What's new

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
15,672
Real Name
Robert Harris
Here's a Review with screenshot comparisons from the 4K

Anyone speak German?

Interestingly, the single shot selected to compare resolution is the single shot in the film from the Vegas montage for which the 35/8 VVLA footage has been located in stock footage and replaced what was a 3rd generation 35/4 dupe in the conformed neg.

It’s as if the writer has invented fire.
 

Fozl

Auditioning
Joined
Jul 10, 2016
Messages
8
Real Name
Michael
Anyone speak German?

Interestingly, the single shot selected to compare resolution is the single shot in the film from the Vegas montage for which the 35/8 VVLA footage has been located in stock footage and replaced what was a 3rd generation 35/4 dupe in the conformed neg.

It’s as if the writer has invented fire.
I posted this link but I'm not shure if I can Translate with my bad enlish and i'm not an expert :)
When You say "Vegas" do You speak of this picture?

Blu-Ray
1646056727094.png


4K:
1646056769561.png
 

Kyle_D

Supporting Actor
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
560
Real Name
Kyle Dickinson
Resolution aside, the color looks significantly different from the 2006 Blu-ray in the review screenshots. Most of the screenshots look like they were sourced from stock footage used in the montages, and I'll allow for color variations due to the improved source, but even the Sicily screenshot looks different. Is it closer to the 2006 DCP?
 

Fozl

Auditioning
Joined
Jul 10, 2016
Messages
8
Real Name
Michael
I do. Google translate is fine in a general sense, but misses some niceties.
The Reviewer has only good things to say about the old restoration and even more about the new effort of course which is even better in all aspects in his opinion. He only thing that some viewers will miss the old "red" colour in some shots he says :)
 

Kyle_D

Supporting Actor
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
560
Real Name
Kyle Dickinson
The Reviewer has only good things to say about the old restoration and even more about the new effort of course which is even better in all aspects in his opinion. He only thing that some viewers will miss the old "red" colour in some shots he says :)
There are a lot of statements in the Google-translate version of that review that give me pause, particularly:

The previous Blu-ray massively over-contrasted the scenes during the celebration at the beginning of the film, the new processing brings the contrast back to a natural level.

It's well known that Gordon Willis deliberately overexposed the wedding exteriors to replicate the sensation of stepping out of a dark room into bright light. I really hope the new release doesn't neuter Willis' intent. The color timing in the screenshots also differs significantly enough from the 2006 Blu-ray (which I understand was a bit too red) that I'm now starting to have doubts the new release properly respects Willis and RAH's 2006 restoration.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
15,672
Real Name
Robert Harris
There are a lot of statements in the Google-translate version of that review that give me pause, particularly:



It's well known that Gordon Willis deliberately overexposed the wedding exteriors to replicate the sensation of stepping out of a dark room into bright light. I really hope the new release doesn't neuter Willis' intent. The color timing in the screenshots also differs significantly enough from the 2006 Blu-ray (which I understand was a bit too red) that I'm now starting to have doubts the new release properly respects Willis and RAH's 2006 restoration.
If I'm reading the translation properly, the reviewer has no concept of what the film is supposed to look like.

Actually, the wedding celebration was perfectly exposed to create the illusion of improperly exposed Anscochrome.

During interviews, Mr. Willis used to field questions about his "under-exposing" the film. His reply was that his exposures were always spot on, and precisely as intended.

As to properly tracking our DCP, which was the intent, one isn't going to tell anything from this writer's captures.
 

ToEhrIsHuman

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 15, 2002
Messages
427
Location
San Diego, CA USA
Real Name
Craig Ehr
If I'm reading the translation properly, the reviewer has no concept of what the film is supposed to look like.

Actually, the wedding celebration was perfectly exposed to create the illusion of improperly exposed Anscochrome.

During interviews, Mr. Willis used to field questions about his "under-exposing" the film. His reply was that his exposures were always spot on, and precisely as intended.

As to properly tracking our DCP, which was the intent, one isn't going to tell anything from this writer's captures.
Haha you covered all the bases of the impressions I had "reading" that German review:

#1 The film is SUPPOSED to look that way
#2 Why are you using stock footage to demonstrate the new scan vs. the old (my guess is it was the most striking difference, naturally)
 

Kyle_D

Supporting Actor
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
560
Real Name
Kyle Dickinson
As to properly tracking our DCP, which was the intent, one isn't going to tell anything from this writer's captures.

I'm hoping the variations can be attributed to the writer's conversion of native Rec. 709 SDR and Rec. 2020/P3 HDR video to a non-native SDR color space for the screenshots.
 

sultan of cinema

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
May 28, 2019
Messages
56
Real Name
Joseph Barrett
No Paramount logo at the beginning of the film. Black leader with music and the white Paramount presents logo ( just like it looked in 1972). At the end, the Original Paramount Gulf and Western Logo appeared.
 

Richard M S

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
942
Last week Janet Maslin wrote a terrific 6 part tweet extolling Robert Harris along with her brief reminiscences of that Burns Center evening. Suffice it to say it gave me the idea for a rewatch of My Fair Lady and Lawrence Of Arabia, (and upcoming viewings of) Vertigo and The Godfather films.
 

Timo_Wolters

Auditioning
Joined
Mar 1, 2022
Messages
2
Real Name
Timo Wolters
If I'm reading the translation properly, the reviewer has no concept of what the film is supposed to look like.

Actually, the wedding celebration was perfectly exposed to create the illusion of improperly exposed Anscochrome.

During interviews, Mr. Willis used to field questions about his "under-exposing" the film. His reply was that his exposures were always spot on, and precisely as intended.

As to properly tracking our DCP, which was the intent, one isn't going to tell anything from this writer's captures.

Hello everybody. I am "the reviewer"

First of all, Mr. Harris: I am full of respect for the work you put into the remastering during the process 15+ years ago.
And in respect to that i crosslinked the youtube-documentation, so that everyone can watch for themselves, which big amount of work was done.
I do point out within my review, that DP Gordon Willis intended the deep blacks and i have added a comment about the intended bright scenes during the wedding, just to make sure, no one misunderstands my lines.

And of course i respect the concept of what the film was supposed to look like.

What i do within my review ist then describing what it looks like, if you playback the blu-ray from 2008/2019 which is based on that restauration from 15 years ago. And on a proper calibrated TV the whites on the wedding scenes do blow out. I do also say that this seemed to be intended.
What comes next within my review is (of course) flavoured by my taste. But i do point out, that if it really was intended this way, then you have to accept it.

In my eyes it just doesn't look very pretty. And i describe within my own words, why i think about it this way. This is NOT to question the intention of Mr. Willis, but to say that this special look (and the blu-ray has some issues with overexposed whites during the wedding scene) leaves with an ambivalent taste. You might have to accept it, but colors are very "special" and the blacks and whites are problematic in (supposedly) very many viewers eyes.

But what isn't answered during the last two pages of posts within this thread:
If it was intended the way it looks on the "old" blu-ray. Why does it now look completely different? Why did they color time the movie to a far more neutral look – away from the yellow-red of the "intended" look?
Why did they harmonize the contrasts, which now presents the wedding scene without overexposed whites and with more detail in the whites?

Was it just to harmonize with modern viewing experiences? Or was there another intention? At least Mr. Coppola seemes to have overseen it and agreed to the new look.

Which is NOW the way we have to look at THE GODFATHER?

P.S. The comparison-shots were done by a digital nikon camera. It's not stock footage. So of course they can never a 100% visualize what is really seen on screen (aside from millions of tvs that are not correctly calibrated and aside from being HDR-SDR-Downconverts). They can only be seen as a hint to see that the old/new look differ from each other a far amount. The more important descriptions are within my words.

Thanks for reading my words and thanks for the discussion.
Anyone with further questions can also contact me. I am open for every discussion.
 
Last edited:

Kyle_D

Supporting Actor
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
560
Real Name
Kyle Dickinson
P.S. The comparison-shots were done by a digital nikon camera. It's not stock footage. So of course they can never a 100% visualize what is really seen on screen (aside from millions of tvs that are not correctly calibrated and aside from being HDR-SDR-Downconverts). They can only be seen as a hint to see that the old/new look differ from each other a far amount. The more important descriptions are within my words.

Thank you for this explanation. It tells me everything I need to know.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
15,672
Real Name
Robert Harris
Hello everybody. I am "the reviewer"

First of all, Mr. Harris: I am full of respect for the work you put into the remastering during the process 15+ years ago.
And in respect to that i crosslinked the youtube-documentation, so that everyone can watch for themselves, which big amount of work was done.
I do point out within my review, that DP Gordon Willis intended the deep blacks and i have added a comment about the intended bright scenes during the wedding, just to make sure, no one misunderstands my lines.

And of course i respect the concept of what the film was supposed to look like.

What i do within my review ist then describing what it looks like, if you playback the blu-ray from 2008/2019 which is based on that restauration from 15 years ago. And on a proper calibrated TV the whites on the wedding scenes do blow out. I do also say that this seemed to be intended.
What comes next within my review is (of course) flavoured by my taste. But i do point out, that if it really was intended this way, then you have to accept it.

In my eyes it just doesn't look very pretty. And i describe within my own words, why i think about it this way. This is NOT to question the intention of Mr. Willis, but to say that this special look (and the blu-ray has some issues with overexposed whites during the wedding scene) leaves with an ambivalent taste. You might have to accept it, but colors are very "special" and the blacks and whites are problematic in (supposedly) very many viewers eyes.

But what isn't answered during the last two pages of posts within this thread:
If it was intended the way it looks on the "old" blu-ray. Why does it now look completely different? Why did they color time the movie to a far more neutral look – away from the yellow-red of the "intended" look?
Why did they harmonize the contrasts, which now presents the wedding scene without overexposed whites and with more detail in the whites?

Was it just to harmonize with modern viewing experiences? Or was there another intention? At least Mr. Coppola seemes to have overseen it and agreed to the new look.

Which is NOW the way we have to look at THE GODFATHER?

P.S. The comparison-shots were done by a digital nikon camera. It's not stock footage. So of course they can never a 100% visualize what is really seen on screen (aside from millions of tvs that are not correctly calibrated and aside from being HDR-SDR-Downconverts). They can only be seen as a hint to see that the old/new look differ from each other a far amount. The more important descriptions are within my words.

Thanks for reading my words and thanks for the discussion.
Anyone with further questions can also contact me. I am open for every discussion.
Welcome to HTF, and thank you for your explanation.

First, and most important, any images captured from a screen with a camera are 100% worthless, so we won't go there.

Second, everyone's eyes see things slightly differently, so anyone explaining color is problematic.

Some additional thoughts...

The 2007 DCP was as perfect as technologically and humanly possible in 2007, and had Mr. Willis' seal of approval. It is that data file to which all comparisons should be made. It is also that file that was used as a basis for the new work.

That new work has been approved by both the studio and Mr. Coppola, so regardless of any issues or differences perceived, that is the way the film is intended to appear in 2022.

Might it fall somewhere between a restoration and a re-imagining? I can't speak to that. But whatever it is - and I've not seen the final files - it should be considered correct as of 2022.

Also, as to the wedding sequence, it is perfectly exposed.
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
9,135
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
FWIW, the issue of (over)exposure is a tricky one. There are commonly accepted/understood (de facto) standards, and then there's the artistic intent plus how the viewer might then see/interpret/understand things... and then, there's also technological limitations in between, particularly in going from analog/film to digital.

I can certainly understand why some/many might feel that wedding scene is somewhat overexposed... due mostly to what looks like the blown whites.

It is what it is and apparently as intended... though it's interesting to hear the 4K disc version might not actually have blown whites in that scene (NVM some others in the rest of the movie)... especially since they still look (largely) blown in the current, 50th anniversary, limited theatrical run I just saw the other day at a local AMC Dolby Cinema screening (where they touted the higher contrast/DR capability afforded) -- and I actually pointed that out to my friend who didn't notice it as much as I did, which I did find quite jarring, especially juxtaposed w/ the very dark indoor shots/sequences, even though my friend actually works as a grip and sporadically cobbles together short film projects of his own (though he's generally much more focused on the scriptwriting aspect than the camera/visual)...

_Man_
 

RATLSNAKE

Agent
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
29
All of this as approved by Mr. Willis.
This is good enough for me. Thank you Mr Harris for continuing to do what you do, and for always taking so much time here on HTF to pull back the curtain and clarify for us all so much of the 'inside baseball' about the films we love.
Cannot wait to see what they've done to improve upon, even if so slight, the work your team did. Feels like yesterday that your work was available for purchase. Time flies.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
351,446
Messages
4,953,256
Members
143,054
Latest member
lukeholland
Recent bookmarks
0
Top