To Mr. Robert Harris: 10 films you’d like to have restored! (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

I agree with you. And the rest of the question is, even if Mr. Harris did work on it, how much more could he do? I thought that any problems had more to do with how it was originally made, and what shape the elements were in. Even to ignore that, it was released by WAC, not WHV (owing to popularity of catalog titles), and they still have a limited budget to work with (and I doubt that would have changed if Mr. Harris had done this one, either).

All projects like Silk, move steadily toward an ultimate rational budget point.

I thought that it looked terrific, for a 1957 Monopack negative production.

Could it look better?

Possibly, but incrementally.

And only by throwing another six figures into the budget, presuming that the elements would allow it.

That noted, I don’t understand what the purpose might be.

I’d leave it as it is, as opposed to spending funds to possibly raise a score by one or two tenths of a point.

One might peg a higher score at $75,000 per tenth, and that score might never hit 5.0.

 

[roxy1927]

Well now after Mr Hough's and Astairefan's comment I just might pick it up. I understand it suffers from 'yellow layer collapse' and would be to expensive to fully restore. Charisse and Astaire(even middle-aged) at their best and Lorre singing and dancing is a real surprise.

 

[Matt Hough]

Lorre is a lot of fun in Silk Stockings, but that's not his voice in the vocals. It's Ernest Newton's.

 

[Robert Harris]

Well now after Mr Hough's and Astairefan's comment I just might pick it up. I understand it suffers from 'yellow layer collapse' and would be to expensive to fully restore. Charisse and Astaire(even middle-aged) at their best and Lorre singing and dancing is a real surprise.

Forgive me, but you’re discussing problems with a film, suggesting that someone restore it, and have not seen the subject you’re discussing!?

 

[roxy1927]

I was commenting on the fact that there are people who have been complaining about the blu ray of the film and so I haven't bought it not wanting to spend close to $20 for something not much better than what I have. The review on Blu Ray was not good and also people on Amazon who are familiar with both editions were lamenting an increase in grain and softening of details. Bringing up this issue and having feedback from a few posters has given me the incentive to spring for it.

 

[Robin9]

I was commenting on the fact that there are people who have been complaining about the blu ray of the film and so I haven't bought it not wanting to spend close to $20 for something not much better than what I have. The review on Blu Ray was not good and also people on Amazon who are familiar with both editions were lamenting an increase in grain and softening of details. Bringing up this issue and having feedback from a few posters has given me the incentive to spring for it.

I would always be very wary about believing Amazon "reviewers" as many of them don't know what they're talking about.

 

[roxy1927]

Very true but the BluRay.com review was quite disheartening.

 

[Robert Harris]

Very true but the BluRay.com review was quite disheartening.

Mr. Reuben’s review was positive, but questioned the potential for better handling of dupes.

 

[roxy1927]

Well it did make me question if I should spend the money if it wasn't much better than the DVD and did cause me do wonder if somebody like you could have done a better job. But as you said it might be only incremental. I'm glad so many like the film. I believe it was Mamoulian's last completed film. He was certainly one of the most extraordinary talents of American film and theater in the mid Twentieth Century when there were so many enormously gifted people. I wish I had been around when it played at the Music Hall. I bet it looked crisp and dazzling on that large Cinemascope screen. I would have gone any number of times. Instead I was able to go alone into the city around the time when Radio City was playing such films as The Girl From Petrovka and Hennessey.

 

[cinemiracle]

I would always be very wary about believing Amazon "reviewers" as many of them don't know what they're talking about.

So True. Most Amazon reviewers haven't even seen a bluray or dvd of the film that they are reviewing. Reviews should only be allowed for actual buyers of the disc. For the best in bluray reviews try www.dvdbeaver.com.They are compiled by people who know what they are talking about.

 

[roxy1927]

Thank you. I wasn't aware of it and will check it out.

 

[OliverK]

Have a look at this one:

https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=8716&d2=8717&s1=83601&s2=83609&i=5&l=0

The difference is not just subtle but very substantial. Surely this is no large format extravaganza when it comes to detail but the increase in detail over the DVD is defnitely there even in darker amd grainy (duped?) indoor scenes:

https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=8716&d2=8717&s1=83596&s2=83604&i=0&l=0

Frankly I would have expected a bit more detail in a number of scenes if that was indeed a 4k OCN scan but there definitely is enough improvement to warrant having it on Blu-ray.

 

[roxy1927]

Well I'll be honest . I have seen the DVD many times on my Sony 65 inch screen TV from about 8 feet away and it does not look as bad as they are presenting it here(though still it is sorely lacking though not enough to keep me from enjoying the film.) But since it is one of my favorite films and there will be no further restoration at least during my lifetime it is worth getting for myself and making my own decision. I'll post my thoughts. Now when will they put out the first 3 color full length feature Mamoulian's Becky Sharp which I saw many years ago at Moma in a beautiful print except for the ending which was a disaster. They claimed it was beyond any effort for restoration due to available materials.
Now I see Kino Lorber has announced it for this summer. I wonder what will happen with the ending.

 

[OliverK]

Well I'll be honest . I have seen the DVD many times on my Sony 65 inch screen TV from about 8 feet away and it does not look as bad as they are presenting it here(though still it is sorely lacking though not enough to keep me from enjoying the film.) But since it is one of my favorite films and there will be no further restoration at least during my lifetime it is worth getting for myself and making my own decision. I'll post my thoughts.

You are sitting much closer to your monitor then your TV so that will make a big difference. The other difference is that moving pictures always look better than stills as they add temporal resolution.

 

[moviefanatic1979]

+

If you have a player which upscales the picture it gets sharper on the TV screen.

 

[Ethan Riley]

There's nothing wrong with Silk Stockings.

 

[roxy1927]

This is the section of the BluRay.com review that had me concerned and made me question buying the bluray and disappointed that it might not look as good as other Warner transfers. At the end the reviewer in comparing it to others says it is subpar to the point of being noticeable. A number of you seem to disagree so it is for me to buy it and make my own decision.


'The disc's weak point is the accentuated grain pattern caused by "yellow layer collapse", with the coarseness of the grain amplifying the perception of softness and lack of detail. While WAC is to be commended for resisting the temptation to apply digital sharpening and grain reduction in an effort to compensate for the source's limitations, there is no getting around the fact that the Blu-ray's image is disappointingly bland. Without an independent assessment of the negative, it is impossible to say whether a superior image could be achieved. I have been told that the effects of "yellow layer collapse" can be substantially rectified in the digital domain, but only at a cost that would far exceed the budget typically afforded to WAC for its Blu-ray transfers.

A singular oddity occurs at approximately 1:10:05, where Cyd Charisse is exiting the elevator to the hotel lobby. After several frames, all of the color values shift noticeably (compare screenshots 30 and 31). I have been advised that this discontinuity results from a flawed and faded optical, but I find it hard to excuse the colorist for leaving it uncorrected, given the capabilities of modern digital tools.

WAC has mastered Silk Stockings at the company's usual target average bitrate of 35 Mbps, with a capable encode. Unfortunately, the best encoding in the world can't compensate for the limitations of the source. My video score attempts to balance the results achieved against the challenges of the material. Silk Stockings doesn't look bad; it just doesn't look very good. WAC's recent efforts have set such a high benchmark that anything subpar stands out noticeably.'

 

[OliverK]

+

If you have a player which upscales the picture it gets sharper on the TV screen.

The screencaps are already upscaled to 1080p or 4k or the size would change dramatically for some mouseovers. The upscaling is actually pretty good compared to what many TV's offer.

 

[OliverK]

This is the section of the BluRay.com review that had me concerned and made me question buying the bluray and disappointed that it might not look as good as other Warner transfers. At the end the reviewer in comparing it to others says it is subpar to the point of being noticeable. A number of you seem to disagree so it is for me to buy it and make my own decision.


'The disc's weak point is the accentuated grain pattern caused by "yellow layer collapse", with the coarseness of the grain amplifying the perception of softness and lack of detail. While WAC is to be commended for resisting the temptation to apply digital sharpening and grain reduction in an effort to compensate for the source's limitations, there is no getting around the fact that the Blu-ray's image is disappointingly bland. Without an independent assessment of the negative, it is impossible to say whether a superior image could be achieved. I have been told that the effects of "yellow layer collapse" can be substantially rectified in the digital domain, but only at a cost that would far exceed the budget typically afforded to WAC for its Blu-ray transfers.

A singular oddity occurs at approximately 1:10:05, where Cyd Charisse is exiting the elevator to the hotel lobby. After several frames, all of the color values shift noticeably (compare screenshots 30 and 31). I have been advised that this discontinuity results from a flawed and faded optical, but I find it hard to excuse the colorist for leaving it uncorrected, given the capabilities of modern digital tools.

WAC has mastered Silk Stockings at the company's usual target average bitrate of 35 Mbps, with a capable encode. Unfortunately, the best encoding in the world can't compensate for the limitations of the source. My video score attempts to balance the results achieved against the challenges of the material. Silk Stockings doesn't look bad; it just doesn't look very good. WAC's recent efforts have set such a high benchmark that anything subpar stands out noticeably.'

I can see that reading a review like this one may lead to second guessing but the important questions that one has to answer are imo:

Is there likely to be another release soon that will look better? NO
Is there a big enough upgrade over the DVD? YES
Does it look about as good as could be expected given the way it was shot and the available elements and that it is not a super high profile title? YES

So in this case this makes Silk Stockings a definite buy.

How other movies may or may not look should not be of any importance if one is after a reasonably good looking version of a specific movie. It is not as if buying a great looking version of My Fair Lady will help when you originally intended to watch Silk Stockings on Blu-ray.

 

[roxy1927]

I understand the first bluray of MFL was a disappointment. This is so great I now want my friends who don't like the film to see it. A surprising number don't due to finding it too stagey and they can't get over the fact that Andrews didn't do the role. At this point who even saw her do it? Hepburn wasn't even nominated which was very cruel. Watch her on you tube giving the Oscar to Harrison. Talk about rising above it! I like them both better than Howard and Hiller and they are among my favorite actors.

Andrew Sarris called MFL 'elegantly embalmed.' Elia Kazan wrote Cukor that he won the Oscar for the wrong film. My friends if not totally won over will still find it impressive.