A PEEK AT SCOTT OF THE ANTARCTIC (1 Viewer)

[haineshisway]

First off, I had a stunning 16mm dye transfer print of this film, which showed off Jack Cardiff's splendid photography splendidly and gorgeously. I couldn't wait to get my hands on this new Blu-ray.

The film began. The main titles were okay. But as soon as we got the first scene I found the registration slightly off and the color a bit pinkish. But the biggest problem was the audio, perhaps the worst I have ever heard on any DVD or Blu-ray, what you'd expect from a PD company, not from a major company. Ralph Vaughan-Williams' score is one of the all-time greats - not here, because it's out of phase, distorted, and sounds pretty awful. It sounds like they used a modern sound reader, which, I learned when transferring my film doesn't work for older films - we found that out when the sound for my film sounded horrible, and the guy tried it on an older reader and voila, problem solved.

I couldn't imagine this was a brand new transfer, and other than the "digitally restored" on the packaging there is no mention of it. Some scenes looked better than others, but overall there was a bit of color pulsing and the aforementioned slightly out of register shots, plus the bit of pink that renders things very pastel in certain sequences (there was nothing pastel about this in my dye transfer print). So, imagine my surprise when I watched the restoration featurette, that said they did a new transfer off the separation masters. So, either the colorist had no idea what this film originally looked like, which could explain why a few sequences look okay while others don't - if he's just playing a guessing game that's what would happen. But it should sound no different and certainly no worse than the Black Narcissus or Red Shoes Blu-rays or ANY Brit film of that era where the sound is excellent mono on any number of discs.

I've went and read about five "reviews" of this disc from England, four of which - wait for it - don't even mention the transfer, and the fifth of which does, and gives it almost five stars along with the sound, which means the reviewer is a kid. Even on Amazon UK the transfer gets high marks - they're probably watching the restoration thing and just assuming it's amazing when they simply would not know what it should be, especially the sound. I'll be curious to hear other folks' thoughts.

Thanks to Dr. Griffin for telling me how to edit the thread title

 

[Dick]

I was hoping someone would review this, as I've had it in my Amazon UK queue for a while. While I appreciate your knowledgeable comments about it, Bruce...you ruined my day! I really admire this film, and I had hoped that, like the Ealing comedies that have come forth on Blu-ray (and the horror classic DEAD OF NIGHT), it would look better than any prior video release. However, it sounds as though I am simply going to have to keep my DVD and assume that is the best I will attain it in my lifetime. BTW, do you no longer have your 16mm print and, if not, why not?

 

[haineshisway]

I have the DVD somewhere and I'll try to find it. I'm sure it's better than the DVD. I try not to be too harsh, and perhaps folks will be okay with the image, but how anyone, anywhere could think this is good sound is beyond me.

I simply think that Warners and whoever they use for their compositing and Robert Harris's knowledge of this stuff is unmatched. I'd be curious to hear Robert's thoughts.

 

[Malcolm Bmoor]

I've written here before about the over processing of sound in the attempt to remove all noise and hiss. The result is usually the same as SCOTT (which I've so far neither seen nor heard).

Here in the UK many older films prepared for tv showing are brutally gated and overly digitally processed and once when I contacted Channel 4 they denied any treatment whatsoever.

There's a newish station called LONDON LIVE and many of their archive British Cinema presentations are unlistenable.

I believe the culprits to be a combination of ignorant people: Those who have no historical knowledge and those who believe a drastic infliction of processing will yield modern sound quality.

But worst of all it's the lack of objective monitoring. I wonder at the listening background of these awful engineers and company people who have no idea what constitutes good sound and what compromises have to be made to deliver older material at its best.

Obviously the same goes for the picture.

 

[Alan Tully]

Yes, optical sound can be a problem if you don't the right kit. You really need a mono reader for a mono track (& various sound heads can sound so different, I think it's best if the company doing this work is big & has a good choice of kit to choose from). The big problem is, if you only have a negative optical track & no print, the sound from the optical negative sounds thin with no bottom & can be a bit sibilant, a bit of knob twiddling will improve it, but it will never sound as good as optical sound from a print (unless someone has solved that problem).

 

[Robert Harris]

Mr. Hains,

You don't seem to understand the basic concepts of Techcolor.

These films were photographed by four different cameras, generally produced by different companies.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to line up four cameras, and find three lenses, that are all about the same, and then get your exposures correct?

Generally the fourth camera was placed in the center, and recorded audio on special hi-fi Black & White negative stock. Audio stock was always safety, DI-acetate, which shrinks over time, changing the pitxpch of the audio. It generally had a turret, with a bank of lenses of different focal lengths, which were able to grab audio at different distances.

I would have placed that camera on the end, and moved the three with lenses closer together.

If someone wishes to produce a Blu-ray, all four original cameras must be located, and re-positioned precisely.

That's a really, really, hard thing to do.

So let's have no more complaints about things not matching up properly. Did you make that specific request when you ordered the disc?

Best to return it and get another disc. But make your request properly this time.

And stop picking on audio quality. What you're hearing is what all productions sounded like in the late '40s, when the photographed audio was printed on the edges of the film between those holes.

Audio didn't get better until 1982, when Thomas Dolby made his first recordings.

Why can't people do a bit of research before they post their complaints?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

That's how to do a rebuttal.

 

[haineshisway]

I knew you knew all about this, Robert Harris. I think my error was in not buying four different discs and running them concurrently. I've just ordered three more discs and I'll report back if this solves any of the problems.

 

[B-ROLL]

Mr. Hains,

You don't seem to understand the basic concepts of Techcolor.

These films were photographed by four different cameras, generally produced by different companies.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to line up four cameras, and find three lenses, that are all about the same, and then get your exposures correct?

Generally the fourth camera was placed in the center, and recorded audio on special hi-fi Black & White negative stock. Audio stock was always safety, DI-acetate, which shrinks over time, changing the pitxpch of the audio. It generally had a turret, with a bank of lenses of different focal lengths, which were able to grab audio at different distances.

I would have placed that camera on the end, and moved the three with lenses closer together.

If someone wishes to produce a Blu-ray, all four original cameras must be located, and re-positioned precisely.

That's a really, really, hard thing to do.

So let's have no more complaints about things not matching up properly. Did you make that specific request when you ordered the disc?

Best to return it and get another disc. But make your request properly this time.

And stop picking on audio quality. What you're hearing is what all productions sounded like in the late '40s, when the photographed audio was printed on the edges of the film between those holes.

Audio didn't get better until 1982, when Thomas Dolby made his first recordings.

Why can't people do a bit of research before they post their complaints?

I've been blinded by Science !

 

[commander richardson]

I was hoping someone would review this, as I've had it in my Amazon UK queue for a while. While I appreciate your knowledgeable comments about it, Bruce...you ruined my day! I really admire this film, and I had hoped that, like the Ealing comedies that have come forth on Blu-ray (and the horror classic DEAD OF NIGHT), it would look better than any prior video release. However, it sounds as though I am simply going to have to keep my DVD and assume that is the best I will attain it in my lifetime. BTW, do you no longer have your 16mm print and, if not, why not?

I can 100% assure you that the new BD of this movie is 100 times better than the DVD ...........so if you are in the mood for chucking anything out make 100% certain it is the DVD.................the BD is fantastic in both picture and sound...............

 

[Robert Harris]

I can 100% assure you that the new BD of this movie is 100 times better than the DVD ...........so if you are in the mood for chucking anything out make 100% certain it is the DVD.................the BD is fantastic in both picture and sound...............

Although I've not seen this disc, no doubt Bruce's comments are correct. I too, once had a dye transfer 16, and color was superb.

The realities of this are simple.

There should be zero problem registering most shots, unless there were specific camera related problems. One must have the desire to do so.

Color is simple, based upon three strip material, as reference of quality survives.

Once again, the big trick here is to use correct reference.

The biggest problem with Blu-rays based upon three-strip elements, will be seen when Eastman dupes are used as a basis, with problems burned into the dupes.

But even then, there are fixes, if one wishes to bother.

Bottom line, three-strip represented on Blu-ray or even UHD, should have no registration issues. Even the red record can be made to fit a bit better than it did originally, and the final image massaged into Technicolor beauty.

 

[B-ROLL]

Although I've not seen this disc, no doubt Bruce's comments are correct. I too, once had a dye transfer 16, and color was superb.

The realities of this are simple.

There should be zero problem registering most shots, unless there were specific camera related problems. One must have the desire to do so.

Color is simple, based upon three strip material, as reference of quality survives.

Once again, the big trick here is to use correct reference.

The biggest problem with Blu-rays based upon three-strip elements, will be seen when Eastman dupes are used as a basis, with problems burned into the dupes.

But even then, there are fixes, if one wishes to bother.

Bottom line, three-strip represented on Blu-ray or even UHD, should have no registration issues. Even the red record can be made to fit a bit better than it did originally, and the final image massaged into Technicolor beauty.

The Criterion Blurays for "The Life & Death of Colonel Blimp" & "The Red Shoes" both show examples of out-of registration 3-strip Technicolor and the corrections of same as a special feature. The films themselves are in proper registration

 

[haineshisway]

I can 100% assure you that the new BD of this movie is 100 times better than the DVD ...........so if you are in the mood for chucking anything out make 100% certain it is the DVD.................the BD is fantastic in both picture and sound...............

Well, see, there you are. The sound is horrible. Sorry. It's a fact. If you don't hear that I don't know what to tell you. You cannot tell me you don't hear the awful distortion in the music - if you don't, then I have to imagine that you just don't know from sound, and that's okay. It's what I've been doing for a living for the last twenty-three years - my ears never lie. It is, in fact, the worst-sounding disc (not counting PD titles) I've EVER heard and that's saying something. I'm glad you like the image - fantastic is a word I would not use, but like Mr. Harris, I know what the film should look like.