Thinking of Getting Criterion's HEAVEN CAN WAIT (1943) Blu-ray, but... (1 Viewer)

[Dick]

Does anyone have or has anyone seen this to tell me if it is another in the long string of Technicolor/color Blu-ray's from Fox to completely mess it up with that teal crap (sorry, Bruce)? The trailer on the IMDB site looks like they may have...the supposedly white shirts are all blue! This would, of course, be a deal-breaker for me!

 

[TonyD]

Maybe this thread can shed some light …..

A few words about...™ Heaven Can Wait (1943) -- in Blu-ray

When discussing any Fox Technicolor film from the nitrate era, expectations are to lowered – measurably. Extant film elements allow the films to appear never as they did, but rather, anywhere from impermissible to nice, while never able to hit anywhere near perfection. Ernst Lubitsch’s 1943...

www.hometheaterforum.com

 

[Dick]

Yup...I looked in the drop-down below the box where I entered the title, and that thread did not show up. I did not search, and I should have. My bad. Yes, I think that thread seems to indicate that the colour is awesome. Thanks.

 

[haineshisway]

Just to clarify for friend Dick, teal is a very specific shade of blue and has nothing to do with the blue on view in Fox Blu-rays - but it's cute that people keep using the word "teal."

 

[TonyD]

Welp, unsubbing form this convo as I don’t need to go down that rabbit hole for the millionth time.

 

[Robert Harris]

The film looks very nice, for what it is.

 

[Matt Hough]

Those "teal" complaints usually concern DeLuxe color applications in Cinemascope films. Heaven Can Wait is an entirely different proposition with Fox's disposal of its Technicolor masters, a very different and quite legitimate concern.

 

[lark144]

I saw a nitrate 3-strip if this at MOMA and it was beyond exquisite. The Blu-Ray is a pale reflection of that, but the essentials and the colors are there, They somehow corrected the fade and poor shadow definition on most of these Fox 3-strips struck from faded and poorly made CRIs. It looks pretty good, surprisingly so and it definitely gives you an organic presentation of what was once the crown jewel of 3-strip technicolor in the 1940's. So yes, I would recommend it, with what Mr. Harris calls the proper understanding and expectations of what you're looking at. But I also think the color is quite good and enhances the picture in and of itself. it doesn't pop and glow like it used to with lilac, red and a surfeit of pastels that I found overwhelming, but I think they did a remarkable job, considering what they had to work with.

 

[JoeDoakes]

I saw a nitrate 3-strip if this at MOMA and it was beyond exquisite. The Blu-Ray is a pale reflection of that, but the essentials and the colors are there, They somehow corrected the fade and poor shadow definition on most of these Fox 3-strips struck from faded and poorly made CRIs. It looks pretty good, surprisingly so and it definitely gives you an organic presentation of what was once the crown jewel of 3-strip technicolor in the 1940's. So yes, I would recommend it, with what Mr. Harris calls the proper understanding and expectations of what you're looking at. But I also think the color is quite good and enhances the picture in and of itself. it doesn't pop and glow like it used to with lilac, red and a surfeit of pastels that I found overwhelming, but I think they did a remarkable job, considering what they had to work with.

MOMA apparently has an excellent film archive, including films not in others. However, those elements rarely seem to make it into commercial releases. Does anyone know why?

 

[Robert Harris]

I saw a nitrate 3-strip if this at MOMA and it was beyond exquisite. The Blu-Ray is a pale reflection of that, but the essentials and the colors are there, They somehow corrected the fade and poor shadow definition on most of these Fox 3-strips struck from faded and poorly made CRIs. It looks pretty good, surprisingly so and it definitely gives you an organic presentation of what was once the crown jewel of 3-strip technicolor in the 1940's. So yes, I would recommend it, with what Mr. Harris calls the proper understanding and expectations of what you're looking at. But I also think the color is quite good and enhances the picture in and of itself. it doesn't pop and glow like it used to with lilac, red and a surfeit of pastels that I found overwhelming, but I think they did a remarkable job, considering what they had to work with.

Since we’re discussing a project that I created and worked on with a great team at Lowry, I can be picky about discussing what’s being seen.

Let’s begin with the concept that “A good cast is worth repeating.”

This is precisely the situation, although I’ll not reiterate the “why” of the pre-history.

C. 1976 Fox tech personnel made several huge errors that destroyed their pre-‘52 library.

All nitrate was copied to safety, and most (I noted a single extant example in addition to some tests and deletions that survived) of the OCNs, YCM masters and b/w fine grains were destroyed, The rumor is that they sleep with the fishes.

Studio prints went to archives. No one knows why other original elements did not.

There was an extremely simple, proven process, for archiving Technicolor. Take the three negs and strike b/w masters. Had this been done…

What they DID do made zero sense, and destroyed the library.

deluxe labs took the three-strip negatives, and exposed them (with minimal concern for alignment or dupes) optically to the new miracle CRI stock, which allowed them to skip a step and go directly from negative to negative. This was an “off-label” use of CRI, which was quickly thereafter found to begin to fade in as little as 7-10 years.

At this point, with everything presumably protected, the original negs could be junked.

But they went the extra step.

They knew that Technicolor always struck b/w masters for protection, so they did the same.

With one major difference, which presumably gave the lab more work.

Technicolor’s masters were b/w fine grains, derived from b/w negatives.

Since deluxe had produced an Eastman Color intermediate from the original Technicolor records, they now had to optically separate the three color records as separation masters.

So…

What now exists are No original negatives, No original masters, and in their place faded CRIs, and separation masters derived from those problematic CRIs.

Color does not track properly. Contrast blooms. Shadow detail is virtually gone. The art of three-strip Technicolor destroyed.

The title being discussed is one of the least problematic, and to my eye looks “decent.”

What we did back in 2005 was this. And full credit must go to Schawn Belston (then at Fox) for supporting the project.

The CRI was scanned at Lowry at 2k, and the Y dye layer was dropped. This was the greatest area of fade. The Y sep master was scanned, and aligned in the digital files. The resultant image was then color corrected, cleaned and output to film.

The following year, the work was hailed as a “Restoration” at the NY Film Festival.

It was not. It was a digital recombine and color of ill-conceived elements. But aside from the Tech reference nitrate print, that was all that existed.

With new digital tools it’s now time to begin pulling those nitrate prints and attempting to create better elements.

Will this happen?

At Disney?

 

[Dick]

Just to clarify for friend Dick, teal is a very specific shade of blue and has nothing to do with the blue on view in Fox Blu-rays - but it's cute that people keep using the word "teal."

Guess I've been misusing "teal," but there sure is a lot of (added and unnecessary) blue in them.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Guess I've been misusing "teal," but there sure is a lot of (added and unnecessary) blue in them.

Well, are you going to buy this Blu-ray?

 

[Dick]

Well, are you going to buy this Blu-ray?

Aw, o-kay, Robert, I suppose I might. Maybe. Depends on my mood. On my priorities. On my finances. In any case, the posts in this thread do remove my fear of any teal hue...whoops...blue hue ruining the color in this release. Thanks, all.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Aw, o-kay, Robert, I suppose I might. Maybe. Depends on my mood. On my priorities. On my finances. In any case, the posts in this thread do remove my fear of any teal hue...whoops...blue hue ruining the color in this release. Thanks, all.

If that's the case then you might as well wait for a sale, when you can purchase it a little cheaper.

 

[JimMiller]

Since we’re discussing a project that I created and worked on with a great team at Lowry, I can be picky about discussing what’s being seen.

Let’s begin with the concept that “A good cast is worth repeating.”

This is precisely the situation, although I’ll not reiterate the “why” of the pre-history.

C. 1976 Fox tech personnel made several huge errors that destroyed their pre-‘52 library.

All nitrate was copied to safety, and most (I noted a single extant example in addition to some tests and deletions that survived) of the OCNs, YCM masters and b/w fine grains were destroyed, The rumor is that they sleep with the fishes.

Studio prints went to archives. No one knows why other original elements did not.

There was an extremely simple, proven process, for archiving Technicolor. Take the three negs and strike b/w masters. Had this been done…

What they DID do made zero sense, and destroyed the library.

deluxe labs took the three-strip negatives, and exposed them (with minimal concern for alignment or dupes) optically to the new miracle CRI stock, which allowed them to skip a step and go directly from negative to negative. This was an “off-label” use of CRI, which was quickly thereafter found to begin to fade in as little as 7-10 years.

At this point, with everything presumably protected, the original negs could be junked.

But they went the extra step.

They knew that Technicolor always struck b/w masters for protection, so they did the same.

With one major difference, which presumably gave the lab more work.

Technicolor’s masters were b/w fine grains, derived from b/w negatives.

Since deluxe had produced an Eastman Color intermediate from the original Technicolor records, they now had to optically separate the three color records as separation masters.

So…

What now exists are No original negatives, No original masters, and in their place faded CRIs, and separation masters derived from those problematic CRIs.

Color does not track properly. Contrast blooms. Shadow detail is virtually gone. The art of three-strip Technicolor destroyed.

The title being discussed is one of the least problematic, and to my eye looks “decent.”

What we did back in 2005 was this. And full credit must go to Schawn Belston (then at Fox) for supporting the project.

The CRI was scanned at Lowry at 2k, and the Y dye layer was dropped. This was the greatest area of fade. The Y sep master was scanned, and aligned in the digital files. The resultant image was then color corrected, cleaned and output to film.

The following year, the work was hailed as a “Restoration” at the NY Film Festival.

It was not. It was a digital recombine and color of ill-conceived elements. But aside from the Tech reference nitrate print, that was all that existed.

With new digital tools it’s now time to begin pulling those nitrate prints and attempting to create better elements.

Will this happen?

At Disney?

Robert, all I can say is, for what it took to get the film this far, it looks VERY nice.

 

[RobertMG]

Since we’re discussing a project that I created and worked on with a great team at Lowry, I can be picky about discussing what’s being seen.

Let’s begin with the concept that “A good cast is worth repeating.”

This is precisely the situation, although I’ll not reiterate the “why” of the pre-history.

C. 1976 Fox tech personnel made several huge errors that destroyed their pre-‘52 library.

All nitrate was copied to safety, and most (I noted a single extant example in addition to some tests and deletions that survived) of the OCNs, YCM masters and b/w fine grains were destroyed, The rumor is that they sleep with the fishes.

Studio prints went to archives. No one knows why other original elements did not.

There was an extremely simple, proven process, for archiving Technicolor. Take the three negs and strike b/w masters. Had this been done…

What they DID do made zero sense, and destroyed the library.

deluxe labs took the three-strip negatives, and exposed them (with minimal concern for alignment or dupes) optically to the new miracle CRI stock, which allowed them to skip a step and go directly from negative to negative. This was an “off-label” use of CRI, which was quickly thereafter found to begin to fade in as little as 7-10 years.

At this point, with everything presumably protected, the original negs could be junked.

But they went the extra step.

They knew that Technicolor always struck b/w masters for protection, so they did the same.

With one major difference, which presumably gave the lab more work.

Technicolor’s masters were b/w fine grains, derived from b/w negatives.

Since deluxe had produced an Eastman Color intermediate from the original Technicolor records, they now had to optically separate the three color records as separation masters.

So…

What now exists are No original negatives, No original masters, and in their place faded CRIs, and separation masters derived from those problematic CRIs.

Color does not track properly. Contrast blooms. Shadow detail is virtually gone. The art of three-strip Technicolor destroyed.

The title being discussed is one of the least problematic, and to my eye looks “decent.”

What we did back in 2005 was this. And full credit must go to Schawn Belston (then at Fox) for supporting the project.

The CRI was scanned at Lowry at 2k, and the Y dye layer was dropped. This was the greatest area of fade. The Y sep master was scanned, and aligned in the digital files. The resultant image was then color corrected, cleaned and output to film.

The following year, the work was hailed as a “Restoration” at the NY Film Festival.

It was not. It was a digital recombine and color of ill-conceived elements. But aside from the Tech reference nitrate print, that was all that existed.

With new digital tools it’s now time to begin pulling those nitrate prints and attempting to create better elements.

Will this happen?

At Disney?

Stunning info - what confounds is although this is about Heaven Can Wait MOVIES! is airing "Kentucky" and it looks pretty good for FOX

 

[lark144]

Since we’re discussing a project that I created and worked on with a great team at Lowry, I can be picky about discussing what’s being seen.

Let’s begin with the concept that “A good cast is worth repeating.”

This is precisely the situation, although I’ll not reiterate the “why” of the pre-history.

C. 1976 Fox tech personnel made several huge errors that destroyed their pre-‘52 library.

All nitrate was copied to safety, and most (I noted a single extant example in addition to some tests and deletions that survived) of the OCNs, YCM masters and b/w fine grains were destroyed, The rumor is that they sleep with the fishes.

Studio prints went to archives. No one knows why other original elements did not.

There was an extremely simple, proven process, for archiving Technicolor. Take the three negs and strike b/w masters. Had this been done…

What they DID do made zero sense, and destroyed the library.

deluxe labs took the three-strip negatives, and exposed them (with minimal concern for alignment or dupes) optically to the new miracle CRI stock, which allowed them to skip a step and go directly from negative to negative. This was an “off-label” use of CRI, which was quickly thereafter found to begin to fade in as little as 7-10 years.

At this point, with everything presumably protected, the original negs could be junked.

But they went the extra step.

They knew that Technicolor always struck b/w masters for protection, so they did the same.

With one major difference, which presumably gave the lab more work.

Technicolor’s masters were b/w fine grains, derived from b/w negatives.

Since deluxe had produced an Eastman Color intermediate from the original Technicolor records, they now had to optically separate the three color records as separation masters.

So…

What now exists are No original negatives, No original masters, and in their place faded CRIs, and separation masters derived from those problematic CRIs.

Color does not track properly. Contrast blooms. Shadow detail is virtually gone. The art of three-strip Technicolor destroyed.

The title being discussed is one of the least problematic, and to my eye looks “decent.”

What we did back in 2005 was this. And full credit must go to Schawn Belston (then at Fox) for supporting the project.

The CRI was scanned at Lowry at 2k, and the Y dye layer was dropped. This was the greatest area of fade. The Y sep master was scanned, and aligned in the digital files. The resultant image was then color corrected, cleaned and output to film.

The following year, the work was hailed as a “Restoration” at the NY Film Festival.

It was not. It was a digital recombine and color of ill-conceived elements. But aside from the Tech reference nitrate print, that was all that existed.

With new digital tools it’s now time to begin pulling those nitrate prints and attempting to create better elements.

Will this happen?

At Disney?

Thank you Mr. Harris. Now I understand why it looks the way it does.

 

[bujaki]

Thank you Mr. Harris. Now I understand why it looks the way it does.

And why we were so lucky to have seen MoMA's nitrate print!

 

[RobertMG]

And why we were so lucky to have seen MoMA's nitrate print!

If Studio nitrates exist can't they be used to transfer films? Must be a way to make it work this trailer looks better than the film

 

[lark144]

And why we were so lucky to have seen MoMA's nitrate print!

Except we didn't realize it at the time! Or at least, I didn't. Being young and foolish, I thought it was normal. I remember around the same time, the NYFF had a special program, free to the public, in the Library of the Performing Arts, of the Fox three-strip nitrates owned by the Cinematheque Francaise, which included THE RETURN OF FRANK JAMES, WESTERN UNION and BLOOD and SAND. Were you around for that?