It's a mad mad mad mad world (2 Viewers)

[RolandL]

Originally Posted by Techman707
I finally got to see the MGM-HD version of IAMMMMW that was broadcast on April 1st. That is from THE SAME HD master that the SD DVDs were originally made from, it's NOT a new master. While most of the transfer looks okay, for the most part, the titles STILL look like crap AND STILL HAVE THE WRONG COLORS. While I realize if you don't know what the proper color is you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, the wrong end title color alone changes the whole "feel" of the picture for me. The disolve from the hospital ward, which should be to a full light YELLOW screen (with a white "the end" in the middle) is now muddy orange/reddish brown.

And while I don't know what they made that HD master from, I'm virtually certain it wasn't made from ANYTHING CLOSE to any 65mm elements.

You are CERTAINLY RIGHT....calling it "restored" would be incorrect....to say the least. But they DO need to restore, at least, the main title, intermission snipe and end screen to reflect the proper colors. If they need a reference, I'd be glad to supply it.

I have screen shots of the DVD and the MGMHD broadcast on my web site - http://www.cineramahistory.com/iammmmwhddvd.htm . They do not look like they came from the same master.

 

[Sam Posten]

I'm not really familiar with Satellite HD recording formats, is it possible to convert a stored copy on DVR to something like h.264 on a PC? I'd kill to have a copy with that much detail on my iPad... I may have to handbrake my DVD copy in the meanwhile....

 

[plinfesty]

The MGMHD transfer was obviously taken from the same sourse as the 70mm print I saw at the Cinerama Dome (Arclight) presentation I saw back in 1963...from the Ultra-Panavision 70 cut print (remember, the film was shown in this cut form for MOST of its roadshow run, as it was cut a couple of months after the world premiere). Anyway, there is considerable more information in the image that Roland provided then existed from the previous DVD (which looked like it was sourced from a 35mm element), and the opening credits have the same faded, damaged look to them. The only thing missing from what that new 2003 print I saw are the police calls and En'tracte. (The legendary police calls are a nice inclusion, but turned out not be be as big a deal as they were hyped). Oddly, while the intermission card and the "So let's go to the lobby..." song were included on the MGMHD showing, they didn't take a commercial break here, which would have been natural, but instead waited for a few minutes into part two to do so. Sloppy. Otherwise, an incredible broadcast in the full UP70 2.71 ratio (the key to this is seeing ALL the faces as they peer down into the dug up hole. Several are cut off on the sides in the 35mm Panavision version).

 

[JSLasher]

Dear Robert,

Fifth Continent Australia P/L is considering whether or not to make a corporate donation to assist in the restoration of "The Alamo". However, the earliest that we could do so would be during the 2011/2012 financial year. Would you kindly email me at The Kinopanorama Widescreen Preservation Association to discuss this. Go to the website for contact details.

Sincerely Yours,

John Steven Lasher
Producer - Director

 

[Sam Posten]

PM might work better!

 

[Techman707]

Originally Posted by RolandL


I have screen shots of the DVD and the MGMHD broadcast on my web site - http://www.cineramahistory.com/iammmmwhddvd.htm . They do not look like they came from the same master.

The fact that they cropped the DVD version from the master doesn't mean anything. The main differences you are showing are just contrast, brightness, saturation, etc. Not only is it the same master, the master wasn't transferred from any 70mm (65mm) elements.

Nevertheless, it would STILL make a nice Blu-ray (but I would crop it to a 2.40 AR or supply both on the Blu-ray), but there doesn't seem to be anyone at the switch at MGM (or the current entity that calls itself MGM), so I wouldn't hold my breadth waiting for them to release the Blu-ray./img/vbsmilies/htf/frown.gif

 

[plinfesty]

Not only is it the same master, the master wasn't transferred from any 70mm (65mm) elements.

And on what basis are you making this claim? The width is coming from UP70. The standard 35mm version was coming from a cropped 35mm Panavision source. It was cropped from making the 35mm reduction prints, not from cropping the DVD from the original source. By your own admission, the film should be cropped to 2.4 for a new BD, but that could onlky happen if they were transferring from the original SP 70 source.

 

[Robert Harris]

Certainly appears to be the new master.

 

[Techman707]

Originally Posted by plinfesty

And on what basis are you making this claim? The width is coming from UP70. The standard 35mm version was coming from a cropped 35mm Panavision source. It was cropped from making the 35mm reduction prints, not from cropping the DVD from the original source. By your own admission, the film should be cropped to 2.4 for a new BD, but that could onlky happen if they were transferring from the original SP 70 source.

There are a lot of different thing being said here so let's take them one at a time. I certainly admit that the AR of the so called "new" master is 2.76, which would be correct for Ultra Panavision. However, that has nothing to do with my wanting to see a 2.40 crop. That's just my personal opinion because 2.76 looks like hell to most people and if it was good enough for the theatrical prints, it's okay with me.

All I know is that what was shown on MGM-HD was from the same master that they used for the Laser Disc of IAMMMMW (also 2.76), and then used for the 2001 DVD release. I had contact with the digital lab that did the transfer back at that time. In addition, I can't believe it's possible to get the colors wrong the same way TWICE, nearly 10 years apart. If anyone can demonstrate that it's different, I'm open to listen. I wish I was wrong. I haven't had a chance to check my 16mm print (which I know they crop the height when they go to 16mm) because it looks to me that they cropped some height on this "new" 2.76 master. I want to see how it compares to the height of the 16mm print, which should show MUCH more being cropped in height (even from 35mm).

 

[plinfesty]

it looks to me that they cropped some height on this "new" 2.76 master. I want to see how it compares to the height of the 16mm print, which should show MUCH more being cropped in height (even from 35mm).

Oddly, the examples (screen grabs) shown in Roland's example showed both MORE height and width from the MGM cast then from what has been seen in other transfers. So if this wasn't a transfer from the 65/70mm UP elements, where did all this extra image come from? As someone who has seen this film projected in UP70 (including, unfortunately, the lens refractions and negative splices at both the top and bottom of the frame, so I know it was there), the new transfer clearly shows that it was from the large film size of the original.

 

[Techman707]

Originally Posted by plinfesty

Oddly, the examples (screen grabs) shown in Roland's example showed both MORE height and width from the MGM cast then from what has been seen in other transfers. So if this wasn't a transfer from the 65/70mm UP elements, where did all this extra image come from? As someone who has seen this film projected in UP70 (including, unfortunately, the lens refractions and negative splices at both the top and bottom of the frame, so I know it was there), the new transfer clearly shows that it was from the large film size of the original.

I'm currently trying to look into the source of what was run on MGM-HD. Whatever transfer it's from, the quality doesn't appear good enough to be from a 65mm negative. Unless it's a big secret, where would a "new" 70mm positive print have come from? Since 70mm prints are on Eastman film stock, unlike the 35mm Technicolor IB prints, unless they've made NEW 70mm prints, any old 70mm prints would be redder than Rudolph's nose at this point. Too bad you would have to go to China to have an IB print made today, if they even have good matrices to use.
Where you say "the lens refractions and negative splices at both the top and bottom of the frame, so I know it was there), the new transfer clearly shows that it was from the large film size of the original." Why do you believe negative flashes mean it came from the "original" format ( UP70)? It's just as likely that when making 35mm prints and wanting to get the full height they went too high. In any event, whether it's this film or others, some of these transfer facilities seem to believe they can do ANYTHING they want when it comes to cropping. For instance, I was watching an HD transfer of Thunderball and these idiots felt it was necessary to letterbox the titles on a scope print. WHY? They would have been cutting off any names if they did it like the rest of the picture (2.35). Walt Disney, despite doing the film 1.33, also finds it necessary to zoom out, leaving a 1.33 box WITHIN the 1.33 full frame.

Actually, I would hope they did have current 70mm prints with good color, but I doubt it. Also, since all the UP70 prints were roadshow prints, if it was a 70mm print, it "should" be a "complete" roadshow print....show why would it cost another million dollars to restore? They certainly didn't run 70mm theatrical release prints.

Whatever is going on, why don't they just put the best of WHATEVER they have on Blu-ray already?

 

[Sam Posten]

Because a bad release is WORSE than no release. It makes the progress on getting it done right set back so far. What percentage of people would rebuy the super spectacular version if they had a 'good enough, mostly' one?

 

[Techman707]

Originally Posted by Sam Posten
Because a bad release is WORSE than no release. It makes the progress on getting it done right set back so far. What percentage of people would rebuy the super spectacular version if they had a 'good enough, mostly' one?

"Some" people seem to feel that the MGM-HD version is "super spectacular ", however, I'm not in that group.
If the MGM-HD version really was from a 65mm negative or 70mm positive, then it isn't going to get any better. Anyway if it's a 65mm negative, it should be a roadshow version (I don't think they would have cut the 65mm negative for the 35mm theatrical prints). Besides, the 35mm prints were made from Technicolor IB matrices.

I would have thought that years back when Stanley Kramer was suing United Artists and all the material were supposedly returned to him that he would have had the "complete version" negatives.....or at least a complete print, but, apparently not. They should NEVER have relaxed the requirement for the "best version" to be deposited with the Library of Congress, at least there would have been something to work with.

 

[mercyflight]

Perhaps a real sin is that in the years of the National Film Registry, "Mad World", a film of such historic and comedic importance, is still not listed as a film worth preserving. Amazing.
Meanwhile, I think we got a few words wrong, but I am convinced that we have the correct music (from the score album)

http://www.scrabo.com/santarosita2.html


I never saw the film in its Cinerama run, so the print I saw last August at the Dome was the best I've ever seen. As much as I respect 3 strip Cinerama (and HTWWW is one of my favorite films), I've always been grateful that "Mad World" was not shot in that format.
When we got the orignal trims in 1990, it was imperative to contact Stanley Kramer about them (the first aquisitioners never did) because he was still alive at the time, and at least he could see them, likewise Tania Rose. We knew that once this info and footage got out, it would spur more interest in the film and its legacy.
Comedy is a different film animal. I'm in the minority that feel the infamous Tracy/Keaton sequence was cut for a reason. It's not a great sequence, hardly historic in that they are not in the same shot together, and it hurts the film. In the existing version, the audience is allowed to ponder and work. We don't really know what Culpeper is going to do. But originally it's spelled out halfway through, and the Captain just becomes one of the many folks after the loot.
I have not seen the HD version. Is the color in the credits corrected? For the old laser version, we pulled an imperfect 70mm version for that section because at least the colors were correct.

 

[Techman707]

Originally Posted by mercyflight
Perhaps a real sin is that in the years of the National Film Registry, "Mad World", a film of such historic and comedic importance, is still not listed as a film worth preserving. Amazing.
Meanwhile, I think we got a few words wrong, but I am convinced that we have the correct music (from the score album)

http://www.scrabo.com/santarosita2.html


I never saw the film in its Cinerama run, so the print I saw last August at the Dome was the best I've ever seen. As much as I respect 3 strip Cinerama (and HTWWW is one of my favorite films), I've always been grateful that "Mad World" was not shot in that format.
When we got the orignal trims in 1990, it was imperative to contact Stanley Kramer about them (the first aquisitioners never did) because he was still alive at the time, and at least he could see them, likewise Tania Rose. We knew that once this info and footage got out, it would spur more interest in the film and its legacy.
Comedy is a different film animal. I'm in the minority that feel the infamous Tracy/Keaton sequence was cut for a reason. It's not a great sequence, hardly historic in that they are not in the same shot together, and it hurts the film. In the existing version, the audience is allowed to ponder and work. We don't really know what Culpeper is going to do. But originally it's spelled out halfway through, and the Captain just becomes one of the many folks after the loot.
I have not seen the HD version. Is the color in the credits corrected? For the old laser version, we pulled an imperfect 70mm version for that section because at least the colors were correct.

NO! They STILL didn't get the title credit, intermission snipe and end screen colors correct. Strangely enough though, they DID improve the color on a few of the title credits. For instance, where it says filmed in Ultra Panavision, they got the purplish/magenta color much better and now appears to be correct. It's at the very beginning that it looks like some kind of lime green that's totally wrong.

On some of the Laser disc additional sequences, I was sort of glad they never made it into the final version, because to me, it gave some sequences a "darker mood"....which I thought peculiar since this is the BEST COMEDY ever made and with the biggest cast of comedians ever assembled.

BTW- 20 years (1990) was a long time ago, I wonder how those 70mm versions might look today?

 

[plinfesty]

Where you say "the lens refractions and negative splices at both the top and bottom of the frame, so I know it was there), the new transfer clearly shows that it was from the large film size of the original." Why do you believe negative flashes mean it came from the "original" format ( UP70)?

Because I saw the lens refractions and negative splices projected on the screen from a new UP70 print (well, new in 2003). The Cinerama Dome had some VERY weird masking with an ujpwatd curve at the bolttom, but this allowed the entire image to be projected, instead of being cropped. Besides, a 35mm print wouldn't exhibit the lens refractions, that information would be cropped out of the reduction printing for 35mm.

Anyway if it's a 65mm negative, it should be a roadshow version (I don't think they would have cut the 65mm negative for the 35mm theatrical prints). Besides, the 35mm prints were made from Technicolor IB matrices.

A number of movies had the 65mm negative cut for 35mm...however, in the case of IAMMMMW, the film was cut after about a month and a half of its world premiere to the same length as the eventual 35mm version (while retaining overture, entracte, exit music). Most people who saw it during the roadshow saw the cut version.

Not sure where you're going with the 35mm dye-transfer prints. The video transfers used today surely wouldn't have been one of those old theatrical prints.

 

[mercyflight]

When I finally saw the film in a 70mm version a few times at the Dome (2003 & 2009), it was the best looking version I've ever seen. And man, you get spoiled. Distortion or not, I loved the curved screen. If the Ziegfeld in NYC had a curved screen, I'd try to sponsor a showing there. Mad World hasn't been shown in 70mm in NYC since it's Cinerama run.
Should we go for it...?

 

[Sam Posten]

I'm in for 4 tickets Mr. Scrabo!

 

[Charles Smith]

I'm in, and I'll bring a few newbies. And oldies.

 

[Techman707]

Originally Posted by plinfesty

Because I saw the lens refractions and negative splices projected on the screen from a new UP70 print (well, new in 2003). The Cinerama Dome had some VERY weird masking with an upward curve at the bottom, but this allowed the entire image to be projected, instead of being cropped. Besides, a 35mm print would't exhibit the lens refractions, that information would be cropped out of the reduction printing for 35mm.

When you say "lens refractions" are you referring to the optical distortion they introduce into the print to compensate for the curved screen horizon and keystone? If so, and if you're referring to the print that was run at the Dome, I did't see that print. However, what does that have to do with the version that MGM-HD ran? That has no distortion or negative flashes.

When people refer to the "original" print that was cut shortly after the premiere, I'm not sure whether I ever saw that or not. Besides the Warner Cinerama in NY, IAMMMMW was also premiered here on the east cost at Skouras' Syosset Theatre and it had the police transmissions during the intermission, however that was run manually by the projectionist APART from the film, so I don't count that in the running time. Although my memory is bad and I might be getting a little senile, I believe I recall the running time at the Syosset was 194 minutes. I know that my 16mm print only runs 154 or 156 minutes, not sure.

The only reason I mentioned the Technicolor IB prints is because they certainly didn't take original 65mm negative to cut on to make 35mm theatrical version prints. Back then they would always use some type of protection intermediate, like an inter-negative or or fine grain master positive, etc. and then cut on that. However, where Technicolor was involved and because of the system they used, they would have to have made some type of intermediate to make the matrices from since 35mm IB system isn't a photographic process strictly speaking (although the double processing of the B&W silver image soundtrack is photographic). Back then when they made large numbers of 35mm release prints, the Technicolor process was cheaper once the matrices were made. Today, they don't make enough prints to make such an initially expensive process pay.

Do you know the source of the 70mm print they ran at the Dome? If so, do you know if it was made from a separation master, or did they already have an (ultra) HD digital master that they used to transfer back to film?