Search results

The only other way to make three-strip appear more akin to an original print, would be to de-focus the image, lose detail (high frequency information) and raise contrast. What they’re doing is fine in my estimation.

No. The image is NOT grain free. The image beautifully mimics the velvety appearance of original dye transfer Technicolor prints, which were very free of grain as it was lost in the imbibition process. Warner is doing superlative work on their three-strips. The trick for reviewers (or viewers)...

I’ve decided NOT to step into this fray.

However, as a YouTube video in the “box-opening” genre, it could win it’s category at the Globes.

There is no 4k data in these films. There's hardly 2k.

One final - and extremely important point regarding unboxing videos. Budget. While I’ve made my thoughts known in the past regarding my perception of the misuse of crowd-funding platforms such as Kickstarter, the point should be made that you won’t find the production entities behind unboxing...

These Unboxing reviews are extremely important, especially as the reviewer receives free product, and never has to actually view anything or share a opinion. More important, it reveals that purchasing a Blu-ray Disc isn’t an easy task. Especially if you prefer your cases without recycling...

Very interesting and incisive review. Bottom line: He feels that the Superman character - as drawn - doesn’t look correct. I agree. Appears more drawn than a actor photographed.

Are you not seeing the total and absolute destruction in your AI images of the original? Sorry, but they’re horrific. One thing that they’re doing is increasing APPARENT sharpness via contrast. But the image has turned into a mosaic. Look at the horse’s head, leg and the man sitting nearby...

Those shots do not represent what I’m seeing on screen. Lion in the Streets is a gorgeous three-strip acetate recombine that looks very much like an original print. Safe in Hell also looks fine, especially being derived from a sole surviving 35mm print.

I’d be interested in knowing how the screen grabs were achieved, and whether they actually match the content on the disc, Taking no position here until I see the disc, which if created correctly, should mimic an original print.

Correct. Think three layers of black & white grain riding atop one another if unaffected.

A Lion in the streets is grain-reduced, but appears proper for resolution. Like all three-strip productions derived from 4k scans of OCNs it must either e grain-reduced or slightly softened.

Mastering is all-inclusive, but different entities work on different part of the process. I have no idea where the possible problem arose, but it would not have been in scanning or recombine. De-graining, which is a necessary part of the 3-strip restoration process can be done while other...

Because none of the problem (whatever if might be) has anything to do with the basic scanning or recombine.

From whom?

Agreed. However, we’re seeing two reports from Mr. Hunt. First a tweet, followed by his review on the Bits, which is about as negative as it might be. Historically his reviews tend to side with the studio, so coming out with a negative this bad doesn’t bode well. Hopefully, I hope to have a...

Possibly a personal letter to David Zazlov is in order. He may not yet have had time to review his copy. You may end up with an offer to take over QC for all studio home video releases. Problem solved.

What would you desire to occur, and what might an email tell whomever received it?

This also has nothing to do with Mr. Beck. Why are personalities becoming involved in a simple tech production question?

This has nothing to do with Mr. F or Warner Archive. Different division of WB.

I have no idea. Discs are probably already at retailers awaiting the 16 May release date. One would presume that a stop sale could be ordered. If Mr. Hunt received a copy, then screeners are out. I should be receiving one. Warner has a very positive history of correcting issues. I’m not...

I’m not seeing a big problem here. It’s an easy fix after a problem somewhere in the pipeline. Two changes I’d make immediately would be to put someone better educated on what films can and SHOULD look like at the very end of the pipeline in QC, so that replication can be avoided - and more...

Nothing horrific If it’s not in the final .dpx files.

If Bill is correct, it’s an expensive (and embarrassing) error that should not have occurred. Easy enough to go back to the scans. Or could simply be poor, compression and QC. Just throw some $$$ at it and make it go away. But once again - and I’ve heard no confirmation of a problem -...

This has been a huge ongoing project. Will be beautiful!