Search results for query: *

You may be conflating with Robot Monster.

None.

A Fine Grain merely refers to the film stock, and has nothing to do with quality, generation or content.

Original prints would have been produced by creating an anamorphic dupe from the 2:1 extracted area of the 1.37 FGM, and exposing it to a dupe neg with a matte at the right cropping the same amount of information as lost on the left by the track.

That entire discussion has been distilled in one ratings line: Makes use of and works well in 4k - 2

All duly noted as to this edition, but in the end the point being that they're all quite similar as restricted by the film elements. The point that I attempted to make was that there are more important/ interesting subjects than a cyclical discussion of the merits of an okay transfer of a 60...

Every one of these releases fits into the good enough category. Unless someone comes up with prime elements, there’s little to be gained one to the next, inclusive of 4k.

Or a total waste of one’s intellectual capabilities and time constraints.

While I normally don’t use screen grabs, visit Beaver here: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film12/4K_UHD_review_02/invasion_of_the_body_snatchers_4K_UHD.htm First group of comparisons, 1:85 has more info top and bottom. Same apparent image.

https://www.meierandsons.com/store/products/the-body-snatchers-jack-finney-3

An optical extraction is produced via an optical printer, which exacerbates grain and contrast. The main reason that the majority of non-dye transfer films are matted in projection and not on film.

The 2:1 ratio would have been an optical extraction from an open matte FGM.

The exposed negative would normally have been 1.33 or 1.20. 1.85 is a projection aperture.

What 1.85 element?

Henry Fifth was (as far as I know) never printed in 1.85. It’s AR for re-issue was 2:1 - SuperScope.

Hank Cinc.

Correct. Sir Laurence never considered 2:1.

I concur re 1.37 (1.33) 16mm red dupe neg, as my company licensed 16mm rights from NTA during that period, and we had multiple prints.

There are thousands of films for which we’d love to have the OCN. Or a Fine Grain. Or a Dupe. Or anything. Agreed that this looks very good for what is.

Elements from indies can be anywhere. The OCN for Tom Jones went missing, and was unseen for 7-8 years. I found it at a small lab. This is something the studios contend with daily. And then there’s theft.

Has happened before!

That both an OCN as well as FGM would both be missing.

There are unknowns here. Aeons ago my company distributed the film in 16mm under license. As I recall those prints were original 1.37. Back in 1956, a FG would have been struck from the OCN. From the FG, an optical 2:1 matted dupe neg would have been created toward making SS prints. I find it...

Problem with IotBS is that it’s all optical dupe, not merely second gen.

I did. Great New Shape! Same Great Story! Same sharpening and Mag grain your kids have loved for generations! Pretty much dissipated at NSD, which may confuse the kids. ”Gee, Mom, why are the faces bigger when I stand right in front of the TV?” ”Well, Billy, it’s all about visual perception.”

When someone walks across the screen, most noticeably against a plain background, the particles of grain seem pushed out of the way by forward motion and reestablish themselves on the other side of the action. I prefer pug puppies. Remember those toys with steel particles, magnets and pens...

Once again, screenshots are generally meaningless

The Good the Bad and the Ugly... It's all here, wrapped up in Kino's new 4k UHD release of Don Siegel's Invasion of the Body Snatchers - about a classic horror/sci-fi film that one can find. The film is offered in both the 2:1 Superscope ratio as well as 1.85, which seems to work better. I'd...