Which was the original point of the Warner Archive Collection, when they started releasing a bucket load of films on DVD-R instead of working on them to be BD-worthy. While I understand the lack of desire to buy a DVD-R from them when you could theoretically have a superior BD, if it's a matter of really wanting the films...
I also have some of their DVD-R releases and they were all quite bad even by DVD standards.
Where are you streaming the better looking version of Pat Garrett ? Yes, the 2 DVD set of that film (all of the versions) doesn't look as good as it could. I'm a huge Peckinpah fan and would love to see better transfers of those cobbled together versions. Paul Seydor is the expert on the troublesome original elements. And money is an issue.
The quality of Warner Archive DVD-Rs varies enormously. I too have some very poor discs - Saratoga Trunk, The Time, The Place And The Girl - but I also have several really good ones. The variation in quality of the discs reflects the variation in quality of the elements. It's not caused by the DVD format.
All the discs I checked were single layer even for longer movies and therefore some had relatively low bitrate when I checked back in the day. I think the last one I watched was WESTBOUND and that also looked really rough.
I still have a decent HD transfer of Pat Garrett on my Tivo from when TCM were showing it, & it looks very good, but unfortunately it's the Seydor cut & I much prefer the Turner cut. I think you need both of those cuts (just like the DVD set), but I do think it's going to be a job finding all the negative bits to scan to make both versions & maybe for some shots they'd have to use an interpos. or some dupe. There was a buzz over at blu-ray.com when a film maker revealed that he'd done a commentary & word is that Criterion are working on it. We'll see.
| A BIT MORE ON HAMLET "I decided not to use filters. It would be pointless to strive for the finest possible images by using 65mm and then to degrade those same images by using filters. It was the right decision. The film is so sharp it almost looks like 3D; the quality is amazing." Nick Milner - 2nd Unit Camera Operator "The designers gave us absolutely fantastic sets. The extra quality of the bigger format reproduced such brilliant images perfectly." Neil Farrell - Editor "Compared with 35mm, filming in 65mm allows directors to make much greater use of wide shots because of its enhanced definition and detail. This is particularly true with Hamlet, where magnificent costumes and sets of stunning opulence are shown in their full splendor." David Appleby - Grip "I had a brilliant time filming in 65mm. We did some fabulous 360° tracks around the magnificent set, where all the rooms and corridors had been built on the same level. An unforgettable experience." | |
"We made our traditional matte paintings about twice the normal size and filmed them on 65mm 5293. When cloning soldiers digitally in the bigger format we needed a lot more storage and computer memory. Otherwise making SFX for 65mm is essentially the same as for 35mm. It is only the superior finished quality that highlights the differences!" Chyna Thomson - Focus-puller "Filming in 65mm sharpens the mind of the focus-puller unbelievably! On close-ups there is little depth of field to work with. And Kenneth made us push the boundaries of film making to extremes. We did the most incredible close-ups - despite the lack of depth. But 65mm is beautiful. You see so much more colour; so much more detail in the actors and their costumes. It's a wonderful format." Martin Kenzie - Camera Operator "You see such a big picture in the viewfinder it is not easy to encompass everything in one look. It was a fantastic experience to work on such an epic production and to see the results of your efforts on screen. So outstandingly resolved and sharp." Bob Crowdey - Technicolor "Some people think that 65mm is the format of yesterday. They're wrong. It is the format of tomorrow. As film budgets get bigger, the small increase to the overall cost of production using the larger format becomes a smaller percentage. If the film contains spectacle, grandeur, breathtaking panoramic scenes - then there are very good reasons for shooting on 65mm. In marketing terms, the added value of the superior picture quality easily outweighs the small cost increase." | |
"Come, give us a taste of your quality" | |
|
Certainly the thread title would not indicate that it should be included but then this goes for many movies that have been mentioned
I also prefer the Turner cut although not by that much. Would be nice to have all three or at least the two longer cuts on Blu-ray.
More "converted" than blown up. Technirama had far more resolution than conventional 35mm.
By the time these film were released, projecting 70mm, which is an art unto itself, was in a bad place. The images captured on film are not always accurately projected.Certainly the thread title would not indicate that it should be included but then this goes for many movies that have been mentioned
I had a different reaction to seeing it (and Far and Away) theatrically as I did not find that it had the cinematography that would have made it evident why it should have been shot in 70mm but I am aware that others had a much different reaction, maybe I saw a bad print.
In any case this should be an easy one if Warner wants to release it in better quality, it is just a matter of going.
While that is certainly true, the image quality on Warner's Blu was decidedly NOT what was intended by Branagh or his cinematographer - piggy pink flesh tones, and nowhere near the amount of fine detail anticipated throughout. Warner's Blu was a brightly colored, occasionally gaudy affair, sans grain, minute detail and otherwise, all the virtues a large format image should have easily produced in 1080p and would very nicely reproduce in 4K. Here's to hoping...anyway!
No one is making excuses for the old Blu, which was presumably derived from 35mm.
Totally agree, Robert. I just consider myself extremely fortunate to have seen Branagh's masterpiece in a theater and was absolutely blown away by it on virtually every artistic level. 70mm was merely one of the movie's many, far-reaching attributes. Best.
Actually, Robert, you've brought up a great point I sincerely wish you'd elaborate upon, namely, how does a projectionist create the best visual representation of the filmmaker's original work on the screen in the theater. What sort of projector calibrations do they perform, and do they follow any notes from the studio as to what is expected to ensure the image looks as the filmmaker's intended? Any light you could shed (no pun intended) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
