- Joined
- Feb 8, 1999
- Messages
- 18,375
- Real Name
- Robert Harris
Where do I begin?
I've now had the opportunity to view two of the finest films ever made -- and two personal favorites within a 48 hour period.
To Kill a Mockingbird, based upon the novel by Harper Lee, is to my mind, one of the most beautiful and perfect films ever made. It possesses a timelessness unlike the majority of period dramas.
But to point, film, as a medium, is not timeless.
And this commentary will go into how it affects a film like To Kill a Mockingbird, why it looks as it does, and with a tip of the hat to James Monaco, how one can best "read" a film, and understand what it is that one is seeing.
Like many productions, mostly large format, but many standard 35mm, one can make an absolute generalization as to what will be found in the cans before they're opened.
The more beloved, the more popular a film, the worse condition it will be in, especially if it came into being before quality duping stocks. For black and white, this means, the mid to late 1950s, for color the three decades hence.
As a 1962 production, To Kill a Mockingbird was an immensely important and popular production. For whatever reason, and this does not speak to current management at Universal, the original negative was used to strike far too many prints. It also appears that it may also have been rejuvenated at some point to remove scratches by some overzealous lab technician.
None of that matters now, as we have what we have.
I recall discussions of problems with the original negative a decade ago, and work has been ongoing to create a working set of picture elements toward preservation and replication for years.
Let's go to basics, and I thank Universal for sharing some details.
Of the thirteen reels of original negative, six no longer survive. What does survive is scratched, warped, and with occasional black slugs, where damaged frames have been removed. A fine grain master produced contemporary with the film is also problematic with some scratched and damaged sections. A second fine grain, produced in 1969 stands in where other elements are unavailable. Duplicate negatives of varying quality have been used to fill in other missing footage.
More specifics.
Dupes of this era do not create a grainier image. Since the duping stocks are very slow speed emulsions,with virtually no visible grain, what occurs is that with each generation, the edges of grain become a bit more diffuse, and almost velvety looking. Contrast gain is also not a problem.
Let's take something else into consideration.
A number of catalog titles have had image harvests in 2k or 4k in the past few years from original negatives, and many of the more "image aware" in the home theater community have locked into what a scanned image from an OCN of the era looks like. There is grain, albeit generally fine, unless higher speed stocks were used.
What this means is that the majority of To Kill a Mockingbird is at least second generation, and some third. Again, with each passing generation, there is a lessoning of grain, and a slightly softer image.
In my humble opinion, and to my eye, what the technicians at Universal have attempted to do is to homogenize the image, so as not to have a shot or sequence from one generation bumping into a different generation, with abrupt changes in grain structure, contrast or resolution. They've put in their time, thought things through, and have created a quality product.
A quick word about grain reduction. I really don't have a problem with what I'm seeing here, as it seems to consistently represent what a second generation element would look like from the era. There is certainly noting scrubbed, as I've read in some other threads on other sites.
What I'm seeing on Universal's new Blu-ray of the film, is a generally very pleasing image, that is obviously not from an original negative, but controls the character of the film as it transparently jumps back and forth from one generation element to the next.
My take on the Blu-ray is that it generally looks beautiful. A very nice job. I'm less thrilled, albeit not overly disturbed, by the handling of field enlargements, as rather than grain slowly building, it just isn't there. It's matched to the surrounding shots. This is a technical judgement call, but I don't agree with it.
Overall, with what the studio had to work with, my eye is telling me that they've done a superlative job of saving the film. This isn't easy. There are different approaches, and the fact that I may not agree with a part of what they've done, doesn't mean that they're wrong. Just a difference of opinion.
The bottom line to me seems very simple.
To Kill a Mockingbird is one of the finest films ever made, with some of the best performances you'll see on film.
Anywhere, in any film.
It has a certain bearing and majesty about it, and once you've seen it, as with the reading of the book, you'll never forget it.
Grab a copy and be immersed in it.
Very Highly Recommended.
RAH
I've now had the opportunity to view two of the finest films ever made -- and two personal favorites within a 48 hour period.
To Kill a Mockingbird, based upon the novel by Harper Lee, is to my mind, one of the most beautiful and perfect films ever made. It possesses a timelessness unlike the majority of period dramas.
But to point, film, as a medium, is not timeless.
And this commentary will go into how it affects a film like To Kill a Mockingbird, why it looks as it does, and with a tip of the hat to James Monaco, how one can best "read" a film, and understand what it is that one is seeing.
Like many productions, mostly large format, but many standard 35mm, one can make an absolute generalization as to what will be found in the cans before they're opened.
The more beloved, the more popular a film, the worse condition it will be in, especially if it came into being before quality duping stocks. For black and white, this means, the mid to late 1950s, for color the three decades hence.
As a 1962 production, To Kill a Mockingbird was an immensely important and popular production. For whatever reason, and this does not speak to current management at Universal, the original negative was used to strike far too many prints. It also appears that it may also have been rejuvenated at some point to remove scratches by some overzealous lab technician.
None of that matters now, as we have what we have.
I recall discussions of problems with the original negative a decade ago, and work has been ongoing to create a working set of picture elements toward preservation and replication for years.
Let's go to basics, and I thank Universal for sharing some details.
Of the thirteen reels of original negative, six no longer survive. What does survive is scratched, warped, and with occasional black slugs, where damaged frames have been removed. A fine grain master produced contemporary with the film is also problematic with some scratched and damaged sections. A second fine grain, produced in 1969 stands in where other elements are unavailable. Duplicate negatives of varying quality have been used to fill in other missing footage.
More specifics.
Dupes of this era do not create a grainier image. Since the duping stocks are very slow speed emulsions,with virtually no visible grain, what occurs is that with each generation, the edges of grain become a bit more diffuse, and almost velvety looking. Contrast gain is also not a problem.
Let's take something else into consideration.
A number of catalog titles have had image harvests in 2k or 4k in the past few years from original negatives, and many of the more "image aware" in the home theater community have locked into what a scanned image from an OCN of the era looks like. There is grain, albeit generally fine, unless higher speed stocks were used.
What this means is that the majority of To Kill a Mockingbird is at least second generation, and some third. Again, with each passing generation, there is a lessoning of grain, and a slightly softer image.
In my humble opinion, and to my eye, what the technicians at Universal have attempted to do is to homogenize the image, so as not to have a shot or sequence from one generation bumping into a different generation, with abrupt changes in grain structure, contrast or resolution. They've put in their time, thought things through, and have created a quality product.
A quick word about grain reduction. I really don't have a problem with what I'm seeing here, as it seems to consistently represent what a second generation element would look like from the era. There is certainly noting scrubbed, as I've read in some other threads on other sites.
What I'm seeing on Universal's new Blu-ray of the film, is a generally very pleasing image, that is obviously not from an original negative, but controls the character of the film as it transparently jumps back and forth from one generation element to the next.
My take on the Blu-ray is that it generally looks beautiful. A very nice job. I'm less thrilled, albeit not overly disturbed, by the handling of field enlargements, as rather than grain slowly building, it just isn't there. It's matched to the surrounding shots. This is a technical judgement call, but I don't agree with it.
Overall, with what the studio had to work with, my eye is telling me that they've done a superlative job of saving the film. This isn't easy. There are different approaches, and the fact that I may not agree with a part of what they've done, doesn't mean that they're wrong. Just a difference of opinion.
The bottom line to me seems very simple.
To Kill a Mockingbird is one of the finest films ever made, with some of the best performances you'll see on film.
Anywhere, in any film.
It has a certain bearing and majesty about it, and once you've seen it, as with the reading of the book, you'll never forget it.
Grab a copy and be immersed in it.
Very Highly Recommended.
RAH
