Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

DVD Reviews

HTF REVIEW: King Kong - Two Disc Collector's Edition (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED).

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
211 replies to this topic

#201 of 212 OFFLINE   Jim Peavy

Jim Peavy

    Supporting Actor

  • 717 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 12 2002

Posted December 01 2005 - 06:24 AM

With all due respect -- no way. In that frame I grabbed and posted over at the Classic Horror Film Board those support rods are gone. It may be a case of something such as Darrell S. has suggested, but it's not just a case of "the grayscale being handled so well".

I certainly do not think this is any big deal at all. It was just interesting to me to find the rods, pointed out so clearly in the Cinefex article, had been removed; doubly so because, as many have mentioned, they made a point of leaving in all the other support rods, surface gauges, etc.
"I just pre-ordered I DRINK YOUR BLOOD, even though I have no job."

#202 of 212 OFFLINE   Darrell S.

Darrell S.

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 106 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 12 2005

Posted December 01 2005 - 06:54 AM

Since Warner Bros. got this print from a European source, is it possible that the frame in question physically had been cut out or that this print was different on that particular frame?

#203 of 212 OFFLINE   Damin J Toell

Damin J Toell


  • 3,761 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 07 2001

Posted December 01 2005 - 08:03 AM

It might be the result of a cut. Warners used a British dupe negative as their main source element. However, the censored footage was physically cut from that negative at some point in the past. While they also had the separate censored portions, they lost a frame on each side of those segments due to the cutting. Warners then used a number of inferior sources to fill those (and, I assume, also other) gaps. I have no clue off-hand if that particular frame would've been one of those dropped frames, but it is worth noting that their main source element had at least some missing frames. DJ

#204 of 212 OFFLINE   Duncan_N


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 112 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 08 2002

Posted December 01 2005 - 09:13 AM

I received my Colllectors Tin today. It looks fabulous - going to sit down and enjoy the contents tonight. Ii would love the poster from the offer to frame for my wall. If any kind soul from the US can accomodate such an offer I'll gladly ship the voucher, all proof of purchases', shipping costs and the price of a beer or $5 dollar amazon voucher for you trouble to you, if someone could then send it on to me. My email is in my profile.

#205 of 212 OFFLINE   BrettGallman



  • 1,392 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2002

Posted December 01 2005 - 05:10 PM

Picked up the Best Buy exclusive today. I wish I could have gotten it for the sale price last week, but I was wrapped up in the holiday/X-Box 360 madness so I never heard anything about the exclusive set. Haven't watched any of the features yet, but I feel like I've already gotten my money's worth with the tin packaging...really well done job there.
Oh, the Horror - Horror Reviews from All Decades and All Sub-Genres!
Balls Academy -  Your Alma mater for teen films, raunchy, low-brow comedies, sexploitation & coming of age dramas.
Other recent reviews: Super | Thor Tobacco RoadSource Code | Sucker Punch |

#206 of 212 OFFLINE   stevenHa


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 177 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 12 2005

Posted December 14 2005 - 07:08 AM

After watching the restored King Kong on Turner Classics, I couldn't help but notice how much less pronounced the grain is with respect to the DVD. Can someone explain why this might be ?

#207 of 212 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,486 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted December 14 2005 - 09:06 AM

Because satellite/digital cable has a fraction of the bandwidth that a DVD allows. It's like comparing a 92kbs mp3 to PCM.

#208 of 212 OFFLINE   Conrad_SSS


    Second Unit

  • 343 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 19 2003

Posted December 14 2005 - 09:21 AM

Exactly. The image was nowhere near as sharp, crisp or detailed as the DVD, which still looks more gorgeous to me every time I pull it off the shelf and watch it again.

#209 of 212 OFFLINE   Kevin Lamb

Kevin Lamb

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 246 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 01 2004
  • Real Name:Kevin Lamb

Posted January 05 2006 - 07:17 AM

On one of the documentaries they mention that certain scenes in King Kong were censored in 1938. When did they get edited back into the film or is this the first time in 67 years that the full original theatrical cut has been available?

#210 of 212 OFFLINE   Johnny Angell

Johnny Angell

    Played With Dinosaurs Member

  • 5,550 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 13 1998
  • Real Name:Johnny Angell
  • LocationCentral Arkansas

Posted January 05 2006 - 10:00 AM

I've seen those cut scenes before, so they were available before this edition, but not sure for how long. I do believe this is the first time the cut scenes have been so well reintegrated with the film.
But a family cat is not replaceable like a wornout coat or a set of tires. Each new kitten becomes its own cat, and none is repeated. I am four cats old, measuring out my life in friends that have succeeded but not replaced one another.--Irving Townsend

#211 of 212 OFFLINE   Bill GrandPre

Bill GrandPre


  • 2,068 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 09 2001

Posted January 10 2006 - 07:12 AM

The check for my poster cleared today.
Don't you ever, EVER compare me to "Family Guy," you hear me Kyle? Compare me to "Family Guy" again and so help me, I will kill you where you stand!

Do you have any idea what it's like? Everywhere I go: "Hey Cartman you must like 'Family Guy,' right?" "Hey, your sense of humor reminds me of...

#212 of 212 OFFLINE   Alberto_D



  • 1 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 24 2006

Posted January 28 2006 - 06:18 AM

Hi everyone It's interesthing to notice that the major source used for this King Kong restoration was a fine grain internegative, made from a fine grain interpositive, in other words, a copy from a copy from original camera negative, so a second generation. You must know that fine grain have superior resolution and contrast compared to usual prints, but those fine grain of Kong was made in 1933, and at this time fine grain stock wasn't good as today. There is a surviving master made from original camera negative in the 1942. But according Mr harris and Warner it wasn't of better quality than the fine grain internegative, despite of be a generation earlier. But wasn't clear if they refer about quality in terms of image detail, or just about scratchs stains, blemishs, dupe sections and cuts, since in the 40's when this master was made it was already very used. A digital clean-up from a too much scratched stainned master can be extremelly expensive in 4K resolution. It's possible that this master wasn't made with a fine film stock, or maybe by optical lens, instead of film contact copping, which could get more detail lost than two generations copy using 30's fine grain stock with finnest coping method. Lowry Digital Images ins't perfect, like anybody else. They indeed have the best algorithms to reduce grain and increase image detail, but takes a thousand computer to processing, and since it compare the grain extructure from very similar areas to try to get more details than a single frame alone, it don't works well in scenes with movements. It's a very expansive processing. If Warner would take such luxurious to each title they would restore less films to DVD. Also for a 4K resolution project, 4K to see bether the dust and dirt to clean, since the surviving film elements probably don't even reach 2K, we would notice much more artefacts of grain reduction and sharpness. They could make it sharper and less grainy for video, but in big scream would be a kin artificial, since would be going to far with those filters ability. Having testesd MTI restoration system on Brazil, the same Warner use for their restoration, the best on market, a couple of times, I can say digital film restoration are fine, but as anything it's nothing a miracle. There are automatic tools, but we must take care with the risk of fake detections, so a significative percentage of the work it's still manual. It's possible yes to eliminate 100% of debris and scratchs, but would take too longer, and maybe some really heavy deffects get artefacts. SO using good sense we can say that the best is use the budget to get the more possible numbers of good digitaly restored films, instead of a fully 100% clean small number. What choice you would prefer? So we can say that Warner is going fine. In future, would be possible to combine the image information of several copies together, which would increase the ability to reduce grain and scratches and dust. For example, if two 35mm similar copies survived, with grain texture ver look like, but quite more heavy than was original negative, would be possible to the software to compare those sister frames to reduce grain in a more accurate way. At the prewsent day it's too expensive to work this way considering the cost of film resolution scanning and amount of data to work. There are so much possibilities I would like to tell you, but would take pages. Tahnks everybody to read my comments Alberto

Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: DVD Reviews

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users