Lugosi Estate released DVD - what happened? (1 Viewer)

[Bob Furmanek]

Eric; to be honest, you're expecting too much perfection with a low budget film from 1947. The kind of speckling you're describing is not wear on the film; it was printed into the nitrate print from the original red/blue Cinecolor elements.

Before we transferred it, the print was sonically cleaned, and you can't use an airbrush on the Rank to blow off dirt which is actually printed into the element.

Digital picture clean-up was not even an option when I did those transfers and - even if it were - I can assure you that it's not cheap!

Not to be rude, but why don't you just enjoy the fact that you're watching an accurate representation of an original release 35mm nitrate print in pristine condition, and stop looking for flaws in the source materials?

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

Bob, I guess I am just trying to compare it to other Poverty Row Public Domain titles that can be found on budget labels. Yes, they vary tremendously in quality but if some can give us a "clean" product even for .99¢, why can't others - even older films than yours?

I am not a film archivist so have no idea about the natural state of elements. Guess I figure that if the film is of quality to project on the wide screen then it would be clean and flawless so why the speckling? I had no idea that much speckling was part of prints?

I will sit back and enjoy...

Eric

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

Bob... also... when you make statements like: one would think the transfer would be flawless. I was making a blind purchase and when people use terms like "mint" such as a mint condition coin or "fantastic" which means above the norm, that what I was looking for was something along the lines of "The Bat" where I've seen many people put this out and most all look great. Maybe I was reading you wrong? Remember, we on HTF are looking for perfection all the time and my original posts mention finding "the best" public domain transfers of certain titles. Yours is the best for Scared to Death but hopefully someone will release this in an improved version - maybe the Lugosi estate since they want to put 2 movies out per year.

Eric

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Eric, we're running in circles here so this will be my last post on this issue.

A nitrate print can be in mint condition, but that does not mean it does not have minor flaws or artifacts which were printed in from the source materials. Such is the case with SCARED TO DEATH. I apologize if my initial post was mis-leading, but I thought you would understand the difference between film element issues and video alterations. In fact, if it will make you feel better, send me a copy of your receipt and I'll personally reimburse you for your DVD purchase.

DNR (digital noise reduction) was not available at the time when we did that transfer. That same element, put through a DNR and transferred today, would look better or - shall I say - different. Gone would be the "speckling" which you are having an issue with which was present in the nitrate Cinecolor prints from day one. But it would wind up looking somewhat like Roan's transfer of WHITE ZOMBIE; noise reduction turned up so high that you're losing the details of costumes and sets.

Personally, I'd rather see the film look like it did in 1947, even if it's not perfect. Besides, I'm watching the movie to be entertained, and I'm not looking for blemishes in the source materials.

If you feel that Bela Jr. can do a better job, by all means contact him and suggest that he work his restorative magic on this title. In fact, I can tell you where the nitrate Cinecolor elements are sitting right now. Mr. Lugosi can scan in both the red and blue nitrate negatives and do a full blown digital restoration.

It would only cost him several hundred thousand dollars, but it would look perfect.

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

Bob, like I said, I am not an archivist so please don't feel offended. I am only trying to learn here and no, not old enough to have seen a 1940s film in its natural state to know the difference. As far as I knew all film looked "flawless" when projected from the 1920s onward but guess not? I can barely remember snowy television transmissions via rabbit ears so how can I remember what was seen at the drive-in I guess there are many variables to consider with movies from different eras and different film stock as well as processing. Just thought all were equal when new. I am sure I am not the only one who thought that, sorry.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

That's okay Eric, no need to apologize. I've tried to explain it as best I could.

I hope that you eventually get the transfer of this film which you are looking for.

But - I do have a question about this film. With a limited 2 color process which never really reproduced the color green, why the heck did they make all those references to the mysterious green mask? Wouldn't a mysterious blue mask have made more sense??

I thought it was an odd choice, and represents a clear lack of communication between the producers and the color consultants!

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

Thanks Bob. It is all a learning experience for me and new information to pass on to others. If I know what I am looking at then I can understand more. One reason why I love EXTRAS on a DVD. To know what went into making a movie and history behind the subject makes me appreciate it even more. Unfortunately my significant other doesn't share the same view

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Eric, many times when you are working with an older film element other than a camera negative, you are at the mercy of the original lab work which produced that element.

For example, with SCARED TO DEATH, the original nitrate print which I transferred was at least 2 generations removed from the camera negative. I'm not entirely sure of the Cinecolor printing technique, but the final release print went through several stages. Therefore, any optical shots in the film (fades, dissolves, etc) would have dirt and other visual artifacts copied into the stock when the subsequent elements were made. They did not have wet gate printing in 1947 and, with Poverty Row titles such as this, the labs were working quickly AND cheaply.

What you're seeing now on many DVD releases (especially from the majors) is a substantial amount of digital clean-up which is helping to remove printed in dirt and blemishes from older elements. This is very very expensive and not all distributors can afford to do this. As I mentioned, at the time of my transfer of this film, DNR was not even an option. Plus, we wouldn't have had the funds for it anyway.

If you are seeing pristine copies of a film like THE BAT on bargain bin DVD's, I'm willing to bet that at some point, somebody with the elements (and the funds) did a new transfer, and these fly by night bootleggers have copied it.

When the question came up about SCARED TO DEATH, I chimed in because I was the first to transfer this from a 35mm nitrate print. Every other release up to that time had been taken from real poor 16mm copies, with bad color, soft focus and a huge amount of condition problems.

Would I like to revisit this film now, with a substantial budget and access to the existing camera negatives? Absolutely! But, the final cost (to do it right) would be substantially more than anybody would be willing to pay.

I love Bela and George Zucco as much as the next guy, but it's really not their best work.

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

I know, not their best work but the ONLY color movie that has Bela in it which makes it a historical gem for horror fans.

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

Bob... was this a 2-strip or 3-strip color process? I noticed on one site that has the history of color films that certain colors "change" or render differently in 2-strip. I wonder if this would account for some of the odd coloring in the film such as the unusually dark walls and mis-matched colors on the sets (orange carpet and dark green walls)? Almost looks like sets prepared to render proper grayscales in black and white rather than color being such odd colors combinations, especially with light and shadows being pronounced on corners and such. May account for the blue rather than green mask. I can see it is a green mask (chin) but looks to have bright blue light projected across it. Same with "brown" roses

Eric

 

[Larry Sutliff]

I have both the Lumivision Laser and DVD of SCARED TO DEATH, and they are the identical transfer. The Lumivision DVD is one of the very earliest DVD's released; I remember purchasing it within a month of getting the first DVD player that Toshiba released in March of '97. I watched it recently, it still looks very nice, and is miles ahead of the PD label versions available.

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

Thanks Larry, at least we have that much verified.

I know Lumivison was short-lived offering DVDs before SlingShot took over. I have one of the VERY FIRST DVDs on the US market (even before Warner) put out by them prior to Amaray cases (it has a small clear jewel case like music CDs come in)- part of the IMAX nature series. Very rare and in mint condition.

But being early laser technology I do notice pixelation during the dream sequence fogs in Scared to Death but elsewise is fine for 1997 technology.

 

[Jack Theakston]

The color was in Cinecolor, a two strip process. Red and blue.

It's actually Bela's second color film. The first was FIFTY MILLION FRENCHMEN with Olesen and Johnson, in which he played a stage magician. I think there's actually another one, but the name escapes me.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Back in the early 90's, I spent a long time tracking down a 35mm element for THE DEVIL BAT. After exhaustive research – on my own time I might add, I finally located a 35mm dupe nitrate negative. I spent my own funds to have a low contrast 35mm print made for video transfer. I convinced Lumivision to release a special laser disc edition of this film, as this would be the first time that this film was transferred from a 35mm source. (I did the exact same thing with Lugosi’s SCARED TO DEATH. In that case, I located and transferred a lab-mint 35mm nitrate Cinecolor print.)

I didn’t do this for the money. In fact, the entire endeavor cost me quite a bit out of my own pocket. But I had always enjoyed these films, and it was really frustrating that the only copies available were from battered, washed out 16mm prints.

After the laser was released, several distributors copied my transfer and sold it, including Cary Roan and the Roan Group. Okay fine, it’s a public domain film and there was really nothing I could do about it. But these were fly by night distributors, selling discs for a few bucks through some discount video distributors. I wasn’t happy, but I could live with it.

I just recently saw the much heralded "Bela Lugosi Presents" edition, which has been promoted as the finest version available. I read on the DVD cover that it was "digitally remastered from 35mm materials." I thought Mr. Lugosi had discovered some superior element, because the dupe nitrate which I located had some decomposition and I had to use a 16mm picture source for one 8 minute reel, matched up to the 35mm audio. This aspect of my transfer makes it very easy to identify.

Much to my surprise, Mr. Lugosi’s version was my exact same transfer, just cleaned up a little bit more because it was put through an additional digital video noise reduction unit. Had funds been available, I would have done this myself at the time of my original transfer.

I’m sorry to vent, but this is extremely frustrating. Not only was I not contacted by the producers to provide the only known 35mm element for a new high definition transfer, but there is no acknowledgement whatsoever of my effort to preserve and restore this film. I didn’t even get a “special thanks” on the darn thing. I am very disappointed and would have expected more of Mr. Lugosi.

Will future DVD releases in his series simply be copied from another person’s transfers and hard work?

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

Bob,

If you can prove that the print used by the Lugosi Estate was taken from your work, why not contact Lugosi Jr. yourself tell him what happened and and ask his intensions? He is a Intellectual Property attorney (also representing the entertainment industry) for the law firm of O'Brien Zarian LLP in California. Would like to know what you find out especially with future releases.

Possibly he is unaware of where the source materials came from and should be made aware of it?

Eric

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Eric, there is absolutely no question that it's my transfer. The 16mm section confirms it.

This matter will be pursued...

 

[Jack Theakston]

Eric's point is that perhaps the transfer rights were sold to the Lugosi estate/Navarre without them knowing the source of it. Quite possible, since Lumivision sold their tapes to another company when they folded and didn't tell them about the third-person rights. Subsiquently, many people got burned... :frowning:

However, the fact that they're passing it off as their own is dishonest and based on this, I do not think I'll be purchasing their materials any more.