Rathbone Holmes Blu uses unrestored prints? (1 Viewer)

Two years after they came out, I finally bit on Amazon's Cyber Monday price and bought the MPI box set of the Rathbone Holmes films on BD. It arrived today.

First film I watched was the initial Universal (Voice in Terror) and I quit watching after 40 minutes or so because I am appalled....this isn't the restored version. There are splices, cue marks and blotches throughout. None of this was present in the MPI DVDs.

Most of the reviews I had read praised this set. How could anyone not notice? Tonight I went through the Amazon reviews and sure enough I read one where someone called this out (use of unrestored prints).

To be fair, the image is very detailed and sharp but the damage really takes me out of the experience especially when the DVDs (which I have watched an embarrassing number of times since they came out) look very, very good without the cue marks, tears, etc.

I am really disappointed and probably going to return to Amazon, but wanted to check with the membership on their thoughts on this especially from those who have watched the BDs in their entirety, not just sampled scenes.

MPI's still a PD-graverobber, and the wartime Rathbone/Bruces are all as PD as they come.

Even back in the days of DVD, it helped to know your PD titles by heart, and if it wasn't a major company, you knew not to raise hopes that they'd spent money on the print.

These films are as complete and exacting as humanly possible considering the shameful neglect and devastation that they have fallen into over the ensuing years since their original theatrical release. When did any of us ever have the opportunity to see the original-actual 1940s Universal Pictures pre-main title silver globe logo (with its stirring "razzmataz" musical overture accompaniment) in addition to the "Universal Pictures" identifiers at the beginning and at the end of each film?

Much of the original 35mm source elements are now (apparently) irrecoverably lost forever (at least in the case of THE SCARLET CLAW [1944]). Unless Universal Pictures itself still maintains its own quality 35mm print negatives secretly stored away in their vaults somewhere. Who knows?!

20th Century-Fox Home Entertainment through a subsidiary Key Video issued all 14 Rathbone-Bruce Sherlock Holmes films in their respective entireties back in the late 1980s (I believe) on videotape but I can't accurately (or reliably) attest to their overall quality.

I have the MPI "standard" DVD issue and have been seriously considering upgrading to the bluray release myself but all things considered this is as good an effort as will ever be attempted-achieved (responsibly done by The UCLA Film Institute).

I would seriously reconsider the return of your invaluable acquisition my friend!



Jeff T.

I am glad this has been raised again because I am sure there is a mystery here (no pun intended). I bought the MPI DVD sets on their original release and found the picture quality to be very good. I then bought the UK Optimum set and, although it is claimed they were remastered, I am convinced the source was not the same as the MPI sets.

When MPI released the films on blu-ray they were met with acclaim although the occasional negative comment was raised. I think the MPI blu-rays and Optimum DVDs are from the same source but that this is different from the original MPI DVD source.

I have recently taken a punt on the Spanish blu-rays (available from amazon.es) as they were very cheap. Although there are no extras (so I am keeping the MPI DVD sets) the good news is that the picture quality is excellent.

Keith Cobby said:

I am glad this has been raised again because I am sure there is a mystery here (no pun intended). I bought the MPI DVD sets on their original release and found the picture quality to be very good. I then bought the UK Optimum set and, although it is claimed they were remastered, I am convinced the source was not the same as the MPI sets.

When MPI released the films on blu-ray they were met with acclaim although the occasional negative comment was raised. I think the MPI blu-rays and Optimum DVDs are from the same source but that this is different from the original MPI DVD source.

I have recently taken a punt on the Spanish blu-rays (available from amazon.es) as they were very cheap. Although there are no extras (so I am keeping the MPI DVD sets) the good news is that the picture quality is excellent.

Click to expand...

Would you say the set from what you have seen is film like, or has DNR been applied?

Remember that the first two films WERE NOT RESTORED, only the others. I'm pretty sure there is a disclaimer on the back of the package in small print.Check out the other 12 films and then report back. The first two were licensed from Fox, where they are still under copyright.

I do not know the source of the Spanish blu-rays but they are undoubtedly the best I have seen and to me they appear film like.

Thanks for the responses.

I specifically started with Voice of Terror as this was the first Universal (not Fox) title and it perhaps was the best looking of the UCLA efforts on the DVD issues. It is not one of the PD Holmes titles.

The BD does look very good but there is a lot of damage that is NOT on the DVD. Also, the film on the DVD starts with a tag before the Universal globe stating "preserved by UCLA etc etc". This is NOT present on the BD. Believe me, this is not a case of the BD making imperfections more visible; these are different source prints. The DVDs didn't have cue marks, torn frames, etc.

Although this was a good deal from Amazon ($50) - it is going back out of principle. The packaging clearly implies that the UCLA restorations are on the BD. I'll give the MPI customer service folks a call today to give them a chance to respond to the issue and to explain my disappointment.

I have never heard this accusation before. Most of what I read about the blu-rays was that the picture quality was better than the DVDs, but not as good as some other blu-rays. I assumed that the reason might be in the transfers. I believe that the only PD Sherlock Holmes films are Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, The Woman in Green, and Terror by Night. If anyone has any screen caps comparing the DVD to the blu, please let me know.

JoeDoakes said:

I have never heard this accusation before. Most of what I read about the blu-rays was that the picture quality was better than the DVDs, but not as good as some other blu-rays. I assumed that the reason might be in the transfers. I believe that the only PD Sherlock Holmes films are Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, The Woman in Green, and Terror by Night. If anyone has any screen caps comparing the DVD to the blu, please let me know.

Click to expand...

Dressed to Kill was also public domain. I got rid of my DVDs even though I did think black levels and cleanliness were a bit better on some of the DVDs. Others of the Blu-rays are very much superior. And boy do they take up a lot less space!

In an attempt to stem some of the misinformation in this thread, I urge you to read the following:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes_(1939_film_series)#Colour_versions_and_restoration


http://www.amazon.com/review/R2N76TW7WSBA9Q/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm


I've a particular interest in these films & have acquired quite an in-depth knowledge of them & their chequered history. If, after reading those two articles, anyone has any further questions, I'll happily attempt to answer them.


For now though, I can state unequivocally that all of the DVDs & BDs issued by MPI & Optimum & various other countries' quality releases (Germany, Italy, Spain [unofficial?], Australia, etc.) are mastered from those same UCLA-restored prints.

Thanks for the links, Brent, but it doesn't explain why the MPI Blu Rays has cue marks and multiple examples of frame damage that the MPI DVDs did not have. Also, it does not have the "preserved by UCLA" leader that the DVDs had. The BD can not be the same UCLA restoration.

I watched the first 40 minutes of VOICE OF TERROR in both BD and DVD last night and the DVD is a much better print. The BD is of BD quality but has more damage. It suggests the wrong master was pulled for use on the BD. Its not that it looks bad, but it doesn't look anywhere near as good as it would had the proper prints been used.

Also, to clarify, this is the US MPI set (purchased directly from Amazon). I don't know what showed up in the UK or other countries.

Brent, interesting comments about this series. I had previously read these comments you referred to but have just reminded myself of them. Everybody seems to repeat the observations about the fact they have been restored by UCLA etc but I am not sure these remarks can be attributed to MPI or Optimum but have been posted by buyers.

I think the second DVD set on 5 discs released by MPI is the same as was used by Optimum for their DVD box and also the MPI blu-ray set. I am not sure it says anywhere that all the other releases use the same source. My blu-ray set from Spain does not have any of the defects noted by Steve which I have observed myself . The higher resolution of the blu-ray certainly brings out more detail but it doesn't account for the damage.

It would be helpful to know which sets you have personally watched.

Screencaps here:http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdreviews8/sherlockholmes-boxset.htmSome info:http://filmink.com.au/features/under-the-magnifying-glass/

UCLA does photochemical restoration, meaning they strike safety prints that are projectable from the best available sources. They don't do digital frame by frame cleanup. So if a film has damage that can't be covered by splicing in another element, they leave it as it is. A video company can take a transfer of UCLA's print and digitally clean it up further, but I doubt that was done with this particular set.

One more quick thing... "Best available sources" doesn't always mean the ones with the least damage. Original camera negatives can have a considerable amount of wear and still look better than a vintage release print struck long ago before the damage occurred. Shadow and highlight detail, clarity and good overall contrast is MUCH more important than a little roughness at reel changes.

My only complaint about the Sherlock Holmes blu-ray is that the best movies in the series, the first two, are not restored by UCLA.

Perhaps there was clean up for the DVDs done by MPI, but it was done in SD and thus those masters were unusable for the Blu-rays. When it came to doing them again, they decided to just put them on the BDs as is.

Just a theory.

Just ordered the Spanish release.

Thanks for the tip -- I've ordered too. I got the complete Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes version from another Spanish outfit a few months ago too.
This Basil Rathbone set is a bargain indeed .. 10 euros plus shipping, coming to a total of $40 Australian dollars ... about $37 US dollars for the complete set!

Since this thread is here, has anyone bought the recent Fox Archive MODs of the first to Rathbone/Holmes films and can say whether or not they are from superior source elements? My expectations are pretty low given their track record, but Fox should have the original negatives of these films and if the two MODs have good digital transfers of those superior elements, I'd happily shell out the extra cash.

bigshot said:

UCLA does photochemical restoration, meaning they strike safety prints that are projectable from the best available sources. They don't do digital frame by frame cleanup. So if a film has damage that can't be covered by splicing in another element, they leave it as it is. A video company can take a transfer of UCLA's print and digitally clean it up further, but I doubt that was done with this particular set.

Click to expand...

bigshot said:

One more quick thing... "Best available sources" doesn't always mean the ones with the least damage. Original camera negatives can have a considerable amount of wear and still look better than a vintage release print struck long ago before the damage occurred. Shadow and highlight detail, clarity and good overall contrast is MUCH more important than a little roughness at reel changes.

Click to expand...

Thank you! The general assumption is that "restored" means a full digital spot check but in reality that is just additional spit and polish only really done to enhance the home video experience. Photochemical restoration involves restoring the actual film prints and thus providing genuine contrast, sharpness, and clarity, especially if done off of OCNs or closely derived safeties and dupes. Digital restoration alone can only enhance and build upon the prints provided.

It's pretty normal for 3rd party companies not to invest in digital restoration. Many can't afford it and are extremely dependent on the prints or transfers already provided.