Consider these: Old castle=candle light....c1800 dwellings=gas light....nighttime=little light, and finally tombs=no light....and a comparison to my own 35MM print...very close..... I'm happy, so from my end I'll no longer labor this point..Next?Reed Grele said:
From the Monsters HD broadcast: If the frame from Mr. Collins review is an accurate representation of the color grading, I prefer the color from the broadcast version as there is more separation in the color, despite the fact that it is cropped more.Reed Grele said:
I'll let you know when I see the actual disc as neither cap is probably of any value at all. All I can tell you is the sky looks much more correct to the IB prints than your other cap, which is too BROWN and not right at all. Have you seen an IB print? This is all moot, however - we'll know when we get the disc what the story really is.Stephen PI said:
Sorry, you have no idea how either shot was captured and posted - the captured shots on the current transfer are especially bad on that guy's review site. This is what happens all the time, but I suggest respectfully once again that the current transfer is actually viewed first. There are caps for movies on DVD Beaver where DVD caps look more detailed than the Blu-ray. This kind of rush to judgment has happened many times, and when the transfer is finally viewed everyone has to go, "Oops, lots of detail - that cap wasn't this detailed." We shall see in a few weeks.johnSM said:
Some good points Bruce. Also, If I may, the HD cap is not from the same precise moment in time, (Harker looking up on the HD, to the side on the bluray) and any camera movement (even the film just passing through the filmgate) can cause some blurring between frames creating an effect of detail "loss".haineshisway said:
Not on stationary elements within the frame. Only those in movement. The only change would be the grain pattern.
Good point, too. People seem to enjoy the caps game, but it's usually for naught - I'm still hopeful this will look okay in terms of detail and clarity. Color-wise it already looks okay, although again, have to see the actual disc to know just how okay. But again, the color is completely off in the HD cap - too brown.bgart13 said:
I'm stationary right now and yet am blurring and my grain structure is not stable. I hate when that happens. But at my age - oh, well.Robert Harris said:
Hello Robert and thanks for the correction... My question to you is, can you recommend a book or article on film restoration?Robert Harris said:
Nice piece, but it once again, asks more questions than it answers.
that was suppose to be a joke I didn't think they were trying to be serious with that image.Bob Furmanek said:Their technical knowledge seems limited. I remember when they posted this image on their site last year and suggested that DRACULA was composed for 1.37.
From what I've been told the people on the commentary and in the featurettes are saying - it was a dye transfer reference print. That's second-hand info, though. What's really funny about this Hammer response is that it sounds like a composite of posts made by you and meRobert Harris said:
Maybe we're having an effect after all!
Mmm, you're not going to get rich reds & greens with a cold tone, & I still don't know how the BFI "restored" this, apart from inserting a few shots from a Japanese print (which I'd rather not have ,they weren't there on any UK cinema showings at the time). As far as I know (which is not much), Warner printed an interpositive. from the original negs & sent it to the BFI, & they worked from that, hardly a restoration. Oh well, not long now.John Hodson said:
