-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Is there a new 4K restoration of "Vertigo"?

Universal

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 of 46 OFFLINE   Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter

  • 2,570 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted July 31 2014 - 09:33 AM

Wondering if anyone here might know anything about this:

 

http://filmforum.org...rtigo-film-page

 

The Film Forum is scheduled to play "Vertigo" for a week in October, and they're billing the presentation as being from a "New 4K Restoration".  Was there actually a new 4K restoration done recently, or is this simply the same master that's on the current Blu-ray and DCP?



#2 of 46 OFFLINE   WilliamMcK

WilliamMcK

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 185 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2005
  • Real Name:Biff
  • LocationNew York, NY

Posted July 31 2014 - 12:06 PM

I'm guessing it's the same DCP that Film Forum ran just before the blu-ray release of the Hitchcock box set.  I'm hoping though, that the opening credits have been fixed... unlike the blu, the DCP had the "full color face" over the opening titles...


  • Josh Steinberg likes this

#3 of 46 OFFLINE   Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter

  • 2,570 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted July 31 2014 - 12:23 PM

I'm guessing it's the same DCP that Film Forum ran just before the blu-ray release of the Hitchcock box set.  I'm hoping though, that the opening credits have been fixed... unlike the blu, the DCP had the "full color face" over the opening titles...

 

That would have been my guess -- only it seems strange to call that a "new 4K restoration".  I really wish that studios, exhibitors and distributors (for home media and theaters) could be more descriptive of what's being shown.  If it's the same master as the Blu-ray, I feel no need to pay to go out and see it.  If it's something newer that has a few of the errors fixed and brings it to the perfect condition that RAH thought it should have been, then I'm all over it. 


  • WilliamMcK likes this

#4 of 46 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter

  • 1,636 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted July 31 2014 - 07:34 PM

I was not aware until now that Vertigo had been scanned in 4k.
Seeems like a good question for RAH.
In any case just scanning a movie in 4k is not what I would consider a restoration.
  • Josh Steinberg likes this

#5 of 46 OFFLINE   Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,494 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted August 01 2014 - 06:26 AM

Vertigo was scannned in 4k by Universal for the Blu-ray. Quality scans. Should be a very highly resolved DCP.

RAH
  • Osato and Josh Steinberg like this

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#6 of 46 OFFLINE   Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter

  • 2,570 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted August 01 2014 - 08:28 AM

I'm sure it's likely to be a good DCP.  I just question whether or not it's correct to be calling it a "new restoration".  "New" to me means just done, never before released, etc., not "DCP made a couple years ago from same source as Blu-ray".  I'm not saying it's poor quality, just that the wording of the advertisement made it seem as though it was something more than it was.


  • WilliamMcK likes this

#7 of 46 OFFLINE   Dr Griffin

Dr Griffin

    Supporting Actor

  • 608 posts
  • Join Date: May 30 2012
  • Real Name:Stanley (but no one calls me that)

Posted August 01 2014 - 08:41 AM

As long as it's projected in 4K, it will look better than the Blu-ray. It's not like you're going to the theater and seeing a 1080p Blu-ray projected. I agree it should not be called new, maybe latest 4K DCP.


  • Josh Steinberg likes this

#8 of 46 OFFLINE   Reed Grele

Reed Grele

    Screenwriter

  • 1,007 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969
  • Real Name:Reed Grele
  • LocationBeacon Falls, CT

Posted August 01 2014 - 08:49 AM

I saw the 70mm restoration at The Ziegfeld in NYC (1996). I would imagine that it doesn't get much better than that.


  • Josh Steinberg likes this

#9 of 46 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter

  • 1,636 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted August 01 2014 - 09:11 AM

Vertigo was scannned in 4k by Universal for the Blu-ray. Quality scans. Should be a very highly resolved DCP.

RAH

 

Very good info, I did not know that. I hope to be able to catch the 4k version or one of the 70mm prints in the near future but if I don't manage to do that I will be happy to finally watch my Blu-ray version that also should look highly resolved - for a Blu-ray of course.



#10 of 46 OFFLINE   Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter

  • 2,570 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted August 01 2014 - 09:38 AM

As long as it's projected in 4K, it will look better than the Blu-ray. It's not like you're going to the theater and seeing a 1080p Blu-ray projected. I agree it should not be called new, maybe latest 4K DCP.

 

I wonder if they've upgraded to a 4K projector.  A couple years ago, they advertised that they were showing a 4K DCP of "Dr. Strangelove" but when I asked at the theater, I was told that while the DCP was in 4K, the projector itself was only 2K.

 

I generally won't pay to see a DCP if I have a Blu-ray at home based on the same source.  The difference between the two usually doesn't wow me, of course it's worth keeping in mind that when I say that, we're talking about the jump from a large TV/large home screen going to a very very small theatrical screen, as most of the NYC repertory screenings are on very small screens.  I felt burned by that the last couple times I did it... I saw a screening of the original Japanese "Godzilla" on a screen that was actually smaller than the one I have at home, and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Donnie Darko" on one that was only slightly larger.  I mean, if it's a choice between "Raiders" at home or on the IMAX screen, that's worth going out for, but to see the same master on a screen that's the same as what I have at home or only slightly larger, that's not really worth it to me, especially factoring in that it's free to watch at home and $15 a ticket to go out.

 

For a 35mm print, even on the same small screens, I'll come out and see something I have at home on Blu-ray.  I know that might be a silly distinction to some but if the print is in good condition, to me that's usually an improvement over the Blu-ray.  This next one isn't the best example of a pristine Blu-ray, but a couple months ago I got to see a 35mm print of "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" and even with a little bit of fade and some scratches, I found it to be a more enjoyable experience than the Blu-ray.


  • Osato likes this

#11 of 46 OFFLINE   Worth

Worth

    Screenwriter

  • 1,137 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 17 2009

Posted August 01 2014 - 10:01 AM

For a 35mm print, even on the same small screens, I'll come out and see something I have at home on Blu-ray.  I know that might be a silly distinction to some but if the print is in good condition, to me that's usually an improvement over the Blu-ray.  This next one isn't the best example of a pristine Blu-ray, but a couple months ago I got to see a 35mm print of "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" and even with a little bit of fade and some scratches, I found it to be a more enjoyable experience than the Blu-ray.

 

I find myself doing the same thing. I have nothing against digital projection - I think in many ways it surpasses 35mm - but there's still something unique and special about seeing a 35mm print.


  • Osato and Josh Steinberg like this
Sealed with a curse as sharp as a knife. Doomed is your soul and damned is your life.

#12 of 46 OFFLINE   Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter

  • 2,570 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted August 01 2014 - 10:13 AM

I find myself doing the same thing. I have nothing against digital projection - I think in many ways it surpasses 35mm - but there's still something unique and special about seeing a 35mm print.

 

I'm especially like that if it was shot and released originally on film.  For a digital production, or a film released now in the era primarily of digital projection, I'm totally fine with digital projection.  But most of the older films that I had seen before in 35mm seemed a little lacking in DCP.

 

The closest I ever had for a direct comparison was at the Film Forum, during that Dr. Strangelove screening mentioned above.  They had billed it as an opportunity to compare the formats, and Grover Grisp from Sony was there to present both versions of the film.  Unfortunately it wasn't the kind of direct comparison I was hoping for.  I was hoping that they would compare the (then new) restoration of Dr. Strangelove as presented on both film and digital, so we could have seen what the best format for presentation was.  But what they did was, they compared an old, scratched, battered 35mm print of "Strangelove" to a restored DCP.  In that case, of course the DCP was going to win.  But I wanted to see how that same master looked presented on 35mm vs. DCP, and we didn't get to see that.  Earlier this year, I saw a 35mm print derived from the same 4K restoration that the DCP had been made from, and it seemed more pleasing to my eye being projected on film.  But there wasn't a chance to see both at the same time to decide, and memory is a funny thing, so I can't say for sure if it was truly better or if memory is just getting nostalgic for film.


  • OliverK likes this

#13 of 46 OFFLINE   haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter

  • 2,277 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted August 01 2014 - 10:28 AM

I've read all there is to read about how great and glorious digital projection is - I saw the Academy screening of Lawrence, I've seen other DCPs in digital. And I've seen film projected from the time I was four.  When I saw one of the final Harry Potter movies in digital at the Chinese I thought "If that's digital projection count me out."  The Lawrence screening looked very good BUT - it looked flat to me, it had no life.  Film is tangible, you can touch it, it has texture and when you see it projected properly it's got LIFE to it.  And yes, it is possible for projected film to look terrible - improper light levels, battered prints, etc.  But digital just, for me, seems lifeless - it's all there, all of it, but it isn't tangible, it has no texture.  It's a bunch of numbers.  On home viewing devices it can look nice, but on huge screens - not for me.  Of course, if one goes out to see a movie one has just about no choice anymore, except occasionally at the DGA and the Beverly Theater revival house.


  • Josh Steinberg and Dr Griffin like this

#14 of 46 OFFLINE   Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter

  • 2,570 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted August 01 2014 - 10:54 AM

The Lawrence screening looked very good BUT - it looked flat to me, it had no life.  Film is tangible, you can touch it, it has texture and when you see it projected properly it's got LIFE to it.  And yes, it is possible for projected film to look terrible - improper light levels, battered prints, etc.  But digital just, for me, seems lifeless - it's all there, all of it, but it isn't tangible, it has no texture.  It's a bunch of numbers.  On home viewing devices it can look nice, but on huge screens - not for me.

 

That was my feeling exactly seeing my favorite film, "2001: A Space Odyssey" on DCP vs. seeing it in 70mm.  I've seen the DCP several times now on various size screens, and the 70mm print I saw of it a couple weeks ago was far superior.



#15 of 46 OFFLINE   McCrutchy

McCrutchy

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 220 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 18 2012
  • Real Name:Sean
  • LocationEast Coast, USA

Posted August 01 2014 - 11:23 AM

I've read all there is to read about how great and glorious digital projection is - I saw the Academy screening of Lawrence, I've seen other DCPs in digital. And I've seen film projected from the time I was four.  When I saw one of the final Harry Potter movies in digital at the Chinese I thought "If that's digital projection count me out."  The Lawrence screening looked very good BUT - it looked flat to me, it had no life.  Film is tangible, you can touch it, it has texture and when you see it projected properly it's got LIFE to it.  And yes, it is possible for projected film to look terrible - improper light levels, battered prints, etc.  But digital just, for me, seems lifeless - it's all there, all of it, but it isn't tangible, it has no texture.  It's a bunch of numbers.  On home viewing devices it can look nice, but on huge screens - not for me.  Of course, if one goes out to see a movie one has just about no choice anymore, except occasionally at the DGA and the Beverly Theater revival house.

 

I agree completely. This is why the "death" of film (or rather, its almost complete absence in the US beyond the production stage) is crushing my soul.

 

I want badly to be able to see more films on film, but it's not going to happen unless you live in a major city, and even then, only with precious few films.

 

I almost want to move to one of the countries not yet rich enough to abandon 35mm print showings.


  • Josh Steinberg likes this

#16 of 46 OFFLINE   Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter

  • 2,570 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted August 01 2014 - 02:08 PM

 

I want badly to be able to see more films on film, but it's not going to happen unless you live in a major city, and even then, only with precious few films.

 

Not much film on film in NYC, unfortunately, so even living in a major city it can be difficult.  A few weeks ago I was chatting with someone and I found myself saying, "There's not a single 35mm print of anything being shown this weekend in New York City."  Never thought I'd ever have reason to say that.

 

I was supposed to see Roman Polanski's "Repulsion" (a film I had never seen before) in 35mm about a month ago, but when I showed up at the theater, it turns out they hadn't been able to get the print they had been promised, so they showed the Blu-ray.  Looked pretty good (again, small screen, so that helps), but not what I was expecting.



#17 of 46 OFFLINE   Dr Griffin

Dr Griffin

    Supporting Actor

  • 608 posts
  • Join Date: May 30 2012
  • Real Name:Stanley (but no one calls me that)

Posted August 01 2014 - 06:14 PM

I

 

I've read all there is to read about how great and glorious digital projection is - I saw the Academy screening of Lawrence, I've seen other DCPs in digital. And I've seen film projected from the time I was four.  When I saw one of the final Harry Potter movies in digital at the Chinese I thought "If that's digital projection count me out."  The Lawrence screening looked very good BUT - it looked flat to me, it had no life.  Film is tangible, you can touch it, it has texture and when you see it projected properly it's got LIFE to it.  And yes, it is possible for projected film to look terrible - improper light levels, battered prints, etc.  But digital just, for me, seems lifeless - it's all there, all of it, but it isn't tangible, it has no texture.  It's a bunch of numbers.  On home viewing devices it can look nice, but on huge screens - not for me.  Of course, if one goes out to see a movie one has just about no choice anymore, except occasionally at the DGA and the Beverly Theater revival house.

 

I couldn't agree more with this. While I would, of course, rather see a 4K projection of a 4K DCP than a 2K projection, there is no comparison to properly projected film. Even 4K digital projection has something unnatural about it, especially in fast moving scenes. There is definitely less life in the digital projections.



#18 of 46 OFFLINE   JoeDoakes

JoeDoakes

    Screenwriter

  • 1,950 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 01 2009
  • Real Name:Ray

Posted August 01 2014 - 07:10 PM

Vertigo was scannned in 4k by Universal for the Blu-ray. Quality scans. Should be a very highly resolved DCP.

RAH

Are things still where the were back here: http://www.hometheat...-blu-ray/page-1?



#19 of 46 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter

  • 1,636 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted August 01 2014 - 10:43 PM

That was my feeling exactly seeing my favorite film, "2001: A Space Odyssey" on DCP vs. seeing it in 70mm.  I've seen the DCP several times now on various size screens, and the 70mm print I saw of it a couple weeks ago was far superior.


DCP is supposed to give a lot more options for repertory - but who wants to watch a movie in a movie theater in a version that he can have in very similar quality and from the same master at home?


  • Josh Steinberg likes this

#20 of 46 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter

  • 1,636 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted August 01 2014 - 10:52 PM

I felt burned by that the last couple times I did it... I saw a screening of the original Japanese "Godzilla" on a screen that was actually smaller than the one I have at home, and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Donnie Darko" on one that was only slightly larger.  I mean, if it's a choice between "Raiders" at home or on the IMAX screen, that's worth going out for, but to see the same master on a screen that's the same as what I have at home or only slightly larger, that's not really worth it to me, especially factoring in that it's free to watch at home and $15 a ticket to go out.

 

Sounds like a combination of a very big screen in your home theater and very small screens in those repertory theaters - how big is your screen at home?


  • Josh Steinberg likes this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Universal

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users