A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Pink Panther -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[OliverK]

Thank you Robert for the interesting answer that indeed prompts me to ask some more.

If I have understood your answer correctly added grain structure can be kind of seen for the first time when going back to the OCN and that makes perfect sense to me.

So I take it that for the Blu-Ray a scan was made of the OCN, hopefully in 4k given that it is a 8-perf source ?

And my second question:
If The Pink Panther has been scanned from the OCN I wonder how it can be that The Robe that I believe was shot on an earlier and probably more coarse Eastman stock than Pink Panther has rather less visible grain structure in its Blu-Ray incarnation despite coming from a much smaller negative than the Blu-Ray and even taking into account different lighting and shooting styles and conditions ?

My best guess would be some kind of let's say grain management and/or an effect where a faded negative loses the colors that usually shows the most grain which to me seems to be blue/cyan but maybe I am way off here on both accounts...

 

[Robert Harris]

Because the grain was removed / reduced via Lowry's proprietary process. The Robe was neither a pretty picture, nor an easy element with which to work. At its best the OCN was a bit faded, and with the very heavy grain structure of the early stock. At its worst, where OCN no longer existed, the separations (also on early 5216 stock) would have been scanned and maneuvered digitally.[/quote]

Since one can remove grain without affecting resolution, it's almost impossible to tell what one is looking at on a BD unless there is familiarity with the actual elements.

RAH

 

[OliverK]

Seeing how much grain there is with The Pink Panther and a few other movies that really stick out one could get the idea that many other older titles have been through a rather extensive grain removal/reduction. I hope this does not become the norm and titles like The Pink Panther, The Professionals or The Godfather trilogy the exception.



.

 

[Stephen PI]

deleted

 

[Spili]

No comments about the hideous vertical stretching found on this transfer? I know it's from the early days of the format, but still, quite sad no one brought it up to be addressed (and perhaps rectified by now). Was glaringly obvious from the few screenshots on the web:

A shame... especially when you think about what we could have had -- transfer's most handsome otherwise.

I did find one other mention of it from an Amazon review:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3O5QFXQ7AO0UW?ASIN=B0009S4J3C

"Someone at the telecine operator at MGM/UA must have been asleep when this gem of a movie was transferred to Blu-ray. Amazon states the aspect ratio as 2.35:1, which is the way this film is supposed to look. But the back of the Blu-ray package says 2.20:1, which is in fact the aspect ratio you get here. But the Technirama system should be 2.35:1, so what is the effect of all this? Well, the image on the Blu-ray has been vertically stretched, so all the actors have thinned - yes even all the famous cars used in the film look thinner than they should. What a pity, as the transfer apart from this mistake looks splendid."

Mind, not the first time MGM's squashed information into the picture that wasn't intended:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Killer-Elite-Blu-ray/74286/

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Dressed-to-Kill-Blu-ray/129819/



Somehow I doubt we'll see fixes for all these geometry issues over the expansion of our lifetime, unless, of course, you're say, "Arrow," or, "Criterion." At least with them there is hope...

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I don't see "hideous" vertical stretching, as you describe it. When considering stretching, I look for telltale signs. One of the best indicators is in the second frame grab: the buttons on David Niven's jacket are perfectly round. Also, the argument that Technirama is "supposed to be" 2.35:1 is ultimately futile. The exposed negative area on the "lazy 8" Technirama negative yields an aspect ratio roughly the same as VistaVision at 1.5:1 without the 50% squeeze imparted by Technirama optics, which increased the exposed ratio to 2.25:1. While the Technirama titles prior to Sleeping Beauty largely were matted and printed at 2.35:1, Sleeping Beauty, which was one of the first titles to be christened as Super Technirama 70, was actually composed for 2.55:1, and that is the aspect ratio of the current BD release. Spartacus, released in 1960, has an aspect ratio of 2.21:1 and is Super Technirama.

What does this all mean for The Pink Panther? It all depends what elements were used, but while the actors look slim, let's remember this is a 53 year old film and people get "thicker" with age. I don't see any disparities with these actors' appearances in films of the same vintage, and the buttons are, as I said, perfectly round.

 

[Jimbo64]

I don't think that MGM had anything to do with the "squashed" transfer of Dressed to Kill, I'm pretty sure that Criterion messed up their first transfer and then reissued it correctly. I've also watched TT's The Killer Elite and never noticed any distortion in that transfer that of course was provided by MGM.

 

[Kai Penttila]

The frame grabs above (in post 25) are pretty close to 2.35:1.