Originally Posted by Billy Batson /img/forum/go_quote.gif">
Don't get shirty Jesse. I've worked with film for the past 45 years, I don't think you have a clue. The resolution of what? The original negs (long missing), a fine grain pos/print from the negs, a print from a neg that was made from a print. As I remember, the transfer was made from a dupe found in the UK, the best source they could find....stop press, with each generation the "resolution" gets worse.
And why not? After all, a simple search on either this site or Google would have told you everything you needed to know about both the look of classics of the same era and how well this particular film had been treated, to say nothing of the extras on the DVD itself. Everything you wanted to know about the negatives and prints, including the elements it was taken from, the quality of said elements, the work done in scanning to 4K, etc. is right there. But instead, you chose to jump into the thread with snarky comments about the grain in what is Episode #142 of what appears to be some sort of doubt-mongering crusade about whether films can look better on Blu-ray.
FWIW, I think it's been pretty well-established that while an original negative or interpositive is good, even a decent release print can show improvement in resolution in 1080p, as long as the digital realms of the transferring and mastering process aren't fiddled with too much (a la
releases like Patton
). And considering this film has had a lot of attention paid to it in terms of restoration in the last decade--again, this is a fact that you could have found if you had bothered to spend 10 seconds with Google
--it's a foregone conclusion as to the amount of visual clarity that can be resolved. But as I said, that doesn't really appear to be the issue for you here, as you so eloquently tell me:
Comments removed by Owner