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

[Andrew Budgell]

Every time I think I'm done with this thread, I somehow get lured back in...

 

[Robert Harris]

Gee, I don't know, Robert. You gave this disc a 2.5. I gave it a 1 out of 5. Sounds to me like our tastes and level of expectations were pretty much aligned here.

What exactly did I say that was so wrong? I said the disc looked ugly and faded to my eyes, and stated that I believe Fox could do better. I'll support quality releases. The rest, you needn't bother to peddle. We're well beyond the era in Blu-ray mastering where fans of the classics should merely be 'grateful' to accept anything in lieu of nothing. Lowering standards doesn't give us the product we deserve. It merely gives us stuff like this! Sony understands this mantra and has for some time undertaken an aggressive program to restore what it can from less than perfectly archived elements.

Time for Fox to get with that program too instead of offering us a 'hit or miss' mentality on remastering; for every Doctor Dolittle, a Forever Amber. No thanks. Be consistent. That's all I'm expecting. Forever Amber will never be perfect. But it could definitely be a lot better. And I recall so well TT's original release of Journey to the Center of the Earth, with Fox claiming there was nothing more to be done to salvage the title in high def, only to retreat from that assessment a little over a year later (mostly from being inundated with an outcry from ardent fans of this picture), releasing a vastly superior remaster via TT that was infinitely more satisfying for fans. So, yes. The ability to do better is there. Is it yet cost effective? Possibly, not.

Regarding your assessment of my lack of 'understanding' for the 'technology'. Yep - you're right. I didn't go to school to become a film restorationist. But it doesn't take one to see Forever Amber has not been given its due on Blu-ray. All you need to see its deficiencies is a good pair of eyes. I've got those. And just so we're very clear here, I have always, and will continue to hold your critical assessments of movie art and restoration techniques in very VERY high regard. You obviously have the experience to back them up. I'm not at all certain I can say the same for your throwing my review in totem under the proverbial bus, essentially saying "don't read him, he doesn't know anything."

And again, my review did not demand perfection from Fox. It was, alas, extremely disappointed to find Forever Amber given short shrift, when basic color balancing and contrast correction might have enhanced this viewing experience greatly. I mean, if they can't even seek out and tack on the right vintage of the Fox logo to the opener of this release, I know exactly how much time, research and energy they spent on it!

I think you've picked a poor example...

My comments were directed to not to you, but to Alberto_D.

But to respond to your comments, the situation with films such as Forever Amber, and I've not examined the elements, but I have for several of other Fox productions of the era, is very simple.

Either we have the Blu-ray that Twilight Time offers, or we get nothing.

Not because Fox is being either lazy or holding pursestrings closed, but because there is no where else to go on the film.

RAH

 

[Alberto_D]

Well, I never said Twilight Time effort wasn't worth of respect.
Every good intention effort is worth respect for old neglected films, even if have problems !

If Fox, at present time, have no interest or budget to better digitally restore it and try the best possible stat of the art color correction, twilight at least is bringing it to HD. So Robert Harris is right to said to applaud it.

But the fact that the colors and contrast wasn't worked enough, despite TT spent money in a 4K transfer, it's a bit strange. Unless the french blu ray, which I based to judge the quality of this new blu ray (as Bryan^H said it look almost the same) it's in reality worse than this new transfer.

On your TV, do this scene from Twilight.T BD looks like this image ?

This image, from pinterest, looks better than the captures from the french BD, and better than the videos took from Fox DVD. Still not very good, but at least not so much gray and muddy

If I was famous, like a actor, I would start a campaign for research and development of better color correction tools for film restoration. As far as I know most tools used today was not trully designed for such cases, but are tools used to pos production of modern movies.

Think with me. A scratched and dirty film, take many time and money to restore. But a movie with color problems require just adjust scenes to scene and not slow time consuming frame by frame fixes. It's a wast to let a movie in bad colors only because nobody care about create better digital tools for colors.

I didn't knew Nick was member of this forum. Please don't start a rivality discussion because of me. I would feel guilty if people don't get well along due points raised by my posts.

 

[Thomas T]

Well, I finally sat down tonight and watched the TT of Forever Amber in its entirety and considering some of the things said here, not without some trepidation. Having seen the film before in various broadcast, theatrical revivals and DVD incarnations I can honestly say it's the best I've ever seen it look (which doesn't mean it's pristine). The clarity is very good and my only nitpicking is that the transfer is darker than I would have liked. If you're fan of the film, picking it up is a no brainer. If it's all about showing off your home theater, skip it. I'd go with Mr. Harris' unbiased expertise rather than a self proclaimed "expert" with an agenda.

 

[Bryan^H]

Well, I finally sat down tonight and watched the TT of Forever Amber in its entirety and considering some of the things said here, not without some trepidation. Having seen the film before in various broadcast, theatrical revivals and DVD incarnations I can honestly say it's the best I've ever seen it look (which doesn't mean it's pristine).

Thank you!

That is exactly my experience. I'm happy to have it. This is the best I have ever seen it look as well, so why would I not be pleased?

 

[JPCinema]

After watching the TT Blu ray of Forever Amber and noticing the color palette was weaker and darker than I remember and the ending was different than the French Sidonis Blu Ray that I purchased a few years ago in Paris,
Puzzled, I put on the French Blu ray. The picture is not as sharp as TT but colors are much beautiful and more vibrant. The ending IS DIFFERENT...There is no Cornel Wilde voiceover at the end. Amber looks out the window and then closes it...no narration or judgement. Which is the original ending?
Even though the French Blu Ray has forced French subtitles, it is now my version of choice.

 

[Thomas T]

The ending IS DIFFERENT...There is no Cornel Wilde voiceover at the end. Amber looks out the window and then closes it...no narration or judgement. Which is the original ending?

Actually, neither is the "original" ending. The original ending had no voiceover but it didn't end with Amber closing the window. It ended with Amber sitting at her dressing table in front of her mirror putting on make up as she prepares to meet yet another "suitor". The implication being that though Charles II had abandoned her, there will always be another man to take care of her. This scene was cut to appease the Legion of Decency and we are left to believe with the added voiceover that she will be punished by being alone and abandoned for her "sins". It is 1947 after all and bad girls had to be punished! At least they didn't kill her off. The elimination of that scene causes a jump in David Raksin's seamless scoring.

 

[JPCinema]

Thank you for the information. The last scene in what remains does play better without Cornel Wilde's voiceover.

 

[Alberto_D]

Have you tried to match the saturation of TT to the french BD by using the saturation setting from your TV ?
Its diffiuclt to imagine the colors of TT to be worse than the french BD...

This bring one concern. Is the CRI (eastman negative that survied), the only master that survived for this film, in very cold storage to avoid further color fadding ? Have new protection masters created for film preservation ?
Maybe Robert Harris know.

After watching the TT Blu ray of Forever Amber and noticing the color palette was weaker and darker than I remember and the ending was different than the French Sidonis Blu Ray that I purchased a few years ago in Paris,
Puzzled, I put on the French Blu ray. The picture is not as sharp as TT but colors are much beautiful and more vibrant. The ending IS DIFFERENT...There is no Cornel Wilde voiceover at the end. Amber looks out the window and then closes it...no narration or judgement. Which is the original ending?
Even though the French Blu Ray has forced French subtitles, it is now my version of choice.

 

[Robert Harris]

Have you tried to match the saturation of TT to the french BD by using the saturation setting from your TV ?
Its diffiuclt to imagine the colors of TT to be worse than the french BD...

This bring one concern. Is the CRI (eastman negative that survied), the only master that survived for this film, in very cold storage to avoid further color fadding ? Have new protection masters created for film preservation ?
Maybe Robert Harris know.

Alberto,

You’re over-thinking.

I’ve examined the elements, came up with the best and most financially viable solution.

It’s all garbage.

Once the image is gone, along with shadow detail, end of show.

I’ve said this many times.

“It is what it is.”

That said, there may be another possible angle, but just for a few of the films.

Wouldn’t be perfect, but it might be a bit better.

Not so much for Amber, although something might be done to help it a bit. That would be very expensive.

We can do testing, with base costs around $50,000.

Nothing else to be done, and certainly not in photoshop.

Can you provide or find financing?

 

[Alberto_D]

Mr Harris, I didn't wanted to sound insistent that time. I was more like refering about the preservation of the elements (storage and safety masters manufaturing) than crticizing, in the last post.
I found a bit strange than a new 4K transfer would look worse in colors than a 2011 or 2012 HD transfer, and that's why I suggested to Ken to try change saturation setting of his TV. It wasn't sarcasm of mine.

I never suggested use Photoshop to restore colors. I used cause it's what I have, and I did in a combination of many tools and not a plugin to treat fadded kodack negatives, since would be useless in this case. What I imagine is that in theory it's possible to develop better digital tools that could work better and easier for this and many other films.
The shadows are mostly gone, I agree.

I can't finance...
We need to try turn Bill Gates into a vintage film goer.

The CRI despite fadded have more sharp image details than old dye tranfer prints, specially if it could be better aligne the 3 color channels, like with Warner's Ultra Resolution os similar, even being a simple color film copy instead of 3 strips.
Have any dye transfer print survived, or even a cinecolor print, or even a 16mm TV B&W print, with better shadow detail or at least with something able to be enhanced with digital tools ?
If a print with more shadow details survived, even if a quite lower resolution dye tranfer print or B&W print, there is hope (if money could drop from sky) that future tools could perfect align it with the CRI, match the remaining contrast of both, and try to transplant only the shadow details into the CRI image. If was B&W a little dvanced colorization would would solve the issue.

A 16mm would look granier and softer, in a "shadow detail transplant" case, but better than nothing. And many 80's movies have some film 35mm stock for some low light scenes, with only the shadowns looking like 16mm or worse, and we don't find it so strange.

Anyway, like you say, people are enjoying this new edition, thanks to Twilight Time effort.

 

[Robert Harris]

Mr Harris, I didn't wanted to sound insistent that time. I was more like refering about the preservation of the elements (storage and safety masters manufaturing) than crticizing, in the last post.
I found a bit strange than a new 4K transfer would look worse in colors than a 2011 or 2012 HD transfer, and that's why I suggested to Ken to try change saturation setting of his TV. It wasn't sarcasm of mine.

I never suggested use Photoshop to restore colors. I used cause it's what I have, and I did in a combination of many tools and not a plugin to treat fadded kodack negatives, since would be useless in this case. What I imagine is that in theory it's possible to develop better digital tools that could work better and easier for this and many other films.
The shadows are mostly gone, I agree.

I can't finance...
We need to try turn Bill Gates into a vintage film goer.

The CRI despite fadded have more sharp image details than old dye tranfer prints, specially if it could be better aligne the 3 color channels, like with Warner's Ultra Resolution os similar, even being a simple color film copy instead of 3 strips.
Have any dye transfer print survived, or even a cinecolor print, or even a 16mm TV B&W print, with better shadow detail or at least with something able to be enhanced with digital tools ?
If a print with more shadow details survived, even if a quite lower resolution dye tranfer print or B&W print, there is hope (if money could drop from sky) that future tools could perfect align it with the CRI, match the remaining contrast of both, and try to transplant only the shadow details into the CRI image. If was B&W a little dvanced colorization would would solve the issue.

A 16mm would look granier and softer, in a "shadow detail transplant" case, but better than nothing. And many 80's movies have some film 35mm stock for some low light scenes, with only the shadowns looking like 16mm or worse, and we don't find it so strange.

Anyway, like you say, people are enjoying this new edition, thanks to Twilight Time effort.

16mm is not helpful.

Resolution is not the problem.

Shadow detail cannot be transplanted to an image that already has blocked details.

Yes, nitrates survive on some of the films. These are (in many cases) the original studio prints. The database, or most of it, can be accessed on the UCLA Film & TV Archive website.

Go here:

https://cinema.library.ucla.edu/vwebv/search?searchArg=forever+amber&searchCode=GKEY^&searchType=0&recCount=50

You may find it informative.

These are 65 - 80 year old prints, that (generally) have many runs.

As you seem genuinely passionate, here are a few test frames (not fully color corrected), as we've been around the block on these films...

First - Nitrate print

Test of CRI -Y / + DUPE Y master, to by-pass fade

and finally, proving another point, a c. 1961 dye transfer print, with C dye later removed, and replaced by DUPE Y master, derived from CRI.

It must be understood that the quality of elements vary, on a picture by picture basis, few prints survive on acetate stock, and that the color of nitrate, especially early, and with the added G record, also vary. This also does not get into physical damage.

I can assure you, that Fox is doing everything possible, within rational financial parameters to save this library.

 

[Alberto_D]

Thank you very much for the link and for the nice image channel recombination examples.
Yes, FOX is trying hard, Shaw Belston is in charge of the preservation depatment, last time I read about.
Money it's a problem, as always.

About transplant, it's impossible today. But think about future or near future...
If 3 years before Lowry Digital Images start, somone had came to you and said it was possible to grain by grain digitally process a image to compare similar frames and extract more image details from it without aperture correction, removing a film generation loss, you wouldn't had believed.

A CRI when very well made, and when still new or with very few (minimal/irrelevant) fadding could have a dynamic range similar to a Dye transfer print. Am I right ?
Sadly is not the case of Forever Amber. A future technolgy for transplant is the only hope to atenuate the missing shadow problem. If all edges and textures of all channels are aligned (like Warner's Ultra Resolution or better), from both sources, and if tones in common for both are matched, all perfect, it's possible, in theory, to digitally sellect a grayscale range from the shadow channels from donator print, and sellect the range from the CRI which would reciere it, and place over, with a soft range transition zone.

I found interesting to think about the sentence : "The films negatives was destroyed (only prints and poor masters left) and as result the film's original photography it's lost today" Something like that was said somehwere, about Leave Her to Heaven.

We can agree if we think the camera negative had far more information than a faded CRI left or a dye trans print.
But if good dye transfer original prints survived, and if new duplications from it could have zero loss today (like digital projection alternative) someone could argue that if people could still watch the film like people watched on premiere, the films would not had really lost the photography art.
It wouldn't be like Gone With The Wind, that got better and better prints as the dye trans print technology evolved from 30's to 70's, but would stay like first premiere, let's say.

But blu ray goers don't like very much video transfers from original dye tranfer prints. They prefer high picture details, sharper, and dynamic from camera negative or fine grain masters.
Since you always said no video system can recreate a dye transfer print projection experience, what do you believe people would prefer, if they could watch the Twilight Time blu ray compared to a original dye transfer print projection of forever Amber ?

 

[JPCinema]

They must be 2 different transfers , since the ending is different on both blu rays. The TT transfer is sharper and cleaner, but the color on that version is not as vivid as the French blu ray. Having said that, it definitely an older transfer.
I am curious that FOX has both versions of the film. The TT version has the voice over of a line that Cornell Wilde says earlier in the film.
"Haven't we caused enough unhappiness? May God have mercy on us both for our sins."
The French version does not have that voiceover.

 

[Robert Harris]

Thank you very much for the link and for the nice image channel recombination examples.
Yes, FOX is trying hard, Shaw(n) Belston is in charge of the preservation depatment, last time I read about.
Money it's a problem, as always.

About transplant, it's impossible today. But think about future or near future...
If 3 years before Lowry Digital Images start, somone had came to you and said it was possible to grain by grain digitally process a image to compare similar frames and extract more image details from it without aperture correction, removing a film generation loss, you wouldn't had believed.

Yes.

A CRI when very well made, and when still new or with very few (minimal/irrelevant) fadding could have a dynamic range similar to a Dye transfer print. Am I right ?

You are not.

Sadly is not the case of Forever Amber. A future technolgy for transplant is the only hope to atenuate the missing shadow problem. If all edges and textures of all channels are aligned (like Warner's Ultra Resolution or better), from both sources, and if tones in common for both are matched, all perfect, it's possible, in theory, to digitally sellect a grayscale range from the shadow channels from donator print, and sellect the range from the CRI which would reciere it, and place over, with a soft range transition zone.

It is not.

I found interesting to think about the sentence : "The films negatives was destroyed (only prints and poor masters left) and as result the film's original photography it's lost today" Something like that was said somehwere, about Leave Her to Heaven.

Truly?

We can agree if we think the camera negative had far more information than a faded CRI left or a dye trans print.
But if good dye transfer original prints survived, and if new duplications from it could have zero loss today (like digital projection alternative) someone could argue that if people could still watch the film like people watched on premiere, the films would not had really lost the photography art.

No.

It wouldn't be like Gone With The Wind, that got better and better prints as the dye trans print technology evolved from 30's to 70's, but would stay like first premiere, let's say.

They were not better. They were different.

But blu ray goers don't like very much video transfers from original dye tranfer prints. They prefer high picture details, sharper, and dynamic from camera negative or fine grain masters.

Truly?

Since you always said no video system can recreate a dye transfer print projection experience, what do you believe people would prefer, if they could watch the Twilight Time blu ray compared to a original dye transfer print projection of forever Amber ?

You can't seriously be asking that question.

You can now stop asking questions, and giving opinions, and do your homework...

 

[JPCinema]

I just found this on TCM in an article about FOREVER AMBER.
I have found the answer to the 2 versions.
" According to memos and correspondence in PCA files, in an effort to reverse the Legion's "C" rating, Twentieth Century-Fox officials agreed with PCA recommendations that a voice-over prologue and epilogue be added. A PCA memo states that Preminger was "vehemently opposed" to the epilogue because Bruce's voice-over admission of sin is heard over a shot of Amber, and threatened to disassociate himself from the entire production if the edit was carried out. There is no evidence that Preminger took any such action. The additional soundtrack material and cutting instructions were shipped to over 400 exhibitors and were in full effect on all prints in release by mid-December 1947. Based on these changes, the Legion of Decency reclassified Forever Amber from a "C" or "condemned" rating to a "B" or "morally objectional in part" rating on 8 December 1947."

 

[Alberto_D]

Yeah, only If a original print is found somewhere for Forever Amber...
The UCLA library catalogy have no dye treansfer print for Forever Amber , Hairspray and Forever Kinight.

I found interesting to imagine people preferences. A somewhat soft detail dye transfer print (we don't have) projected on big screen, or a sharp 4K transfer from CRI in a 60 inch OLED TV ? What would they choose if had the chance to watch both ... I bet the first...

People liked this Gulliver's Travels BD edition heroically restored from a technicolor dye transfer print (made in the 50's or so)
But I'm sure they would prefer a BD from camera negative restoration, if it had survived.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews44/gullivers_travels_blu-ray.htm

About the "original photography be lost" refers to the image quality of the restorations hadn't it due dynamic range losses of CRI, and not about the dye transfer print references be able preserve the photography director's work, in case of Leave Her to Heaven. At least was what I remamber or understood back then.

"Since you always said no video system can recreate a dye transfer print projection experience, what do you believe people would prefer, if they could watch the Twilight Time blu ray compared to a original dye transfer print projection of Forever Amber ? "

You can't seriously be asking that question.

You can now stop asking questions, and giving opinions, and do your homework...

 

[Robert Harris]

Yeah, only If a original print is found somewhere for Forever Amber...
The UCLA library catalogy have no dye treansfer print for Forever Amber , Hairspray and Forever Kinight.

I found interesting to imagine people preferences. A somewhat soft detail dye transfer print (we don't have) projected on big screen, or a sharp 4K transfer from CRI in a 60 inch OLED TV ? What would they choose if had the chance to watch both ... I bet the first...

People liked this Gulliver's Travels BD edition heroically restored from a technicolor dye transfer print (made in the 50's or so)
But I'm sure they would prefer a BD from camera negative restoration, if it had survived.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews44/gullivers_travels_blu-ray.htm

About the "original photography be lost" refers to the image quality of the restorations hadn't it due dynamic range losses of CRI, and not about the dye transfer print references be able preserve the photography director's work, in case of Leave Her to Heaven. At least was what I remamber or understood back then.

I'll agree with whatever you say, and leave it at that...

 

[Alan Tully]

Yeah, I wonder if they'll ever be able to successfully scan a Technicolor print? If they could, it would mean scanning each frame at various densities, not much light for the lighter parts of the frame & really pushing it through for the darker bits, & then re-assembling each frame using a lot of technology...it's never going to happen is it

 

[Alberto_D]

Uhnn, I found why I upset Bob Harris that much.
I had fastly read non-circulating, and interpreted as non existing print.

After I finally had the "harduos work" of put the mouse over it and clic over it, I found :

• M17513
  
• Collection:MP Motion Picture Collection
  
• Format:8 reels of 8 (136 min.) (ca. 16000 ft.) : opt sd., IB Technicolor ; 35 mm. nitrate print. NOTES: Studio print. Cataloging based on transcription made by AFI cataloger.
  
  
• Number of Items:1
  
• Notes:Numerous splices; otherwise good condition: r1,2,4-8; poor condition (perf. scratches visible in image, first 2 min.): r3 (Melnitz cond. report, 11/17/1989).

What a shame I did in my previous post...

I'm happy that a nitrate technicolor print exist. But it have some problems.

Sorry Mr Harris if my anxiety and hurry&arrogance offended your very good will in provide very nice informations to me.
At least my homework it's ready now.
Living and learning...

I once contacted a developer of digital film restoration tools, and talked about a idea I had for new tools to restore technicolor films, in terms of scratches, dirt, stains. If would use informations from one color layer to repair damage in another color layer, by changing it using color gradient spectrum analyze. In the email they said it was very interesting but would require too much investment. Id would probably be able to fix "hell scratches" without leave artefacts.