Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

While We Wait for Blu-ray Reviews of Touch of Evil and Double Indemnity

Blu-ray Universal

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

#21 of 23 Peter Apruzzese

Peter Apruzzese

    Screenwriter

  • 2,583 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 20 1999
  • Real Name:Peter Apruzzese

Posted April 17 2014 - 06:10 AM

Not according to the commentary on the Touch of Evil restoration. Welles shot Touch of Evil in 1.85:1 and that was what he wanted to do but the studio wanted it to also be available to be shown 1.37:1 because they wanted to show the film on television...which they felt was becoming such a popular medium. So, not Orson's idea to show it at 1.37:1.

 

 

I think Jose was joking with the 1.37 remark.

 

Of course it was shot for 1.85, Universal had been shooting that way for 4 years, and by the time of release in 1958 there was virtually no theater in the US that would have shown it in any other ratio. 


  • Robin9 likes this
"What we're fighting for, in the end...we're fighting for each other." - Col. Joshua Chamberlain in "Gettysburg"

 


#22 of 23 mikeyhitchfan

mikeyhitchfan

    Second Unit

  • 447 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2012
  • Real Name:Mike
  • LocationCosta Mesa CA

Posted April 17 2014 - 06:19 AM

Could it be that only the Preview and Theatrical are seamlessly-branched, with the Reconstructed being on its own? I believe that's how it was on the DVD (albeit with 2 discs).

 

That's what I'm thinking. I also am wondering about the scanner quality since the difference in the picture between the MOC and Universal does not seem that much better to my eyes. I thought that a 4K scan of the original negative would look better than it does (which is not to say it's bad, just not that big of a difference).



#23 of 23 Doug Otte

Doug Otte

    Supporting Actor

  • 692 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2003

Posted April 17 2014 - 06:51 AM

I've posted a question to Torsten about this. I was confused by the discussion of color timing for a black and white movie. I also am not convinced that somehow Universal used a subpar scanner. I do believe that Torsten thinks they did, but what I saw on the blu-ray did not bear that idea out. I also read the dvd beaver review, and I'd agree that the beaver is lining up the two Blus and saying they each have their advantages. I don't agree with Jeffrey Wells about the 1.37:1 ratio. I'd be curious what the source is for such an argument.

 

Hi Kevin.  Although he seems very knowledgeable, I always have a hard time understanding Torsten's writing, probably because he's not a native English speaker, and his verbosity gets in the way of the meaning.  However, 'color timing' is done on any film, color or B&W.  It's how the grayscale, etc. are set.  I don't know if it includes contrast too, but I think it does.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Blu-ray, Universal

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users