Is there a new 4K restoration of "Vertigo"? (1 Viewer)

Wondering if anyone here might know anything about this:

http://filmforum.org/film/vertigo-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?

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...

WilliamMcK said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Robert Harris said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Dr Griffin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Josh Steinberg said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Worth said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

haineshisway said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

haineshisway said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

McCrutchy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I

haineshisway said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Robert Harris said:

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

Click to expand...

Are things still where the were back here: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/318414-a-few-words-about™-vertigo-in-blu-ray/page-1?

Josh Steinberg said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?