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

[Alberto_D]

Mr Harris, I would like to see a original 3 strip print projection. But I'm too far away to visit any place able to do so.

All restorer who worked with 3 strip use to say no video system can reproduce it, the "glow of colors", even if many original prints, like from 30's, looks quite bad on video transfer or. The original print of Gone With The Wind, showed in the restoration documentary how it was used for color study reference, looked very poor.
Looking to the video, to such contrast and look of the 3 strip from GWTW, it's difficult to imagine such thing can look good in a real projection.
For other side, a HD transfer from Guliver's Travel, made in 50's dye tranfer technology, looked fine.

I have no real problem with the review. As I said the text it's very good. Just the score sounds a bit optimistic, probably considering the difficult task the restorers had with poor surviving elements.

 

[Robert Harris]

Mr Harris, I would like to see a original 3 strip print projection. But I'm too far away to visit any place able to do so.

All restorer who worked with 3 strip use to say no video system can reproduce it, the "glow of colors", even if many original prints, like from 30's, looks quite bad on video transfer or. The original print of Gone With The Wind, showed in the restoration documentary how it was used for color study reference, looked very poor.
Looking to the video, to such contrast and look of the 3 strip from GWTW, it's difficult to imagine such thing can look good in a real projection.
For other side, a HD transfer from Guliver's Travel, made in 50's dye tranfer technology, looked fine.

I have no real problem with the review. As I said the text it's very good. Just the score sounds a bit optimistic, probably considering the difficult task the restorers had with poor surviving elements.

I think I'm out and I get pulled back in again...

Forever Amber may be many things, but it is not a "restoration."

 

[Alberto_D]

Do you mind If I ask you how much better it is, in terms of colors and contrast, and shadow details, compared to this DVD edition ?

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/dvd_reviews_59/forever_amber.htm


Please don't tell me it's the same transfer from this edition :

https://www.cinefaniac.fr/dvd/test-466-foreveramber-ottopreminger.html

I would not undertand people finding this (below) as acceptable image for color and contrast. I looks more like a color newspaper :

Even worse for these other examples :

For me a film can have Imax resolution, but if colors and constrast are horrible, the image it's horrible.

I watched this early this morning with a cup of coffee(nothing like coffee, and a movie to start your day) and was happily satisfied with it.

 

[Matt Hough]

Yes, I think the key bit to be gleaned from this discussion is that the text of the video review is far more important than a number rating. If it was just about numbers, I wouldn't bother writing anything; I'd just slap a number on it and go along to another movie. I myself place a lot more attention to RAH's (and other writers') words and less to number ratings.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I find numbers so very hard to come up with, especially with titles like this.

What's the appropriate number for "This film looks as good as it could possibly look in 2018, and is a perfectly satisfactory disc representing the best surviving film elements, but can never look the way it did on its original release thanks to poor asset management over half a century ago"?

 

[Bryan^H]

Do you mind If I ask you how much better it is, in terms of colors and contrast, and shadow details, compared to this DVD edition ?

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/dvd_reviews_59/forever_amber.htm


Please don't tell me it's the same transfer from this edition :

https://www.cinefaniac.fr/dvd/test-466-foreveramber-ottopreminger.html

I would not undertand people finding this (below) as acceptable image for color and contrast. I looks more like a color newspaper :

Even worse for these other examples :

For me a film can have Imax resolution, but if colors and constrast are horrible, the image it's horrible.

I'm not sure what the problem is. My screen captures are fairly close to the images you posted. It looks fine to me.

Better than the Fox Cinema Archives disc....do you have that one?

 

[Robin9]

I would thank if someone could post screen captures to allow me have a better idea of how exactly it looks. But I presume it don't look very good. And very good it's not just about sharpness and grain, but a contrast/ dynamic and colors.

If you want to know how the disc presents the film, buy the disc!

 

[Alberto_D]

Sorry to say, I really have no intention to be rude or unkind to anybody, but I'm afraid you and others are way more tolerant to image quality than me, at least in terms of colors and dynamic range.
I can't accept a technicolor film looking gray, muddy, crushed, much more than a non technicolor film. For me it look like a color newspaper page.

If this bellow it's fine to you, I don't know what else can I say :

For me this particular screngrab it's a xerox...

Why spent $$$$$ with 4K transfer and manage colors so poorly ?
Maybe the commercial color correction softwares available are not designed for this particular kind of situation, and fail to adjust even the middle tones color and contrast.
If shadows tones are mostly lost, at least middle range and highlights should (in theory) be possible to get better adjusts.

The encoding codecs used for HD (TV and Blu Ray) are in general so poor, that even little adjusts in gamma, to try get more a bit more from shadows, tends to make a lot of digital artefacts visible. And most editions have some artefacts in shadows even without push gamma.
One more problem to watch films in cases like that.

I'm not sure what the problem is. My screen captures are fairly close to the images you posted. It looks fine to me.

Better than the Fox Cinema Archives disc....do you have that one?

 

[Alberto_D]

I understand you may think my insistence was anoying. Sorry if I created this feeling in this topic.
But I believe people have the right to know what they are buying. Otherwise the purpose of many web reviews, specially DVD Beaver and Blu-Ray.Com, would be lost.

Anyway Bryan's reply helped to find out this edition looks not good anyway.
Hope better digital tools be developed one day to better and easier manage situations like this.

If you want to know how the disc presents the film, buy the disc!

 

[Bryan^H]

I understand you may think my insistence was anoying. Sorry if I created this feeling in this topic.
But I believe people have the right to know what they are buying. Otherwise the purpose of many web reviews, specially DVD Beaver and Blu-Ray.Com, would be lost.

Anyway Bryan's reply helped to find out this edition looks not good anyway.
Hope better digital tools be developed one day to better and easier manage situations like this.

Well in my opinion you are missing out if you like this movie and passing on it. I think it is the best it will ever look.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well in my opinion you are missing out if you like this movie and passing on it. I think it is the best it will ever look.

Well, that’s his loss.

 

[Alberto_D]

Never say never.
I hope one day technology evolve to solve or attenuate further these problems.

 

[Alberto_D]

I'm not saying I did a good work (color correcting these images), or even that's acceptable, specially because I used screen captures (source compressed by HD encoding and for jpeg of screengrabs creating artefacts that are also anhanced when trying to work hiden details and tones). It also enhanced some color bleeding and banding that was present in the original image got from web, and creates some chroma effect.

But I feel these example shows that perhaps more could be done to make middle tones and some highlights looks better, if working from professional files rich bits uncompressed, wtih new created tools specially for cases like that :

I believe the industry could, or should, create new and better tools to manage color in film restoration projects.
I don't intent to be arrogant. I just wish more could be done to try to restore old films.

 

[Thomas T]

While I understand everyone's desire that a film be presented in the best possible transfer with as close a representation of the film's original look, that simply isn't always possible. For me, it's always about the film. No matter how pristine a film looks and sounds, if it's a crappy film, it's not going to make the film any better. Yet a good film, even with faded colors, some debris here and there etc. will always hook me in.

 

[Alberto_D]

I found I'm not alone :

http://nixpixdvdmoviereviewsandmore...2/forever-amber-blu-ray-2oth-century-fox.html

"Forever Amber arrives on Blu-ray via Twilight Time, alas, with far less than stellar results. At the time Fox chose to release this movie via its MOD/DVD archive, I considered that disc nothing better than a Frisbee. I now suspect these very same elements have been regurgitated for this new to Blu release. What an ugly little mess it is! The main titles appear crisp and inviting. But once we move into the body of the piece it’s the same old story. We all know the history of Fox’s short-sightedness in the mid-1970’s; junking virtually all of their original 3-strip Technicolor elements and archiving only poorly contrasted (oft, misregistered) Eastman IP’s for posterity. Badly done, but especially for a picture like Forever Amber, on which Zanuck had lavished a grotesque amount of time and money (the picture, holding the dubious distinction of being the most expensive movie ever made at Fox from 1947 to 1956). Virtually none of these assets are on full display in this abysmal and very second-rate 1080p offering.
We have witnessed Fox work minor miracles on other back catalog suffering a similar fate; Leave Her To Heaven(1945), Captain from Castile (1947) and Niagara (1953) among them. Make no mistake: none of the aforementioned accurately recaptures the vibrancy of vintage Technicolor either. But at least they sport reasonably attractive and refined images, with considerable color correction and image stabilization applied to illicit a watchable incarnation. Forever Amber has not been the recipient of such attention to detail. I would argue, this is not even a new scan from Fox because what I am seeing here looks suspiciously close to my DVD-viewing experience with marginal improvements in overall image resolution. Flesh tones are atrociously orange here. The whole image tends to lean rather severely towards dark and muddy navy blues and/or pinkish reds. We get clumpy colors throughout that, at times, suggest an almost ‘colorized’ approach to a vintage B&W movie.

Worse, minor edge enhancement has been applied to an image that, for the most part, is sorely lacking in any fine detail, is frequently soft, slightly out of focus to downright blurry, and sports amplified film grain and weaker than anticipated contrast. This renders dark, or dimly lit scenes (of which there are many) a muddy and indistinguishable mess. Honestly, this is one of the worst looking 1080p transfers to emerge from Fox’s mastering facilities. I find nothing remotely redeemable to recommend it to you! In no way does Forever Amber minutely hint, or even aspire to replicate its vintage Technicolor. There are moments where only disembodied heads are discernible on the screen, floating in a sea of murky blue-blackness. Misalignment of the original 3-strip Technicolor also results in very annoying halos throughout this transfer.
Lastly, the Fox logo appearing at the beginning of Forever Amber is not indigenous to the period – but rather from a vintage owing to the late 70’s, window-boxed to give the illusion it belongs, and, significantly grainier than the rest of the image that follows it. In the 70’s it became something of the mis-guided fashion among all of the studios to take their older movies, lop off the original logos and insert what was then their more contemporary alternatives. Dumb! Ridiculous practice, indeed. Fox could have easily unearthed a vintage logo to reinstate for this transfer. A good many Fox movies from this same vintage have already found their way to Blu-ray with the gaudy-hue Technicolor Fox logo. So, how hard could it have been to do the same here?!? Also, if this transfer has been derived from a new 4K scan, as it has been advertised, it's one of the most disheartening examples I have ever seen - period! "

While I understand everyone's desire that a film be presented in the best possible transfer with as close a representation of the film's original look, that simply isn't always possible. For me, it's always about the film. No matter how pristine a film looks and sounds, if it's a crappy film, it's not going to make the film any better. Yet a good film, even with faded colors, some debris here and there etc. will always hook me in.

 

[Robert Harris]

I found I'm not alone :

http://nixpixdvdmoviereviewsandmore...2/forever-amber-blu-ray-2oth-century-fox.html

"Forever Amber arrives on Blu-ray via Twilight Time, alas, with far less than stellar results. At the time Fox chose to release this movie via its MOD/DVD archive, I considered that disc nothing better than a Frisbee. I now suspect these very same elements have been regurgitated for this new to Blu release. What an ugly little mess it is! The main titles appear crisp and inviting. But once we move into the body of the piece it’s the same old story. We all know the history of Fox’s short-sightedness in the mid-1970’s; junking virtually all of their original 3-strip Technicolor elements and archiving only poorly contrasted (oft, misregistered) Eastman IP’s for posterity. Badly done, but especially for a picture like Forever Amber, on which Zanuck had lavished a grotesque amount of time and money (the picture, holding the dubious distinction of being the most expensive movie ever made at Fox from 1947 to 1956). Virtually none of these assets are on full display in this abysmal and very second-rate 1080p offering.
We have witnessed Fox work minor miracles on other back catalog suffering a similar fate; Leave Her To Heaven(1945), Captain from Castile (1947) and Niagara (1953) among them. Make no mistake: none of the aforementioned accurately recaptures the vibrancy of vintage Technicolor either. But at least they sport reasonably attractive and refined images, with considerable color correction and image stabilization applied to illicit a watchable incarnation. Forever Amber has not been the recipient of such attention to detail. I would argue, this is not even a new scan from Fox because what I am seeing here looks suspiciously close to my DVD-viewing experience with marginal improvements in overall image resolution. Flesh tones are atrociously orange here. The whole image tends to lean rather severely towards dark and muddy navy blues and/or pinkish reds. We get clumpy colors throughout that, at times, suggest an almost ‘colorized’ approach to a vintage B&W movie.

Worse, minor edge enhancement has been applied to an image that, for the most part, is sorely lacking in any fine detail, is frequently soft, slightly out of focus to downright blurry, and sports amplified film grain and weaker than anticipated contrast. This renders dark, or dimly lit scenes (of which there are many) a muddy and indistinguishable mess. Honestly, this is one of the worst looking 1080p transfers to emerge from Fox’s mastering facilities. I find nothing remotely redeemable to recommend it to you! In no way does Forever Amber minutely hint, or even aspire to replicate its vintage Technicolor. There are moments where only disembodied heads are discernible on the screen, floating in a sea of murky blue-blackness. Misalignment of the original 3-strip Technicolor also results in very annoying halos throughout this transfer.
Lastly, the Fox logo appearing at the beginning of Forever Amber is not indigenous to the period – but rather from a vintage owing to the late 70’s, window-boxed to give the illusion it belongs, and, significantly grainier than the rest of the image that follows it. In the 70’s it became something of the mis-guided fashion among all of the studios to take their older movies, lop off the original logos and insert what was then their more contemporary alternatives. Dumb! Ridiculous practice, indeed. Fox could have easily unearthed a vintage logo to reinstate for this transfer. A good many Fox movies from this same vintage have already found their way to Blu-ray with the gaudy-hue Technicolor Fox logo. So, how hard could it have been to do the same here?!? Also, if this transfer has been derived from a new 4K scan, as it has been advertised, it's one of the most disheartening examples I have ever seen - period! "

You’re not only flogging that horse, but quoting someone who doesn’t understand the technology.

Time to buy a copy, support a Twilght Time, and move on.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You’re not only flogging that horse, but quoting someone who doesn’t understand the technology.

Time to buy a copy, support a Twilght Time, and move on.

Yeah, that horse has been beaten to death!

 

[Will Krupp]

We have witnessed Fox work minor miracles on other back catalog suffering a similar fate; Leave Her To Heaven(1945), Captain from Castile (1947) and Niagara (1953) among them. Make no mistake: none of the aforementioned accurately recaptures the vibrancy of vintage Technicolor either. But at least they sport reasonably attractive and refined images, with considerable color correction and image stabilization applied to illicit a watchable incarnation.

I don't believe that Fox destroyed their three strip acetate materials so NIAGARA doesn't belong on this list. Also, the word is "elicit."

 

[ahollis]

I have watched the Blu-ray twice with friends. I don’t have any problems with it and they didn’t either for it looks good to us and the story is great. Time to step off the soapbox. We know you don’t like it, even though you have not seen it.

 

[Nick*Z]

You’re not only flogging that horse, but quoting someone who doesn’t understand the technology.

Time to buy a copy, support a Twilght Time, and move on.

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!