100% better in every way. Picture quality is dramatically improved in every respect. Like watching the film for the first time. Imprint BD is basically same as DVD release.
Bruce, I got this as part of the Kino sale currently going on. Though I managed a first-run movie theater, worked as an editor and made a few films so I'm familiar with labs and timing, I don't consider myself an expert. I did see this on opening day, but that was 60 years ago. This is supposed to be a 4K from the OCN, but I don't know what that means. It's not as brightly colored as I recall the release prints being, but then that was printed by Technicolor. The negative was processed by LTC in St. Cloud, France, and it looks like a French Eastmancolor production of the early 1960's. After the dupes in the opening credits, the color is beautiful and to these eyes, accurate. Everything, flesh tones, the red of a nearby awning, the grass and sky above, seemed in perfect balance. There was a slight veneer of grain, but I didn't really notice it. For me, the presentation looked very organic. It appeared to be a new scan but without a ton of clean-up. Nonetheless, I was very impressed. I could discern nothing electronic or any trace of grain management. I have a 32 inch screen, so it's possible anomalies might turn up in projection. I know, this is Paramount, but it looks pretty good to me. I was especially impressed by the depth of field. I loved it same as I did when I first saw it way back when. I haven't seen the DVD or streaming versions or the Oz Blu, so I can't comment on that.
Oh yeah - forgot about Back Street - which I had no interest in seeing.
THE COUNTERFEIT TRAITOR wasn't shot in Vista Vision but standard 35mm in Europe, and processed in Eastmancolor in France, which in my experience, had more of a less robust, muted, pastel-like quality in the late '50s to early 60's. I don't think it's appropriate to compare with something like VERTIGO. What I recall of the color on the dye-transfer prints when this first opened was much brighter and more colorful, similar to the Blu-Ray of THE RAINMAKER. But that was Technicolor IB. I actually like the color on the Blu-Ray; I didn't think it was faded or brownish, as much as the production design and costuming in many scenes veer towards brown and beige. I found the flesh tones in those brownish scenes perfectly natural, and not faded or brownish at all. The color looks to me like a European Eastman color production of the late 1950's, which it was. Also, the muted color which appears part of the production and costume design, works well for me with the low-key realistic subject matter, and the fact it's taking place during WWII, when even the most lavish places were grubby and underfunded and prone to attack, especially in Germany. But then, I love this film, and though I haven't seen it in 60 years, it totally worked for me, so I may be cutting it a little too much slack.
Duh, my silly mistake as I knew that One-Eyed Jacks was the last VistaVision movie which was released a year prior to The Counterfeit Traitor. Anyhow, the rest of my critique stands in regard to this not being a pristine Blu-ray from that film period. I'm not going to argue with you about the muted color scheme because I didn't see this movie in a theater, sixty years ago, but Bruce Kimmel has and he disagrees with your disc assessment.
I haven't seen the Imprint release. However, I have compared it to the 2004 DVD and it's a noticeable improvement. I'm leery of some of the "restoration" language that Kino and Imprint uses in their disc release announcements such as what was used for this Blu-ray release by Kino.
Robert, thanks for your response. We all have our opinions. Bruce certainly has the right to his. I also saw it multiple times 60 years ago, and while I agree that the color on this Blu-ray is certainly not IB Technicolor, I thought the release prints, though really beautiful, were too bright and colorful considering the subject, and 1) this feels more correct to me considering the subject and the period, 2) the negative was processed at LTC St. Cloud and the color on the Blu matches many prints I've seen from the same period processed there, and 3) the skin tones look totally correct to me, and the "brownish" quality that Bruce complains about, especially in the first scene with Hugh Griffith, isn't discernible to these eyes in the faces, but in the clothes and set decorations, which are indeed brownish, so for me, it's not the color that has faded as much as that's the way it was intended and processed, but was brightened by Technicolor when released in the US, to match the color in other Paramount productions. Now Robert, I'm not "arguing" or trying to convince anyone I'm "correct" but simply expressing my viewpoint, which is different from Bruce's, and though I almost always agree with him, for instance, even in his support of the very blue Blu of THE KING AND I, in this case I have a different view. Now I don't think he's necessarily mistaken, for the colors in this Blu are far more muted then they were in the US dye-transfer prints, but I don't think it's from fading or browning as Bruce claims as much as it was intended by the French DP, and altered by the lab in the US, as the colors work for me emotionally much better this way than they did originally. Anyway, that's my perspective, which I'm actually a bit surprised about, for as the film began, I was taken aback by the fact that the colors weren't as rich or as vibrant as I remembered. But now that I've seen it all the way through, I love it Go figure.
