RICK BOND

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
542
Real Name
RICK
GWTW & Ben-Hur ! Both Anniversaries this year and NO 4K UHD releases ? Just Oz ??
 

PMF

Cinematographer
Supporter
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
4,278
Real Name
Philip
GWTW & Ben-Hur ! Both Anniversaries this year and NO 4K UHD releases ? Just Oz ??
If there were newer perfections to be found in a 4K/UHD of GWTW, then I'd be all over that one, as well.
But, it is now known that GWTW, itself, would benefit from this format; and would actually reveal its seams and secrets. Please refer to Posts #66-68 and also Post #76, where Robert Harris explains its likely pitfalls.

Yes, it's hard to imagine that if one film from 1939 could benefit from the 4K/UHD treatment, then all films from the same year might follow. Here at HTF, I have learned that restoration, transfers and format changes are never a case of one size - or year - fits all. This also holds true for the restoration for large format films. Just because a restoration of "Lawrence of Arabia" or "My Fair Lady" was able to garner the miracles we celebrated and cherished, does not mean that the same approaches and formula would work on the remaining 70mm films. Or, if I may paraphrase RAH upon this topic, "Each films presents a different set of problems".

In the end, if a 4K/UHD of GWTW isn't going to lead to something better but, rather, something uglier then we must accept this. At the same time, though, I see little wrong in knowing that I have lived to witness GWTW at its actual peak on a Blu Ray disc. As it is, I'm amazed that we're even getting "The Wizard of Oz" on a 4K/UHD disc and, perhaps, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"; for I was certain that 1957 and "The Bridge on the River Kwai" had become the cut-off year for what the 4K/UHD format could provide.

On a final note, since you've also mentioned "Ben-Hur" I, too, would be eager to see what this Wyler-Surtees canvas might look like; but only if its a proper candidate for this format.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Stephen_J_H

Stephen_J_H

All Things Film Junkie
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,309
Location
North of the 49th
Real Name
Stephen J. Hill
On a final note, since you've also mentioned "Ben-Hur" I, too, would be eager to see what this Wyler-Surtees canvas might look like; but only if its a proper candidate for this format.
I'm going out on a limb to say that it is a far more proper candidate for this format than GTTW or any of the others suggested, as it is large format and in good shape if the HD masters are anything to go by. Rock-steady with great colour.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMF

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,976
Real Name
Robert Harris
I'm going out on a limb to say that it is a far more proper candidate for this format than GTTW or any of the others suggested, as it is large format and in good shape if the HD masters are anything to go by. Rock-steady with great colour.
Seeing the work that WB performed, one might be led to believe that Ben-Hur might be in great shape. One would be wrong.

Should it be considered for a 4k release?

Yes.
 
Last edited:

David Weicker

Cinematographer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
3,535
Real Name
David
I wish people would actually read the preceding posts

Nowhere does it say that GWTW has problems.

There were some posts that stated that increased resolution of older films MIGHT reveal some issues. But we do not know that GWTW has these issues or that a properly prepared 4K would display any issues.
 

Worth

Cinematographer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
3,636
Real Name
Nick Dobbs
I wish people would actually read the preceding posts

Nowhere does it say that GWTW has problems.

There were some posts that stated that increased resolution of older films MIGHT reveal some issues. But we do not know that GWTW has these issues or that a properly prepared 4K would display any issues.
I think Robert Harris has already answered that earlier in the thread.
And to make the point again, biggest problem are dupes combing mattes with production footage. Dye transfer prints, especially 1939-47, were notoriously soft, hiding a multitude of sins. Take that away, and one opens a veritable Pandora’s Box.
https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/posts/4777692/
One would have to essentially change the film. At that point, it would no longer be the Best Picture of 1939.
https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/posts/4777495/
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMF

Dave Moritz

Lead Actor
Premium
Joined
Jul 7, 2001
Messages
7,917
Location
California
Real Name
Dave Moritz
Very disappointed we did not see an 80th Anniversary 4K blu-ray of Gone With The Wind! Hope they are not waiting another 10 years for the 90th Anniversary.
 

darkrock17

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
1,621
Location
Alexandria, VA
Real Name
Andrew McClure
A 4K release might come out around closer to the 85th Anniversary, since it looks like GWTW is sitting out for it's 80th this year.
 

Will Krupp

Effects Supervisor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2003
Messages
2,676
Location
PA
Real Name
Will
There were some posts that stated that increased resolution of older films MIGHT reveal some issues. But we do not know that GWTW has these issues or that a properly prepared 4K would display any issues.
I think Robert Harris has already answered that earlier in the thread.

And to make the point again, biggest problem are dupes combing mattes with production footage. Dye transfer prints, especially 1939-47, were notoriously soft, hiding a multitude of sins. Take that away, and one opens a veritable Pandora’s Box.
With all due respect and to David's point, I'm not getting what dye transfer prints have to with a 4K remaster? Am I missing something? The blu-ray (and even the DVD) were not made from dye transfer prints, but were already made from the original negatives recombined in the ultra-resolution process. Haven't we already "taken away" the marriage between the movie and the original prints? Wasn't any similarity to dye transfer prints just digital mimicry anyway?

They just want the 4K market to be larger than it is now.
This seems to make more sense, to be honest.
 
Last edited:

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,976
Real Name
Robert Harris
With all due respect and to David's point, what do dye transfer prints have to with a 4K remaster? The blu-ray (and even the DVD) were not made from dye transfer prints, but were already made from the original negatives recombined in the ultra-resolution process. Haven't we already "taken away" the marriage between the movie and the original prints? Wasn't any similarity to dye transfer prints just digital mimicry anyway?



This seems to make more sense, to be honest.
Let me try this one last time.

None of this discussion has anything to do with dye transfer printing, original negatives, or 4k resolution, except for a single factor.

The film was produced, designed and photographed, to be reproduced in a certain way, with the knowledge that prints would accurately reproduce the film as conceived.

Under those specific constraints, the effects worked.

That concept, and the means by which the effects were created and photographed, presumed a final projected resolution of less than 2k.

In later original prints, c. 1961, some of the seams began to show.

In HD, they become obvious to the knowledgeable eye.

At 4k, they look amateurish.

Which is not what the filmmakers had in mind.

And these flaws are not correctible, without changing the film.
 

titch

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
716
Real Name
Kevin Oppegaard
Let me try this one last time.

None of this discussion has anything to do with dye transfer printing, original negatives, or 4k resolution, except for a single factor.

The film was produced, designed and photographed, to be reproduced in a certain way, with the knowledge that prints would accurately reproduce the film as conceived.

Under those specific constraints, the effects worked.

That concept, and the means by which the effects were created and photographed, presumed a final projected resolution of less than 2k.

In later original prints, c. 1961, some of the seams began to show.

In HD, they become obvious to the knowledgeable eye.

At 4k, they look amateurish.

Which is not what the filmmakers had in mind.

And these flaws are not correctible, without changing the film.
All good points. It will be interesting to see what the 4K Wizard Of Oz looks like, as I'm assuming all the issues of seams and joints apply to this production too.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,976
Real Name
Robert Harris
All good points. It will be interesting to see what the 4K Wizard Of Oz looks like, as I'm assuming all the issues of seams and joints apply to this production too.
Best not to make assumptions.

Two very different films.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PMF

Worth

Cinematographer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
3,636
Real Name
Nick Dobbs
Let me try this one last time.

None of this discussion has anything to do with dye transfer printing, original negatives, or 4k resolution, except for a single factor.

The film was produced, designed and photographed, to be reproduced in a certain way, with the knowledge that prints would accurately reproduce the film as conceived.

Under those specific constraints, the effects worked.

That concept, and the means by which the effects were created and photographed, presumed a final projected resolution of less than 2k.

In later original prints, c. 1961, some of the seams began to show.

In HD, they become obvious to the knowledgeable eye.

At 4k, they look amateurish.

Which is not what the filmmakers had in mind.

And these flaws are not correctible, without changing the film.
That raises the question whether anything shot on 35mm prior to the digital era should be viewed in 4K, as filmmakers were surely aware that prints and projection would limit detail to well below that level.
 
Last edited:

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
344,097
Messages
4,700,117
Members
141,164
Latest member
mansibtani