Any reviews yet on Exodus? (1 Viewer)

[Danny_N]

I think that he got the info from Link Removed

This is the correct link to the Pacific Title website: http://www.pactitle.com/
No info on "Around The World" there that I could find other than it being mentioned in a list of titles they preserved/mastered (is this company doing digital "restoration" ala Lowry Digital Images or the "real" thing like Robert Harris?).

 

[Robert Crawford]

I believe RAH will have much more to say about this restoration issue with "Around the World in 80 Days"!

As far as "Exodus", I just watched my dvd of it on my Pro-710 with a RP-91 player. The film elements used needed some restoration work with the dvd transfer being mediocre to good at best. I've seen worse, but I've seen a lot better. I seriously doubt this title will be revisited, but you never know.



Crawdaddy

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

I hope that more information can be gleaned from Pac Title over how good the restoration, or whatever you want to call it is.
For Robert Harris:
Do you know what the condition of the 80 DaysTodd-AO 65mm camera negative was prior to Pacific Title was?
I wonder who sanctioned this "restoration" anyway? Warner? Who was it, and for what purpose? DVD reissue? Then why restore only the 65mm version? What condition is the alternate 35mm 2.55:1 CinemaScope version? I think that both versions should be made available.
This is nuts!
GCM

 

[TedD]

There is no alternate 2.55:1 35mm CinemaScope version to restore. This title was shot in 65mm, both at 24 FPS and 30 FPS.
The 24 FPS 65mm negative was the source for all 35mm versions.
I suggest you do a search both on this forum and on the internet
Here is a start:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto1.htm
Ted

 

[Patrick McCart]

Actually, roughly one reel of the movie was shot on 35mm.

The entire prologue was shot on 35mm (at 1.33:1) and optically enlarged (and windowboxed) on 65mm. The first bit of real 65mm started at the first shot of the rocket going off.

Obviously, the shots taken from inside the rocket are 16mm. It's hard to tell if the Trip to the Moon footage is from 16mm or 35mm. Either way, it was from some very dupey footage.

 

[Robert Harris]

Pacific Title / Mirage is one of the oldest of highest quality optical houses in Hollywood. While there are a few other entities which can match their quality in certain circumstances, IMHO nobody does it better.

We may be nitpicking here in regards to the word "restoration."

Removing laquer is not restoring a film.

I saw the original neg a number of years ago, and it wasn't pretty then. I would place even money on the fact that PT has created a new IP which will be digitally "restored" for DVD. There has not been a straight answer from WB on this title for years, especially after testing.

The "word" was that there was some fading, but the film was quite acceptable, but it would be very expensive to produce a print, but if a print was produced some people might complain that it didn't look right.

That's a whole collection of "buts."

The 30 frame seps have appareantly been misplaced.

One of the strange things about the 24fps version of this film is that non-sync footage, ie some long shots, street scenes, etc. was derived from the 30fps version, which means that many of these shots move very slowly.

Can the film be restored?

Certainly.

All it takes is a bit of money, all the pieces and some time and real effort.

RAH

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Yeah, Ted, I was thinking of Oklahoma! being shot in Todd-AO 65mm and 2.55:1 CinemaScope.

Not that it's a big deal. This stuff is all technical jargon anyway. Can't lose sight of what's really important - the greatness of Cinema itself. I think a lot of people here (myself included) get in too deep with the technical side of Cinema. People seem a bit too eager to jump on the technical errors and omissions of others. Leaves me a bit cold sometimes.

Oh well, never mind! :wink:


Gordy

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Thanks for your insights, Bob.
I try at all times to stay positive about all things Cinema. I'm not hip to going down the road of technical nitpicking. If all PT were paid to do was remove the laquer, and they did a great job of that, then... great! Sometimes, all you can do, is all you can do! :wink:
I've got a feeling in my bones that Warner are planning a 2 Disc Special Edition of Around The World In Eighty Days for late 2003, and like you said; they are perhaps going to digitally "restore" the scanned-in images from a new 35mm reduction IP made from the de-laquered 65mm camera negative.
We'll have to, as ever, wait and see what we see! :wink:
Thanks again, Bob.
Gordy

 

[Patrick McCart]

I had a feeling that this would be a DVD restoration...I guess we'll have to see.


The only thing I see weird is that the IP has been confirmed to be 65mm. Would it be more likely or efficient to do the digital restoration from a 65mm IP or from a 35mm reduction anamorphic IP from the "restored" negative? (like do a 35mm anamorphic IP straight from the 65mm via optical printer)

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm unaware of a 65mm IP. And yes, the way to handle this would be via transfer of a 35 IP. There is little or no additional information to be gained from a large format element to video.

RAH

 

[Joseph Goodman]

Not to split hairs (okay, I have every intention of splitting hairs!), but when you describe the "80 Days" camera negative as "not pretty", what kind of damage are you describing? Like damage from over-printing, or actual fading? Even vinegar?

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Well it's Tusday, so I'm off to Fry's to get my copy of Exodus.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Hmmmmm......I'm not happy. This new DVD is only marginally better than my VHS copy. And my VHS copy is recorded in LP mode from my (long trashed) CED copy. There's the fact that at least it's in OAR and has better sound. There's less colorbleed - look at Ms. Saint's first dress. The yellow bands bled into the white on the VHS, here they don't. But there's a huge amount of shimmering on exterior shots that should be crystal clear.

 

[Aaron Cohen]

DAMNIT! How hard would it have been to do a nice anamorphic transfer of this film? I know it has a four hour-long running length, but still, I think this film has the potential to look pretty nice in dual-layer format....I would be happy even if it was spread over two dics as long as a nice anamorphic picture was included! But on one disc with a non-anamorphic transfer??? Ugh...., MGM did a nice SE for UHF but skip over a SE for Exodus?

 

[Robert Crawford]

That certainly must be some VHS copy of Exodus you have then....... Yes, the dvd video presentation is not good in certain scenes, but it is far better than any VHS copy I've seen including a SP recorded version I own.




Crawdaddy

 

[Randy A Salas]

This new DVD is only marginally better than my VHS copy. And my VHS copy is recorded in LP mode from my (long trashed) CED copy. There's the fact that at least it's in OAR and has better sound.

OAR on this widescreen epic is only marginally better?

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Hey Crawdaddy, you want my VHS tape? It's yours. Otherwise it goes into the trash Monday morning.....
Don't forget that in its day CED was midway in quality between VHS and laserdisc.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Randy, I was commenting on the video quality not the presentation. I'm as disappointed in this release as Ronbo is on The Quiet Man. Especially since almost every other recent release from MGM has been uniformly good.

I should comment that I was reviewing the disk with a Tosh. SD-6200 through a transcoder/driver to an Electrohome 8501LC. With this rig, the difference between a VHS and a DVD is generally like night and day. In Exodus, it's more like night and about 6:30 am.

Oh well, at least it was only $14.99 at Frys.

 

[Randy A Salas]

I'm as disappointed in this release as Ronbo is on The Quiet Man.

Sadly, as I noted in my write-up in Tuesday's paper, Exodus is unlikely to be revisited anytime soon--especially considering how long it has taken this bare-bones, underwhelming release to come out.

 

[Joel Vardy]

I just today got my copy from DDD ($13.67 delivered) and viewed the entire epic. The quality was marginal (on my Mits WS-55805 and Sony DVP-NC655P) with lots of shimmering, as was previously stated. Otherwise, the sound and color saturation levels seemed OK (nothing to write home about mind you). It is a shame that an epic of this proportion with a decent cast/budget and some notable performances (from Sal Meneo for instance) would get such treatment from MGM. It would appear on the surface that there is some following for this film (Otto Preminger and Paul Newman fans?) that might have justified at least anamorphic treatment if not outright restoration.

It's a shame that Exodus has come out so many years after the introduction of the DVD technology phenomenon with this level of effort and not much likelihood of a revisit. This may be the best this film will ever look for the HT crowd on DVD. Maybe HD-DVD will warrant another try. One can only hope.

Joel