New Casablanca SE (1 Viewer)

[TonyDale]

I think that RAH's point was that the Miss Hepburn who appears in THE AFRICAN QUEEN is KathArine, not KathErine.

 

[Bill Burns]

When I get "Edeson" and "Lowry" correct, I think a misplaced vowel in a first name is forgiveable. If spell check doesn't catch a typo, I rarely do either. This came up here, as well, but I just can't get very upset about it. I'm sure my e's will be a's in the future, though ... or I'll continue calling her Kate, which simplifies things.

 

[Robert Crawford]

That would be a better alternative. When people misspelled her first name it bothered Hepburn to no end.

In the book "Kate Remembered" it mentioned that Hepburn adored working with Bogart. Hepburn shared a fifty year friendship with Lauren Bacall and really admired Bacall.





Crawdaddy

 

[Bill Burns]

AMC ads have a woman mistaking her for Audrey! Yikes. The "e" was a typo -- I know how to spell her name, and so long as no one thinks I'm trying to cover my mistake (I freely admit it! ) I'll happily correct the spelling in my earlier post. Rest easy, Kate. Arthur's last, on the other hand, I misspelled the second time around, not the first, and I'll correct that too. When I misspell either part of Kevin Smith or John Woo they can bring out the butterfly nets.

A few more points to satiate my own curiosity ....

Lastly, North by Northwest is not a film that should have needed any "de-graining" and was already a highly resolved image, which held a great deal more visual information than can be captured on a DVD.

Robert Harris --

Is this in conflict with anything I've said? I don't believe so. Just about any early generation film element from 16mm up holds a great deal more visual information than DVD can capture, of course (35mm holds more than HD-DVD will be able to capture, for that matter). That doesn't keep the best DVDs from suggesting a very pleasing film-like experience, as you and others have said for years.

LDI (and WB) achieved a tremendous look for North by Northwest, belying the general impression that they make film look like video (which has been bandied about around these parts from time to time, and unfairly so in my experience with their work on DVD), an impression generally associated with the purported lack of grain on their product, which is itself a claim I don't find supportable on the titles I've mentioned (no more so than on Casablanca, at any rate). Lowry described his company's grain policies in his chat, and again I'll have to look at Kane in view of Casablanca to determine if it was degrained to the point I'd originally been lead to believe in various on-line reports. Film is video on DVD, but as said above, it needn't look like video, and in my viewings it doesn't on the excellent Lowry titles I revisited after watching Casablanca (Now, Voyager, which is every bit as good as Casablanca, and North by Northwest, their very first effort on DVD, which I find phenomenal and deeply film-like). I'd encourage anyone who's heard anything negative about their work to check out their discs for themselves, but that is, I trust obviously, only my opinion.

I'm happy to hear I've misconstrued your displeasure with LDI*; I continue to find their work highly commendable, and I'm glad you feel similarly -- their upcoming, high profile efforts, including what can only be thought of as a milestone arrival on the format, and a great trust for their company, The Indiana Jones Trilogy, leave much reason for optimism and anticipation in the coming months.

* To clarify: do I misunderstand from your earlier posts that you do not consider their 2K efforts film-like? And that you therefore do not consider them a digital "restoration" house? If I have this wrong as well, I'd certainly invite correction. Given the superb quality of their DVD work, I'd very much like to see prints from their 2K negative scans (and I'd like to know which films are being thus rescanned to negative: only Roman Holiday and Sunset Boulevard have received press as such, though of course films such as The Matinee Idol and Metropolis have been brought back to negative at 2K by other houses), but haven't had the opportunity (perhaps if Paramount brings out Sunset Boulevard in another theatrical re-release in the near future).

For further clarity: when a deteriorating film element is digitally scanned, "restored" or otherwise brought as close as possible to its original character, and then rescanned to some form of safety stock, isn't that new element a preservation element? Whenever a deteriorating film is duplicated to safety, either optically or digitally, and the safety version properly stored, hasn't that film been preserved (ideally original, deteriorated elements are also kept as intact as possible for their value to future restoration technologies, a point Lowry more or less covers firmly in a question from his chat)? If so, it only remains to determine which films LDI is rescanning to negative at 2K to determine which are being preserved (or perhaps "digitally preserved" in an optical, and therefore lasting, stage, i.e. a newly scanned negative). If the term "preservation" would not apply to such a newly created safety element, and if digitally bringing a film closer to its original form than surviving elements themselves represent is not "restoration" (digital restoration versus or as an adjunct to photochemical restoration) please elaborate as to why these do not apply, for I'm otherwise unsure of what the terms describe.

My LDI advocacy concludes on these points.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Thankfully.





Crawdaddy

 

[Bill Burns]

Ahem: "nobody likes me, everybody hates me, I'm going to the garden to eat worms ..."

*sulking off*

 

[Robert Crawford]

 

[dpippel]

Which, I believe, amounts to the same thing as preserving that look? I was just trying to say that in my opinion the work they did on the new Casablanca is very good.

 

[rich_d]

Film is video on DVD, but as said above, it needn't look like video, and in my viewings it doesn't on the excellent Lowry titles I revisited after watching Casablanca (Now, Voyager, which is every bit as good as Casablanca, and North by Northwest, their very first effort on DVD, which I find phenomenal and deeply film-like). I'd encourage anyone who's heard anything negative about their work to check out their discs for themselves, but that is, I trust obviously, only my opinion.

Bill,

I have a different opinion of North by Northwest. I think it was a fine effort (I think my mouth must have popped open when I first saw the colors of the opening scene) but believe it falls short of being "film-like." Probably my only criticism of that DVD. Considering it was never a high-priced DVD (easily available now for $11) and has a score-only audio track, documentary, and Ernest Lehman feature commentary - the DVD delivers much.

I would imagine that Mr. Lowry would be the first one to suggest that their processes have improved over the years. That's what I'm suggesting - that if they were to tackle North by Northwest as a brand new project it would be more "film-like" than the older version.

I've enjoyed reading your posts. I think you've made some valid and interesting points. I'm interested in checking out the DVD: Now, Voyager.

 

[Robert Harris]

There are a number of points which should be addressed here.

1. In regard to the spelling of Miss Hepburn's name...

It was apparently an especially irksome point for the dear lady, as she (I have been told) felt that if someone were to attempt to contact her, that they could at least get her name correct.

Mail addressed to Katherine would generally be returned as "addressee unknown."

I'm aware that the "e" in your piece was a tpyo.

2. In regard to 2k as a digital scanning and recording standard...

This is quite complex and not easily answered.

Generally, negative stock from the sixties does not have more than 2k information. And if one is not going any further with the scanning than a video, 2k is generally fine.

If the intent is to create sprocketed film elements outside of the digital realm, 2k may not fit the bill. It has been found that while a negative recorded out at 2k may be used as the basis of 35mm prints, going any futher afield in the photographic duping process will not be fruitful, as the product will begin to fall apart pictorially.

As an example, the prints seen in the U.S. of Metropolis are not necessarily what was considered to be the final restoration, as they have been duped (of necessity) and are a lower quality than than seen from the recorded 2k image direct from the restoration output.

The digitatl restoration of Metropolis was beautifully performed, and Kino's DVD of that film is a fine representation which I cannot recommend more highly. But it must be understood that it was performed under budgetary restraints, while concurrently photographically preserving all of the film elements used in that restoration. Mr. Koerber did a remarkable job of reconstructing and restoring this important film, and I would love to have seen him given a larger budget. The point here is that the final result actually looked even better than what was seen on screen here.

One can go on for hours discussing the various means of scanning, interpolating and potentially down-rezzing digital images to create a better final result than simply 2k in, 2k out.

On Williamsburg, for example, it was found through testing that scanning in the VistaVision image at 6k and then down-rezzing that digital file to 3k, yielded a finer final image, with proper and accurate original film grain, than starting at a lower resolution...

It also showed that there was little value of recording out at 6k, especially when dealing with files which were each a size of over 24 megapixels per frame.

I don't want to get any further into this particular point, as one really needs to see examples on screen to fully understand the generational breakdown of the image.

Suffice to say that while 2k work can handle the information on most older materials, it cannot contain the amount of information in any of the modern negative or duplicating stocks.

The LDI work on North by Northwest was the basis of a very pretty DVD -- not totally accurate in color, and a bit videolike, but still a nice video image. There are other ways to handle the inherent problems of N x NW. This was one interesting mechanism. However, from the moment the M-G-M logo hits the screen, the colors did not come up to spec.

As a large format production, N x NW should have an extremely slight visible grain, if any, on video.

This is a very nice product, and a great value, but certainly not a restoration.

Now, Voyager, which is typical of the LDI look of film on video is a very clean representation of the image, with a good contrast range and detail.
There is a decidedly digital look to the representation, in which details occasionally seem to "swim" with digititis. Like Mildred Pierce, it is devoid of film grain and has taken on a full video look. To my eye Pierce takes this even further giving us an image which seems to be less detailed, while pretty.

That said, I have no doubt that the general public will be delighted with these images. And as a newly formed representation of the films, I have no problem with them, and viewing them via a DVD makes for fine entertainment. These are both DVDs worth owning, and the point must be made here that whether I personally like the look of these films as digitally processed is of little import. Warner has made an investment in cleaning up these titles, as has Paramount, which started with much lower quality elements on Roman Holiday and Sunset Blvd. (as higher quality element could not be located and may no longer exist) did also.

They have both published high quality DVDs and should be applauded for their efforts.

To the point of "preserving the look."

This is nothing that I would applaud, as it relates to a double negative. It is NOT doing something that is not particularly good.

To use an extreme example, one might say that an individual is of great moral standards because they have not been convicted of rape or arson.

The "film look" is something that is not, and should not be taken away. It is nothing that is given.

Lastly, I am not saying that films cannot be restored using 2k technology. I am saying that I have not seen anything that LDI has created that is a restoration. To my eye, their filmed record-outs look like extremely high quality kinescopes, albeit with a cleaner image output than was input, but with a definite loss of detail and depth. By this I mean that this is a video image recorded to film, which brings with it certain digital artifacts and, strangely, missing frames. It is not a film quality image.

That said, I do believe that a proper film quality image can be created for the titles on which this work has been performed.

What LDI has done is a means to an end, and was the basis of two well-produced and well-received DVDs...

which are not film.

RAH

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

When I get "Edeson" and "Lowry" correct, I think a misplaced vowel in a first name is forgiveable.

Bull Burns is right!

Regards,

 

[JustinCleveland]

I know this is rude and juvenile... but Robert, typing tpyo has got to be one of the funniest bits I have seen in a while. I hope you don't mind if I crib that for my own writing!

I'm also hoping the excellent response to this title spurs action on Ms. Hepburn's classic The African Queen.

 

[Robert Harris]

nothing wrong with dry humor...

At last report, the film elements for African Queen were being inventoried and examined by Paramount toward the creation of new pre-print materials.

This is a fifty-plus year Technicolor three strip production.

I'm certain that Paramount will do right by the film. They will need the necessary time to do so.

RAH

 

[Bill Burns]

Ken wrote:

Bull Burns is right!

Is that a joke or an appraisal?

I've never met anyone named Bull. I've met a few named Katherine, Catherine, and even the occasional Kateland. I've long admired the work of one named Katharine.

For the record, many get Burns wrong. I've opened mail addressed to Byrnes, Burnes, Byrne ... the list goes on. Some of it was even meant for me. The others I respectfully decline to characterize.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Sorry, Bill. I just thought that a misplaced vowel in a first name would be forgiveable.

...and let's not forget ex-mafioso Sammy "the Bull" Gravano or legendary Lakota Chief Sitting Bull.

Regards,

Kan McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[Seymour Uranowitz]

...and let's not forget ex-mafioso Sammy "the Bull" Gravano or legendary Lakota Chief Sitting Bull.

Or Jake LaMotta...

 

[Joe_Pinney]

Reading a discussion (debate?) between Bill Burns and Robert A. Harris is better than watching 10 Charlie Rose interviews with Roger Ebert.

I would KILL for a Bill Burns/Robert A. Harris audio commentary. Seriously, you guys should get your own TV show.

 

[Dan Stone]

I don't want to get any further into this particular point, as one really needs to see examples on screen to fully understand the generational breakdown of the image.

As someone who is very much a novice, yet still very intrigued, with this sort of thing, can you make some suggestions as to where I might go or what I might read to learn more about film restoration and dvd production? I enjoy your Digital Bits column very much, but would appreciate delving into matters a bit deeper than what you have the space for in an online feature column.

Any directions to sources for this information are greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Dan

 

[Bill Burns]

Ken quipped ... er, wrote:

Sorry, Bill. I just thought that a misplaced vowel in a first name would be forgiveable.

But of course! Honest mistakes are always forgiveable. Cough. Even dishonest mistakes get a pass on a good day. I don't object in the least to comparisons with Sitting Bull. The sort that matadors stick with swords might be another matter ....

Joe, my friend, I'm unaccustomed to a cheering section, but I enjoy it all the same. Many thanks for your generous comments. If I ever pitch competition for Ebert & Roeper to a rival network, it's good to know I can claim at least one viewer! But kidding aside, I appreciate the compliment, and thanks to Rich for his kind words earlier as well.

And of course my (dry? ) thanks, as always, to Robert Harris for his time in discussing these matters.

 

[Robert Harris]

There have been a number of specific articles on film restoration, some accurate and well reported, others not.

Two good sources are the ASC publication, American Cinematographer, published monthly and available via subscription.

Another is a book by McGreevey and Yeck, which can be found here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

Coursework is available at George Eastman House (The Jeffrey Selznick Program), NYU, UCLA and Ryerson in Toronto.