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

[Alan Tully]

All these scanning devises are supposed to work from low-contrast elements, original b/w or colour negative, interpositive or fine grain positive (b/w), anything with too much contrast, & it doesn't go well.

 

[Alberto_D]

The best film scanner are already able to capture all stops of modern films. Some from few years ago used this aproach, combining different exposures. But today I believe there are sensors already able to easier capture all the dynamic range of film.

Some technical concerns for very hi resolution digital cameras was dynamic range limitations compared to chemical film. I never understood why nobody created a cinema dig camera using beam splitter prisms, like technicolor camera prisms, to expose one bright image to a sensor and a dark image to another sensor. The right combination from both, digitally, and not as a simple overlay, would create a much better dynamic.

It would not reduce so much the sensibility of the camera for dark places, since the prism would only need to split a fraction of the light, like let's say 13% (and not 50% like technicolor), to the sensor that would capture highlights, leaving 87% for the sensor for shadows and middle tones.

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

When scanner and telecines had serious imitations, Kodak created a film to be easier for scanning. It was in early 90's |I believe, when digital image effects started to become more often in films and required digital intermediation.

But I presume real time telecine machines have these limitations you said, and not modern advanced expansive slower scanning.
Telecine/scanning for many old films tends to be more expansive in many cases, cause the elements can be fragile and require very carefull handly and slow transfer, to ensure no aditional damage.

I presume, I imagine, that in a technicolor print it's a bit easier to recover hidden tones in shadows, in portions that appears somewhat flat. While in CRI you try to push the gamma and the flat dark area still looks flat. It's like tonalities ends more suddenly than in other film stock or film prints.

All these scanning devises are supposed to work from low-contrast elements, original b/w or colour negative, interpositive or fine grain positive (b/w), anything with too much contrast, & it doesn't go well.

 

[Alan Tully]

Well you could be right, I've been out of the game for a few years, so I don't know what the latest gizmos can do, but I'll only believe it when I see a decent scan from a projection print.

 

[Alberto_D]

The print need to have the details you wish to the scanner manage to get it. And for you see such details, if they exist, you would need to enhance the image digitally to bring-up the details that is hiden in dark and bright areas, otherwise these hiden details would be very afected by video compression, if we talk about watch in blu ray.
Original technicolor dye trasnfer prints have high contrast, and to get the details to allow you see in a a video transfer in BD, I supose it need the treatement I said.

Talking abou actual film exibition prints. Modern film prints are made from internegatives that was made from interpositives that was made from original camera negative. And not all steps are always made in the best duplication stock or best film printers. If prints in 50's and 60's was made from internegaties, it would look horrible, since duplication stock back then wasn't good as today for color film.
The final print can't be made in fine grain duplication stock, expansive and too dark to project. The first two steps, interpositive creation and internegative, can be in prime film stocks, but some few film labs cut costs with internegative.

The printer it's important too. High speed printer can work fast, produce a lot of copies per day, but tends to have more image detail (sharp detail) loss than step contact printers (printers that shot frame by frame. The final exhibition prints are almost always made in fast printers, since the demand is high and time is short.

With digital intermediation and finishing in digital healm, much films were being direct printed in digital film recorder as internegatives, using pollyester film (resitant to make hundred copies) and send to labs to duplication in conventional digital printer. This until the photochemical age nearly died today with the majority of theater having digital projection systems.

Well you could be right, I've been out of the game for a few years, so I don't know what the latest gizmos can do, but I'll only believe it when I see a decent scan from a projection print.

 

[RMajidi]

I don’t think this is noted anywhere in HTF’s rulebook, but I’d have hoped the wishes of a thread’s host would be respected by members as a matter of common courtesy.

Not into judging anyone’s motives, but I do care when individual conduct unfairly affects others; and given the degree of latitude in evidence in this thread, I’d ask that this opinion also be allowed to be expressed here:-

The interminable calling out and haranguing of Mr Harris has ruined this thread for me. I feel this is unfair towards Mr Harris, earnest readers and the product under review.

No thread host should be driven to the point of having to say: “You can now stop asking questions, and giving opinions”, as Mr Harris did in his inline responses in post #95. Yet, even that plain, direct request was completely ignored. This is offensive.

Frankly, I was amazed by the patience and generosity that Mr Harris displayed in post #92, giving the poster the benefit of the doubt and providing a wealth of detailed clarity. Not that it seemed to make a jot of difference!

This burdensome and inconsiderate behaviour shows no signs of abating, and I’d ask moderators to please step in before more topics are ruined in this way.

 

[Thomas T]

I have to second RMajidi's post. While I'm all for giving leeway to have individual opinions expressed, the passive/aggressive posts ("I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend" while continuing the tirade) have hijacked this thread. I peek in to see comments on TT's Forever Amber only to find the dead horse is still being flayed

 

[Robert Crawford]

My advice is quite simple, it takes at least two people to have a topic discussion. If some of you have grown tired by a person's posts then ignore them, stop engaging in conversation about those posts, and sooner, not later, those topics will die off the vine.

 

[Thomas T]

My advice is quite simple, it takes at least two people to have a topic discussion. If some of you have grown tired by a person's posts then ignore them, stop engaging in conversation about those posts, and sooner, not later, those topics will die off the vine.

I'd feel better if this "advice" was applied consistently across the board by HTF moderators rather than pick and choose. I've seen some perfectly harmless (to my eye) posts that were told "Enough, stop it already!" while others get a pass. But then again, I'm not a moderator, am I?

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'd feel better if this "advice" was applied consistently across the board by HTF moderators rather than pick and choose. I've seen some perfectly harmless (to my eye) posts that were told "Enough, stop it already!" while others get a pass. But then again, I'm not a moderator, am I?

It's not a policy which is suppose to be consistent, but just a nugget of advice. And, right, you're not a moderator as it's harder than you think when dealing with different people, personalities and situations.

 

[Will Krupp]

Well all I can say is I was going to pass on this disc. My appetite has been whetted to the point that I went ahead and ordered a copy yesterday!

 

[Alberto_D]

Sometimes I cross the limits... I need to police myself, since sometimes my curiosity it's too strong.

What about we talk about the film itself and not about transfers?
Was this really the most expansive film up to the 40's, as I read somewhere on web ?

 

[Robin9]

My advice is quite simple, it takes at least two people to have a topic discussion. If some of you have grown tired by a person's posts then ignore them, stop engaging in conversation about those posts, and sooner, not later, those topics will die off the vine.

Another solution is to place someone on your "ignore" list. Unfortunately either I've forgotten how to do that or the facility has been removed.

 

[Robin9]

Well all I can say is I was going to pass on this disc. My appetite has been whetted to the point that I went ahead and ordered a copy yesterday!

I'm having second thoughts too!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Another solution is to place someone on your "ignore" list. Unfortunately either I've forgotten how to do that or the facility has been removed.

Just click on a person's name to the left of their post and you will see an option to click on "ignore". You can do the same by going to a person's profile page which has the same option.

 

[Robin9]

Just click on a person's name to the left of their post and you will see an option to click on "ignore".

Many thanks. A major source of annoyance has now been removed.

 

[haineshisway]

One expects the kind of aggression towards Mr. Harris on other boards, not here. Mr. Harris is a treasure and has been at this a very long time. Even when I occasionally don't agree with him, I cannot ever dispute his expertise and why he's saying something. Then again, I'm always astonished when people who actually know things are lambasted, but I guess that is the nature of the beast.

 

[Will Krupp]

Note that the 23-year-old Betty Grable's big break Down Argentine Way (1941 Fox) IS available on iTunes in HD; I own it and it looks AMAZING.

If it's the same transfer as is available in HD from Amazon, I have to say I'm underwhelmed. It's great the increased resolution gives a very solid, stable picture with solid, stable colors but the transfer is completely let down by being too dark, with a downright oppressive black level that tamps down the color "highs" and obscures fine detail. It's about 80% there.

 

[Joe Caps]

I finally watched all of the new Forever Amber last night - really awful.
The Egyptian back around 1999 or so ran a brand new print from Fox of this film, and THAT looked really good.
How is that possible?

 

[Joe Caps]

I got the new blu and it was painful to watch - so dark, and the color is out of whack.
A friend recommended that I get the Fox dvd.
Better. Its no thrill to look at, but it is watchable, which the TT blu is not.
BTW - when the Egyptian theater first reopened in L.A. Fox made a new print of Amber for the Egyptian - and it looked perfectly fine.

 

[JPCinema]

I watched the French blue ray release of Forever Amber last tonight. I am so glad that that version does not have the narration at the end which was imposed by the Legion of Decency which was on a few days ago on TCM.