A Few Words About A few words about...™ Vertigo -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Mikey1969]

The documentary is misleading as the Harris-Katz restoration from '96 wasn't used as a source for the blu-ray. For most people, the blu-ray looks quite good; not always accurate, but watchable. The few errors it makes could be ironed out with some additional digital work, but Universal decided not to spend the money.

 

[Kylan1]

so the obvious question is then, if Katz and Harris did this amazing restoration work and was supposed to be the new elements to last for years to come, why wasnt it used for the blu-ray? so are we saying the colors weren't correct in 96? and they still arent and should be? or were the colors correct after they did the restoration and now they arent? the whole thing makes no sense to me.

 

[Vincent_P]

I'm pretty certain this Blu-ray is based on a scan of the 1996 Harris/Katz restoration film elements. I think the issue is, there are problems that can now be fixed via digital means that couldn't be correctly addressed photochemically in 1996, and Universal chose not to do so. As a comparison, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA was scanned from the Harris-reconstructed 65mm negative, but Sony then did an intensive digital restoration/clean-up that wasn't available in the late-1980s on top of the heroic work Harris did photochemically back then.

Vincent

 

[Kylan1]

But in the vertigo doc, they talk about the colors and how they went back to hitch's notes and got the right green for the jag, rah rah rah.. so the colors were good then in 96 but they arent now?

 

[Vincent_P]

Again, the issue is, they did the best they possibly could via photochemical means in the 1990s. They came close but there were just some things that couldn't be properly fixed via analog restoration techniques back then. Those tools exist now in the digital domain, and rather than employ them and fix those nagging issues, Universal simply chose to scan the 1996 restored film elements as-is and release the result. Beyond that, when scanning/remastering a film element, the colors can be changed. It's possible the colors looked right in some scenes in the prints from 1996, but the look drifted/was changed somewhat in the remastering for the Blu-ray.

Vincent

 

[Kylan1]

Interesting, fair enough!

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I believe RAH stated earlier that they did not use the 96 resto as a basis, that Universal went back to the original materials and did their own work, which didn't lead to wholly accurate results, but if they had done things differently COULD have resulted in an improved product from what was possible in '96.

 

[FoxyMulder]

When a consensus is reached on what actually happened let me know, i'm interested in finding out, at the moment i can't make head nor tails of the thread and if i'm feeling that way imagine what a newcomer to the thread is feeling.

 

[Peter Hayes]

From memory, Mr Harris has said that, given the green light (no pun intended here of all places), with present day technology he could make Vertigo look *better* than it did in 1958.

I'd settle for "as good as".

 

[JoshZ]

RAH commented on this recently:

Now I'm really confused. I thought Harris' restoration WAS the source for the Blu-ray. Wasn't it?

It was not. The studio decided to set our work aside, and try it themselves. This could easily have been a home run, but in this case, the player was thrown out trying to steal second.

RAH

 

[Kylan1]

RAH commented on this recently:

So then why the initial good review by RAH? puzzling to say the least.. and Foxy... my sentiments exactly.

 

[Robert Harris]

So then why the initial good review by RAH? puzzling to say the least.. and Foxy... my sentiments exactly.

Not an unfair question, and the answer relates to the perception of the public, and the way that the public views Blu-rays vs. the reality of the Blu-ray's problems.

Many people will find no problems with the Blu-ray. Some will find an occasional problem. While portions of the transfer look fine, major sequences are unacceptable from an archival perspective.

RAH

 

[schan1269]

To RAH...Are the problems connectable...or are they actual issues with the film itself...that can't be corrected?

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I believe RAH has said several times that with proper knowledge/guidance/budget it could look precisely as on release.

 

[Jari K]

While portions of the transfer look fine, major sequences are unacceptable from an archival perspective.

Does this sentiment also apply to the audio on the new Blu-ray?

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I believe the new 5.1 track is considered to be a big improvement.What happened originally is that Harris/Katz wanted to mix the film to match as closely as possible to the original, but were overruled by the Uni execs at the time who wanted to showcase the DTS sound with modern sounding effects.This has been rolled back on the Blu in a new mix, which sounds great and not weird like the old surround mix. There is - in my opinion - no more reason to prefer or default to the old mono track unless you have some special fetish for it.

 

[ConorFurlong]

Not an unfair question, and the answer relates to the perception of the public, and the way that the public views Blu-rays vs. the reality of the Blu-ray's problems. Many people will find no problems with the Blu-ray. Some will find an occasional problem. While portions of the transfer look fine, major sequences are unacceptable from an archival perspective. RAH

Hi Robert Thanks so much for sharing your views on this subject. Having read through this thread, started by you over a year ago, do you know if anything has changed at Universal and whether they will revisit Vertigo any time soon?Conor

 

[AstonMartin007]

I'd bet my bottom dollar Vertigo is just sitting in the vaults as neglected as ever. Hell, Universal just re-released Apollo 13, a guaranteed moneymaker and it's the same lousy transfer from the 1st bluray, just look at the comparison to the old HD DVD.

Really, I don't understand why the studios, if they aren't willing to invest the time, money, or brains to properly restore a film, don't just give it to a firm like Criterion who will, and has an audience waiting, wanting, and willing to pay. It's 2014, why do we still have to suffer this nonsense?!

 

[Keith Cobby]

I think the problem is that, with the exception of a minority of vocal critics (us), most people don't really care enough.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Really, I don't understand why the studios, if they aren't willing to invest the time, money, or brains to properly restore a film, don't just give it to a firm like Criterion who will, and has an audience waiting, wanting, and willing to pay. It's 2014, why do we still have to suffer this nonsense?!

How many films do Criterion directly pay for to restore and how many titles are just supplied to them under licence.