other classics I have seen digitally restored for
Blu-ray, The Guns of Navarone does not have that pristine look of a
new film. However, that being said, I saw virtually no dirt, scratches
or other artifacts that would suggest that it was not brought up to the
standards of looking the best it could. Sony continues to do incredible
work with their classic releases.
I'm just very happy to have spent part of my holiday weekend discovering
this classic. Really enjoyed this movie.
Originally Posted by CULTMAN1
I remember seeing the raodshow version at The Odeon Leicester Square in 1961. I think it went on to The Columbia Cinema thereafter. Its good to see Adrian Turner posting on our forum but I think your 1959 date was a bit premature!I cannot remember if Guns was blown up to 70mm or shot in 70mm. In any event, I concur at the time ,despite the large screen and good projection facilities at The Odeon, the picture was not perfect even for 70mm.
Blu Ray based on RAH's comments is a must...