Is "South Pacific" a Good Transfer? (2 Viewers)

The incredible team of Rogers and Hammerstein were all about quality.

And that constant search for best in all matters inclusive of technical, when it came to bringing their works to motion picture theaters, have returned again and again to create problems half a century later.

Testing the limits of the motion picture via 55mm / 8 perf, as well as 65 / 5 perf at 30fps, has affected the ability to properly reproduce some of the best of their work.

South Pacific was fortunately shot on 65/5 at 24fps, and derived from what appears to be a wet gate interpositive, this new Blu-ray has everything going for it and very, very little in the negative column.

Digitally corrected for color and contrast, South Pacific looks as a 65/5 production should -- crisp, with high resolution; a minimum of grain; no noise, and generally superb visual as well as aural reproduction.

The only negatives here -- as far as I know, the film has not been restored -- are occasional registration problems on opticals and dupes, which could have been corrected, but do little to damage an otherwise superb transition to Blu-ray.

I've seen this mentioned on line as a potential "Best of the Year," (we're only in March) and while this is an interesting notion, what needs to be kept in mind, is that what we are seeing is the ability of the Blu-ray system to reproduce films as they are meant to be seen. When one goes to large format elements, the sky is the limit.

This gorgeous Blu-ray should be considered the norm for large format.

Highly Recommended.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by MattH.

I have always despised the color filters used during the musical numbers of the film (even when watching it projected on the big screen in a theater), but the Blu-ray transfer was the first time I found them palatable enough that they didn't spoil my enjoyment of the viewing experience..

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

I believe in using the filters Logan was attempting to replicate lighting effects that were used in the original Broadway presentation. If I recall correctly, he used to explain in interviews that in Hawaii he had no facilities to watch the dailies and had to ship the footage back to the studio on the mainland for review. Apparently fearing delays and cost overruns if scenes had to be reshot, the studio told him the filters looked fine. Logan was none too pleased when he finally saw the results himself, but could do nothing about it.

Someone correct me if I'm not remembering this right.

Regardless, I agree with Ben above regarding the attempt to do something different and Logan often tried to employ innovation in his films, though little of it ever succeeded from an aesthetic perspective. Still, at least he tried. Was it Samuel Beckett who said: "Try again. Fail again. Fail better."


Sent from mobile via TapaTalk

Click to expand...