- Joined
- Feb 8, 1999
- Messages
- 18,411
- Real Name
- Robert Harris
I've been trying to figure out when I first saw Camelot
.
The best that I can come up with was some time in early 1967, well before the opening, at a WB employee screening at the Warner in NYC. I enjoyed it back then, and I enjoyed it recently on Blu-ray. I wasn't wowed by the DVD.
That first screening was a 70mm blow-up, struck from the original camera negative, and I always recalled it being beautifully shot by Richard H. Kline. To me, his work on Camelot reminds me most of what he did with Body Heat. But that may just be me.
One thing that I've always loved about the film has been the way the ending was shot. And on Blu-ray, it comes across beautifully. You'll see what I mean.
How does the Blu-ray look and sound?
In a word terrific.
It doesn't look like a current scan derived from camera neg. Taken from a beautifully produced IP, the image looks very much like what a print would have looked like in 1967. We've gotten so used to seeing full negative grain structure, that when you see that same structure from an IP -- one generation down -- you notice that the grain has taken on a slightly more gentle, almost velvety appearance. Fellow grain monks will still be pleased, as the image is fine.
One odd thing was the softness of the main title sequence lettering, which I didn't recall, but am told that it is what it is. What we're seeing is not from dupes or separations. That is apparently what it looked like on prints in 1967, but I don't recall it looking that way, and find it odd that it would have been approved. In a 70mm blow-up it would have looked quite bad.
Audio is rich, strong, vibrant and clear. I'm aware that there were discussions when earlier versions hit home video regarding whether the tracks were "correct," but I simply don't have that particular knowledge. My presumption is that the original 6-track would have been used as a basis. I'm very happy with it.
Some may ask, "why use an IP, rather than a camera neg?"
A couple of reasons.
First, and most important, this negative received a reasonable amount of use, as a number of 70mm prints were optically struck from it, which means wear, and dollars for clean-up.
But more important, if the intent, as there are probably a myriad of preservation elements already in the vaults, is a new quality HD master, then an OCN scan really isn't a necessity, and it would be a huge expense.
Using an IP is the smart thing to do in this case, as it carries the color timing. This means that touch-ups and corrections should be necessary after coming to an overall color set-up. That could save 100 hours or more, at around $600/hr.
That's huge.
Am I happy with Camelot on Blu-ray
.
Absolutely. Short of having shot it in 65mm, it's a gorgeous film.
Recommended.
RAH
The best that I can come up with was some time in early 1967, well before the opening, at a WB employee screening at the Warner in NYC. I enjoyed it back then, and I enjoyed it recently on Blu-ray. I wasn't wowed by the DVD.
That first screening was a 70mm blow-up, struck from the original camera negative, and I always recalled it being beautifully shot by Richard H. Kline. To me, his work on Camelot reminds me most of what he did with Body Heat. But that may just be me.
One thing that I've always loved about the film has been the way the ending was shot. And on Blu-ray, it comes across beautifully. You'll see what I mean.
How does the Blu-ray look and sound?
In a word terrific.
It doesn't look like a current scan derived from camera neg. Taken from a beautifully produced IP, the image looks very much like what a print would have looked like in 1967. We've gotten so used to seeing full negative grain structure, that when you see that same structure from an IP -- one generation down -- you notice that the grain has taken on a slightly more gentle, almost velvety appearance. Fellow grain monks will still be pleased, as the image is fine.
One odd thing was the softness of the main title sequence lettering, which I didn't recall, but am told that it is what it is. What we're seeing is not from dupes or separations. That is apparently what it looked like on prints in 1967, but I don't recall it looking that way, and find it odd that it would have been approved. In a 70mm blow-up it would have looked quite bad.
Audio is rich, strong, vibrant and clear. I'm aware that there were discussions when earlier versions hit home video regarding whether the tracks were "correct," but I simply don't have that particular knowledge. My presumption is that the original 6-track would have been used as a basis. I'm very happy with it.
Some may ask, "why use an IP, rather than a camera neg?"
A couple of reasons.
First, and most important, this negative received a reasonable amount of use, as a number of 70mm prints were optically struck from it, which means wear, and dollars for clean-up.
But more important, if the intent, as there are probably a myriad of preservation elements already in the vaults, is a new quality HD master, then an OCN scan really isn't a necessity, and it would be a huge expense.
Using an IP is the smart thing to do in this case, as it carries the color timing. This means that touch-ups and corrections should be necessary after coming to an overall color set-up. That could save 100 hours or more, at around $600/hr.
That's huge.
Am I happy with Camelot on Blu-ray
Absolutely. Short of having shot it in 65mm, it's a gorgeous film.
Recommended.
RAH
Last edited by a moderator:
