A Few Words About A few words about...™ An American Werewolf in London -- in Blu-ray

bgart13

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
1,101
Reaction score
190
Points
1,610
Real Name
Ben
Is it possible this "anomaly" will be addressed for a future release from Uni in the U.K. or Germany?
 

tenia

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
50
Reaction score
41
Points
10
Real Name
Rémy
What's funny to me is that everyone always says they want these things to look like what they saw, like the film they saw (IF they saw it or something shot on similar stock).
They don't. We don't. We just want a 6K scan of an OCN to look like a 6K scan of an OCN, not a filtered one.
I may not have seen the movie in theaters, but this picture does not have any high frequencies left, it's all flat and diffuse. It actually doesn't even look like a 2K scan of an IP (compare with what WAC is doing with the 2K IP scans from MPI).

If we want to discuss exposures on the original negative, that's an entirely different discussion, as there are problem shots, which now look as good as they can. For those, the fix is to reshoot the film.
I believe most of the people vocal about the new BD look know very well that there are many "problem shots" which will always look softer and a bit "dupey" because of the optical effects, for instance.
But they're not the heart of the discussion.
The heart is all the rest of the movie, which isn't made of problem shots.

If at some point, Universal revisits properly this movie and do things adequately, I'm sure the end-result on BD won't look iike this one at all. It's the case of people saying "oh but this actually can't look better", and a new release appears and guess what : it IS better. Again, there has been many cases like this.

Is it possible this "anomaly" will be addressed for a future release from Uni in the U.K. or Germany?
If it's an encoding issue that appeared at the BD authoring step, it could be.
But I don't think so, because I simply don't believe the issue is issuing from this step, but is straight baked-in on the restored digital master. Otherwise, it would mean the BD isn't faithful to the restoration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave H and Ahab

Oblivion138

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
413
Reaction score
266
Points
0
Real Name
James O'Blivion
My personal opinion, having viewed the disc without anyone's prior input, is that there's definitely something wrong with the grain. The image isn't entirely without texture. It appears, oddly, selectively without texture. I'm seeing a minimized but still reasonable grain field in portions of a given shot, with other portions of the same exact shot devoid of any grain whatsoever. I've been a big supporter of Universal's recent remasters, and I was really hoping for the best with this release, since I love the film. But this is below their current standard.

Much better than the previous BD, but not quite what it should be.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,832
Reaction score
16,608
Points
9,110
Real Name
Robert Harris
If it's an encoding issue that appeared at the BD authoring step, it could be.
But I don't think so, because I simply don't believe the issue is issuing from this step, but is straight baked-in on the restored digital master. Otherwise, it would mean the BD isn't faithful to the restoration.
You're absolutely correct!

Universal purposefully degrained this one. If you've ever visited their facility in Nevada, where most of the work is performed, you'll understand what's going on the moment you enter, hit the reception area, and see the huge frame enlargement.

These people pray at the shrine of the original Patton and Longest Day transfers.

These are the people who gave us The Sting.

But how do they degrain?

You have to see it to believe it!

Once scanned, cleaned and colored, the data, which we all know is bits, is mixed into a granular formula under a license from Purina. Once moistened, it is fed to cows, free range, on the acreage adjacent to the facility.

After proper injestion, the cows are ready to give data, and are milked in the normal fashion. As the milk, now containing data bits flows through the transfer system, it is pushed through a high pressure valve, and imbibed to a long strip of 35mm film stock.

Similar to, but not replicating, the last vestige of the Technicolor system, Universal's variant yields a new low-contrast positive, without any vestige of grain.

I find the look marvelous!

These rolls of image are then shipped to their underground lab in Burbank, where it is quickly scanned, and a desired amount of faux grain is added, on the fly. This to keep on-line grain fanatics at bay.

Had I not actually seen this on the HTF gathering a couple of years ago, I'd not believe it.

They do make occasional errors -- possibly it's the cow's mood, or a Purina problem -- and some original grain will appear. These unfortunate occurrences have led to mass firings, especially over embarrassments such as One-Eyed or Spartacus.

Personally, I'm a fan of their process, but must go now, as I need to get to my morning prayers at the Patton shrine...
 

Billy Batson

Producer
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
3,496
Reaction score
2,287
Points
4,110
Age
69
Location
London
Real Name
Alan
This thread is more entertaining than the film is :)

I understand that if you really want to see the best looking version of this film, the VHS is the one to get.
 
Last edited:

ahollis

Lead Actor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
7,780
Reaction score
3,407
Points
9,110
Location
New Orleans
Real Name
Allen
You're absolutely correct!

Universal purposefully degrained this one. If you've ever visited their facility in Nevada, where most of the work is performed, you'll understand what's going on the moment you enter, hit the reception area, and see the huge frame enlargement.

These people pray at the shrine of the original Patton and Longest Day transfers.

These are the people who gave us The Sting.

But how do they degrain?

You have to see it to believe it!

Once scanned, cleaned and colored, the data, which we all know is bits, is mixed into a granular formula under a license from Purina. Once moistened, it is fed to cows, free range, on the acreage adjacent to the facility.

After proper injestion, the cows are ready to give data, and are milked in the normal fashion. As the milk, now containing data bits flows through the transfer system, it is pushed through a high pressure valve, and imbibed to a long strip of 35mm film stock.

Similar to, but not replicating, the last vestige of the Technicolor system, Universal's variant yields a new low-contrast positive, without any vestige of grain.

I find the look marvelous!

These rolls of image are then shipped to their underground lab in Burbank, where it is quickly scanned, and a desired amount of faux grain is added, on the fly. This to keep on-line grain fanatics at bay.

Had I not actually seen this on the HTF gathering a couple of years ago, I'd not believe it.

They do make occasional errors -- possibly it's the cow's mood, or a Purina problem -- and some original grain will appear. These unfortunate occurrences have led to mass firings, especially over embarrassments such as One-Eyed or Spartacus.

Personally, I'm a fan of their process, but must go now, as I need to get to my morning prayers at the Patton shrine...
Does Universal have an underground vault that stores all the grain they remove? I would hate it if they just threw all of it away. They might need to add it back in someday or use it in another scan of a film that is grainless. [emoji57][emoji57]
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,832
Reaction score
16,608
Points
9,110
Real Name
Robert Harris
Does Universal have an underground vault that stores all the grain they remove? I would hate it if they just threw all of it away. They might need to add it back in someday or use it in another scan of a film that is grainless. [emoji57][emoji57]
Waste not. Want not.

Did Franklin say that?

Universal prides itself upon being green.

Grain seeds are farmed, and the resultant by-products are used by other studios and independents to add requisite grain to digital productions.

Much of this is sold through vendors, who in the past would purchase and re-sell short rolls.

Disney, also a green company, re-sells the grain formerly used in their animated classics in the same way.

Available in various amounts, simply Google "re-sellers film grain licensed."
 

David Weicker

Producer
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
3,507
Reaction score
1,946
Points
4,110
Age
58
Real Name
David
I understand that if you really want to see the best looking version of this film, the VHS is the one to get.
I have to disagree with you. The ViewMaster disc is the definitive way to watch this.
:blink::D
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,832
Reaction score
16,608
Points
9,110
Real Name
Robert Harris
I have to disagree with you. The ViewMaster disc is the definitive way to watch this.
:blink::D
Those are extremely rare. Was discussing this recently with Mr. Furmanek. The film was shot native 3-D, with the old Natural Vision gear.

Right eye was lost in the fire.

Current image harvest from OCN of left eye.

If you're fortunate enough to ever personally examine one of those VM discs, you'll find the 3-D to be perfect.

To get it right Mr. Landis wore an eye patch during shooting. Can't do better than following the lead set by Mr. de Toth.
 

Charles Smith

Extremely Talented Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
5,725
Reaction score
1,879
Points
9,110
Location
Nor'east
Real Name
Charles Smith
Are the cows hand-milked, as is done in loving fashion every day at, say, the Abbey of Regina Laudis? Or are they subjected to mechanical milking on an assembly line? This has to have a huge effect on results.

BTW, if none of you have driven past the miles of gigantic grain silos dotting the Midwest and Great Plains, you have an awe inspiring sight in store. And talk about security... the studios have decades of experience, so just try getting within a quarter-mile of one of those things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahollis

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,832
Reaction score
16,608
Points
9,110
Real Name
Robert Harris
Are the cows are hand-milked, as is done in loving fashion every day at, say, the Abbey of Regina Laudis? Or are they subjected to mechanical milking on an assembly line? This has to have a huge effect on results.

If none of you have driven past the miles of gigantic grain silos dotted throughout the Midwest and the Great Plains, you have an awe inspiring sight in store. And talk about security. The studios have decades of experience, so just try getting within a quarter-mile of one of those things.
Universal's cows are milked the old-fashioned way.

By milkmaids, in classic garb.
 

Lord Dalek

Producer
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
4,637
Reaction score
1,614
Points
4,110
Age
34
Real Name
Joel Henderson
You guys keep complaining about grain removal but I'm more annoyed with the lack of bran on this transfer. How am I supposed to pass this gall stone if I'm not getting my daily intake from Griffin Dunne?
 

haineshisway

Producer
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
4,600
Reaction score
5,415
Points
4,110
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
I had no idea a film like An American Werewolf in London would NEED a 6K scan, but what do I know. And just so I'm understanding this correct, because the goal posts keep on moving (damn them goalposts), now people don't want their transfers to look like the film as shown in the theaters, they want it to look like it never did. Got it. I'll wait for those goal posts to move again.
 

Geoff_D

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
933
Reaction score
35
Points
610
Ah, there's the trademark RAH sarcasm. For a moment there I was wondering if you were going to impart that AAWIL was shot on the same no-grain "Russian film stock" as GoldenEye was (chortle chortle tee hee, we are laughing!) but I tell you what, I'll never think of a grain silo in the same way again. Universal's stores must be overflowing, the sheer amount of fuckwittery they've unleashed on their catalogue over the years. I hear Paramount's harvest was plenty bountiful too. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave H

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,832
Reaction score
16,608
Points
9,110
Real Name
Robert Harris
Ah, there's the trademark RAH sarcasm. For a moment there I was wondering if you were going to impart that AAWIL was shot on the same no-grain "Russian film stock" as GoldenEye was (chortle chortle tee hee, we are laughing!) but I tell you what, I'll never think of a grain silo in the same way again. Universal's stores must be overflowing, the sheer amount of fuckwittery they've unleashed on their catalogue over the years. I hear Paramount's harvest was plenty bountiful too. :D
And home theater afficiandoes with cars, are a major beneficiary.

Grain is a turned into ethenol. Different cows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahollis

Geoff_D

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
933
Reaction score
35
Points
610
There are other uses for grain. How some 100-percent proof genuine Universal moonshine? They could call it Colt 35mm and get Billy Dee Williams in for the advert.
 

Cranston37

Cinematographer
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
1,651
Points
1,610
Real Name
.
*Clearly* everybody is taking their eyes off the real point here, which is when you have a movie with Jenny Agutter dressed as a nurse, any quality of transfer is acceptable and a necessary purchase.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,832
Reaction score
16,608
Points
9,110
Real Name
Robert Harris
*Clearly* everybody is taking their eyes off the real point here, which is when you have a movie with Jenny Agutter dressed as a nurse, any quality of transfer is acceptable and a necessary purchase.
Will be 64 in December, and still magnificent.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
343,768
Messages
4,689,412
Members
141,039
Latest member
topreplay