A few words about…™Forever Amber — in Blu-ray

Upgrade from DVD - Yes, with limitations acknowledged 4 Stars

Otto Preminger’s 1947 Technicolor opus, Forever Amber, which was subjected to censorship cuts and then three decades later, destruction of the Fox Technicolor library, arrives via Twilight Time, and gives us an inkling — and not much more — of the original beauty of the production.

One can only watch the work of Leon Shamroy, and wonder what might have been. To place things in perspective, over eighty productions were destroyed.

Magnificently mounted by Fox, it’s the tale of a young girl making her way through the court of seventeenth century England.

Linda Darnell is in the lead, with a superb supporting cast — Cornel Wilde, Richard Greene, George Sanders, Jessica Tandy and Fox stalwart, Anne Revere.

Strangely, Miss Darnell, who in this film, survived the London fire, lost her life in 1965 due to a house fire in Illinois.

While audio seems fine, imagery is much like many other Fox Technicolor productions, with decent color (albeit contrasty and dupey) in daylight, falling to quite unacceptable where elements are thinly exposed.

Bottom line. It is what it is, and without spending far more than might be worthwhile, will not get any better.

As a film, it’s a superb entertainment, with a great score by David Raksin, offered isolated by Twilight Time.

Image – 2.5

Audio – 4.5

Pass / Fail – Pass

Upgrade from DVD – Yes, with limitations acknowledged

Recommended

RAH

Published by

Robert Harris

author,member

115 Comments

  1. While I'm disappointed that they weren't able to restore it to anywhere near its original visual luster, as you say it is what it is. Still, as a huge fan of the drop dead gorgeous Darnell and the great David Raksin, this is a high priority purchase for me.

  2. It follows a French Blu Ray released by Carlotta in 2012. I would not doubt both releases are using the same encode. I think Mr Harris' words to describe the Twilight Time image also apply to the Carlotta. "Washed out" is too kind for it. Pity, as it's really a Prem worth reviving.

  3. Due to the history of the fire, what more can be asked by us?
    Leon Shamroy's legacy, though, seems to have taken the greatest of beatings;
    as we must also factor in the surviving film elements of "Wilson" and "Leave Her to Heaven";
    with the latter from TT looking pretty darned amazing for a film I never saw in its pristine state.
    BTW, Robert, could you clarify if the censored portions are inclusive of this TT release?
    My gut says that those cuts went with the fire, as well.

    Just for the record, this will be a purchase. Preminger's directing is always worth the journey.

  4. david hare

    It follows a French Blu Ray released by Carlotta in 2012. I would not doubt both releases are using the same encode. I think Mr Harris' words to describe the Twilight Time image also apply to the Carlotta. "Washed out" is too kind for it. Pity, as it's really a Prem worth reviving.

    The TT transfer is from a brand new 4k restoration, as already explained by TT folks.

  5. Will Krupp

    It wasn't a fire (that was in 1937) Fox JUNKED all of their existing three-strip negatives in the 1970's. Threw em right in the ocean!

    Thanks for clarifying, Will. I continue to imagine the fires; and often forget about the waters.
    Is it possible for the Woods Hole Oceanographic to conduct the same search as they had for Titanic?

  6. PMF

    Thanks for clarifying, Will. I continue to imagine the fires; and often forget about the waters.
    Is it possible for the Woods Hole Oceanographic to conduct the same search as they had for Titanic?

    It is often said that the Pacific Ocean is the greatest film repository in the world.

  7. I suspected that this might be a disc I wouldn't buy. I have this film on a most unsatisfactory Spanish DVD and I was hoping for a miracle, similar to Drums Along The Mohawk. Linda Darnell is one of my four favorite female stars, but I'm going to show disloyalty.

  8. For perspective, RAH scored Drums Along the Mohawk at 3 out of 5 for video and made similar remarks about that release as he has about this one:

    https://www.hometheaterforum.com/co…ng-the-mohawk-in-blu-ray.326562/#post-4002038

    If Forever Amber is judged to be only 0.5 below that standard, then it will be just fine for me, as I loved the look and colour of Drums – the lack of shadow detail notwithstanding.

    I understand that the colour in both films probably looks nothing like their original releases, and I suspect that that’s (rightly) the prime reason for the low video scores from a purist’s view.

    I’ll be buying this Blu-ray, reassured by Matt Hough’s review and the knowledge that Twilight Time is picky with the masters they accept for release.

  9. RMajidi

    For perspective, RAH scored Drums Along the Mohawk at 3 out of 5 for video and made similar remarks about that release as he has about this one:

    https://www.hometheaterforum.com/co…ng-the-mohawk-in-blu-ray.326562/#post-4002038

    If Forever Amber is judged to be only 0.5 below that standard, then it will be just fine for me, as I loved the look and colour of Drums – the lack of shadow detail notwithstanding.

    I understand that the colour in both films probably looks nothing like their original releases, and I suspect that that’s (rightly) the prime reason for the low video scores from a purist’s view.

    I’ll be buying this Blu-ray, reassured by Matt Hough’s review and the knowledge that Twilight Time is picky with the masters they accept for release.

    Thanks, RMajidi — Yes, similar to Drums, Leave Her to Heaven, Captain from Castile, etc. this new transfer of Amber (more recent than the Fox DVD, and the Carlotta), is really the best that Fox can do with their 30s and 40s color films – while wishing that things were different, we, and they, can't make it so. It's almost pointless "scoring" these transfers, as purists will always be disappointed, while fans will simply be happy to have them. Unless we should just cancel all the remaining vintage color films from Fox that we have licensed? Would that be preferable?

  10. Twilight Time

    Thanks, RMajidi — Yes, similar to Drums, Leave Her to Heaven, Captain from Castile, etc. this new transfer of Amber (more recent than the Fox DVD, and the Carlotta), is really the best that Fox can do with their 30s and 40s color films – while wishing that things were different, we, and they, can't make it so. It's almost pointless "scoring" these transfers, as purists will always be disappointed, while fans will simply be happy to have them. Unless we should just cancel all the remaining vintage color films from Fox that we have licensed? Would that be preferable?

    No Nick, that is not right course of action as most of us have been very happy with your Fox color films releases on Blu-ray.

  11. Twilight Time

    Unless we should just cancel all the remaining vintage color films from Fox that we have licensed? Would that be preferable?

    Absolutely not! I don't have this one yet, but I found Drums Along The Mohawk to be spectacular, so if this and other Fox titles from that period are of similar quality, I'll be a happy camper.

  12. Twilight Time

    Thanks, RMajidi — Yes, similar to Drums, Leave Her to Heaven, Captain from Castile, etc. this new transfer of Amber (more recent than the Fox DVD, and the Carlotta), is really the best that Fox can do with their 30s and 40s color films – while wishing that things were different, we, and they, can't make it so. It's almost pointless "scoring" these transfers, as purists will always be disappointed, while fans will simply be happy to have them. Unless we should just cancel all the remaining vintage color films from Fox that we have licensed? Would that be preferable?

    Do keep them coming, based upon your inspection. Some have survived better than others, as the 1970s intermediate elements were produced as nothing more than running footage, or film fodder, for lab billing.

    It came down to a matter of luck.

    Having worked on some of these, creating the work flow, a film such as Leave Her will appear far better than Drums.

    Many of these are superb productions, and even in black & white, deserve the public’s attention.

    Which is why there is still a less than wonderful numerical grade, but the product can be Recommended.

  13. I just finished watching my Forever Amber Blu-ray and thought it was breathtaking, the perfect post-Christmas treat. I'm so grateful that, in spite of the inevitable flaws, 20th Century Fox thought it worthy of a 4K scan and Twilight Time of releasing it. It's now a treasured title in my collection.

  14. Twilight Time

    Thanks, RMajidi — Yes, similar to Drums, Leave Her to Heaven, Captain from Castile, etc. this new transfer of Amber (more recent than the Fox DVD, and the Carlotta), is really the best that Fox can do with their 30s and 40s color films – while wishing that things were different, we, and they, can't make it so. It's almost pointless "scoring" these transfers, as purists will always be disappointed, while fans will simply be happy to have them. Unless we should just cancel all the remaining vintage color films from Fox that we have licensed? Would that be preferable?

    My Technicolor wish-list:

    Becky Sharp (1935)
    Down Argentine Way (1940 Fox) *on Fox iTunes*
    That Night in Rio (1941 Fox)
    Week-End in Havana (1941 Fox)
    Song of the Islands (1942 Fox)
    Lassie Come Home (1943 MGM)
    Bathing Beauty (1944 MGM)
    Cobra Woman (1944 Universal)
    Frenchman's Creek (1944 Paramount) (Oscar for Best Art Direction-Interior Decoration, Color)
    National Velvet (1944 MGM) (Oscars for Best Director / Best Actress in a Supporting Role / Best Cinematography, Color / Best Editing)
    the Spanish Main (1945 RKO)
    the Harvey Girls (1946 MGM) (Oscar for Best Music, Original Song)
    Till the Clouds Roll By (1946 MGM)
    Desert Fury (1947 Paramount)
    Sinbad, the Sailor (1947 RKO)
    Romance on the High Seas (1948 Warner)
    the Three Musketeers (1948 MGM)
    Neptune's Daughter (1949 MGM) (Oscar for Best Music, Original Song)
    King Solomon's Mines (1950 MGM) (Oscars for Best Cinematography, Color / Best Film Editing)
    Anne of the Indies (1951 Fox)
    Flame of Araby (1951 Universal)
    Show Boat (1951 MGM)
    Against All Flags (1952 Universal)
    Rancho Notorious (1952 RKO)
    Small Town Girl (1953 MGM)
    War of the Worlds (1953 Paramount) (Oscar for Best Effects, Special Effects)
    Secret of the Incas (1954 Paramount)

    And if I had to pick just one, it would have to be King Solomon's Mines – lots of vivid outdoor cinematography!

  15. notmicro

    My Technicolor wish-list:

    Becky Sharp (1935)
    Down Argentine Way (1940 Fox) *on Fox iTunes*
    That Night in Rio (1941 Fox)
    Week-End in Havana (1941 Fox)
    Song of the Islands (1942 Fox)
    Lassie Come Home (1943 MGM)
    Bathing Beauty (1944 MGM)
    Cobra Woman (1944 Universal)
    Frenchman's Creek (1944 Paramount) (Oscar for Best Art Direction-Interior Decoration, Color)
    National Velvet (1944 MGM) (Oscars for Best Director / Best Actress in a Supporting Role / Best Cinematography, Color / Best Editing)
    the Spanish Main (1945 RKO)
    the Harvey Girls (1946 MGM) (Oscar for Best Music, Original Song)
    Till the Clouds Roll By (1946 MGM)
    Desert Fury (1947 Paramount)
    Sinbad, the Sailor (1947 RKO)
    Romance on the High Seas (1948 Warner)
    the Three Musketeers (1948 MGM)
    Neptune's Daughter (1949 MGM) (Oscar for Best Music, Original Song)
    King Solomon's Mines (1950 MGM) (Oscars for Best Cinematography, Color / Best Film Editing)
    Anne of the Indies (1951 Fox)
    Flame of Araby (1951 Universal)
    Show Boat (1951 MGM)
    Against All Flags (1952 Universal)
    Rancho Notorious (1952 RKO)
    Small Town Girl (1953 MGM)
    War of the Worlds (1953 Paramount) (Oscar for Best Effects, Special Effects)
    Secret of the Incas (1954 Paramount)

    And if I had to pick just one, it would have to be King Solomon's Mines – lots of vivid outdoor cinematography!

    A few of mine are National Velvet and The Shepherd of the Hills..

  16. Robert Crawford

    A few of mine are National Velvet and The Shepherd of the Hills..

    I'll second National Velvet, and toss in Holiday in Mexico, Million Dollar Mermaid, Easy to Love, Lassie Come Home, and, Show Boat. Would also love to see WB get behind a new remaster of The Student Prince (not in Technicolor) and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (ditto).

  17. Andrew Budgell

    I just finished watching my Forever Amber Blu-ray and thought it was breathtaking, the perfect post-Christmas treat. I'm so grateful that, in spite of the inevitable flaws, 20th Century Fox thought it worthy of a 4K scan and Twilight Time of releasing it. It's now a treasured title in my collection.

    watched it last night and it is not good……..it is brilliant and both sound and PQ are outstanding ….it might be worth noting to remind people that this is a rather old movie and old movie elements tend to deteriorate over time but this film has not…….

  18. Twilight Time

    It's almost pointless "scoring" these transfers, as purists will always be disappointed, while fans will simply be happy to have them. Unless we should just cancel all the remaining vintage color films from Fox that we have licensed? Would that be preferable?

    Please remember that a large number of us do NOT make perfect the enemy of good.

  19. commander richardson

    watched it last night and it is not good……..it is brilliant and both sound and PQ are outstanding ….it might be worth noting to remind people that this is a rather old movie and old movie elements tend to deteriorate over time but this film has not…….

    ??

  20. I love this movie. I just ordered it from TT, I will retire my DVD-R to someone who wants it.
    Also ordered 'Wuthering Heights'. I can't wait to get these as I have some time off from work. I may do a double feature when they arrive. Twilight Time sure knows how to pick em. I'm happy to say I will be ordering a lot more from them in the next few months.

  21. Fox did one of the dumbest things in history of film preservation. They thrown away camera negatives and fine grains from all technicolor films they produced, and kept only CRI (color reversal interpositive) from it. We should call all DVD and Blu ray release from Fox as Foxcolor, since all technicolors from FOZ will have basically the same problems.

  22. Fox did one of the dumbest things in history of film preservation. They thrown away camera negatives and fine grains from all technicolor films they produced, and kept only CRI (color reversal interpositive) from it. We should call all DVD and Blu ray release from Fox as Foxcolor, since all technicolors from FOZ will have basically the same problems.

  23. Alberto_D

    Fox did one of the dumbest things in history of film preservation. They thrown away camera negatives and fine grains from all technicolor films they produced, and kept only CRI (color reversal interpositive) from it. We should call all DVD and Blu ray release from Fox as Foxcolor, since all technicolors from FOZ will have basically the same problems.

    Why “interpositive?”

    All Fox 3-Strips do not have the problem. Some are quite lovely.

    If you’re going to presume certain technical facts, please take care toward accuracy.

  24. Will Krupp

    DOWN ARGENTINE WAY looks brilliant on DVD. I can only imagine what blu-ray could do with it.

    DOWN ARGENTINE WAY (1940) even stood out on old TV broadcasts. It's too bad that Fox hasn't seen fit to release this gem on Blu-ray, or at least license it out. That NATIONAL VELVET (1944), which has seen release in virtually every other preceding home video format STILL isn't on Blu-ray nearly a dozen years into that format is to me, downright inexplicable!

    CHEERS! 🙂

  25. Down Argentine Way did look magnificent. And Fox has done stellar work elsewhere on their catalog. A lot of the Carmen Miranda films have held up spectacularly well. Virtually none – except for a rather lackluster incarnation of The Gang's All Here, have found their way to Blu-ray. For shame!

  26. Nick*Z

    A lot of the Carmen Miranda films have held up spectacularly well. Virtually none – except for a rather lackluster incarnation of The Gang's All Here, have found their way to Blu-ray. For shame!

    On a somewhat unrelated note, I just went region-free right after Christmas and the superior Masters of Cinema version of GANG from the UK is one of the first Region B titles I ordered!!

    But I here what you're saying. THAT NIGHT IN RIO was one of the titles available in that "What would you like on blu-ray" contest that FOX ran a few years ago but didn't make the cut. It's still nowhere to be found.

  27. The UK Bluray Edition of The Gang's All Here is nothing but magnificent. I did not understand why TT did not use the same transfer for the US release (which, by the way, I also purchased).

    I'm in for any Fox Technicolor musical of the 40's (Faye, Grable, Miranda, Haver…)

  28. RafaelPires

    I'm in for any Fox Technicolor musical of the 40's (Faye, Grable, Miranda, Haver…)

    HAVER?? You ARE a fan! 😆

    (For what it's worth, she was the ONLY person Betty Grable couldn't get along with)

  29. RafaelPires

    I'm in for any Fox Technicolor musical of the 40's (Faye, Grable, Miranda, Haver…)

    Unfortunately, 1940s Fox musicals aren't big sellers. The Betty Grable box set on DVD tanked which is why there was no volume two which disappointed her fans. Fox musicals lacked a Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire or Judy Garland, musical stars that still (relatively) resonate today. Betty Grable, Alice Faye and June Haver are rather generic girl next door blondes whose appeal relies on nostalgia rather than the quality of their performance. Not dissing them (or their fans) and I find Grable adorable. Those Fox musicals would no doubt look spectacular in HD but is the audience there? 🙁

  30. Watched "Forever Amber" last night and found it rather dark. I ended up boosting my brightness up a few notches for this title in order to see some detail in the darker areas. Still didn't correct things properly but it was more watchable for me.

  31. From IMDb, this confirms what was reported in the press after Darnell's death:

    "It was Star Dust (1940) that Darnell was watching the night of April 9, 1965, at the home of her former secretary, located in Glenview, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago. The house caught on fire in the early hours of the next morning and Darnell died that afternoon in Cook County Hospital. The character she played in one of her best known roles, Forever Amber (1947) survived the London fire, the plague and the perils of being the mistress of the English king, Charles II."

    "Star Dust" was Darnell's fourth film…and was reportedly based on her own experiences as a "starlet".

  32. I thought DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK looked absolutely perfect! I doubt FOREVER AMBER looks near as good. I ordered my copy yesterday and I'm looking forward to seeing it but expecting it to look similar to similar to THE BLACK SWAN. Once again, I don't want Twilight Time to feel picked on — they are obviously doing miracles with the elements they have at their disposal. They give us music only tracks (which Warner Bros. has jettisoned from their releases I might add), as well as excellent commentaries. Twilight Time should be applauded.

  33. notmicro

    My Technicolor wish-list:

    Becky Sharp (1935)
    Down Argentine Way (1940 Fox) *on Fox iTunes*
    That Night in Rio (1941 Fox)
    Week-End in Havana (1941 Fox)
    Song of the Islands (1942 Fox)
    Lassie Come Home (1943 MGM)
    Bathing Beauty (1944 MGM)
    Cobra Woman (1944 Universal)
    Frenchman's Creek (1944 Paramount) (Oscar for Best Art Direction-Interior Decoration, Color)
    National Velvet (1944 MGM) (Oscars for Best Director / Best Actress in a Supporting Role / Best Cinematography, Color / Best Editing)
    the Spanish Main (1945 RKO)
    the Harvey Girls (1946 MGM) (Oscar for Best Music, Original Song)
    Till the Clouds Roll By (1946 MGM)
    Desert Fury (1947 Paramount)
    Sinbad, the Sailor (1947 RKO)
    Romance on the High Seas (1948 Warner)
    the Three Musketeers (1948 MGM)
    Neptune's Daughter (1949 MGM) (Oscar for Best Music, Original Song)
    King Solomon's Mines (1950 MGM) (Oscars for Best Cinematography, Color / Best Film Editing)
    Anne of the Indies (1951 Fox)
    Flame of Araby (1951 Universal)
    Show Boat (1951 MGM)
    Against All Flags (1952 Universal)
    Rancho Notorious (1952 RKO)
    Small Town Girl (1953 MGM)
    War of the Worlds (1953 Paramount) (Oscar for Best Effects, Special Effects)
    Secret of the Incas (1954 Paramount)

    And if I had to pick just one, it would have to be King Solomon's Mines – lots of vivid outdoor cinematography!

    Robert Crawford

    A few of mine are National Velvet and The Shepherd of the Hills..

  34. Sorry Mr Harris, I should say internegative, (CRI = color reversal internegative to make internegatives from camera negatives in a single duplication step).

    I based in a article about FOX destroyed all technicolor camera negatives and keep CRI. To me the intentional destruction of camera negatives it's a stupid thing. Warner did a lot of CRI from technicolor prints for some Looney Tunes cartoons, and did transfer from that for decades,but didn't destroyed the negatives. Recently they retored from camera negative and the look is great.

    Of course this refer to the old Fox politic and not the actual one
    . Shaw Belston is making a very good restoratrion preservation job for FOX today.

    If I remamber well, you (if not you other famous film restorer) once commented about CRI can't hold good shadow details, and have a tendency for fadding, or someting like that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Somew articles said the original photography was lost, when CRI was the only left thing, due the limited shadow details. But ogirinal old technicolor prints have no better shadowe details. That's where I got a bit confused about original photography. In technical terms, dynamic range, it's right, but in artistic terms it would have consider a original vintage print as not original photography, and it make no sense. Anyway modern film transfer today tends to give more shadow details than original technicolor prints.

    I based my comments in trailler and clips and few technicolor films transfered from original prints, which looked quite dark in shadow details. FIlms up to 40's or 50's, since dye tranfer got better later.

    In photochemical days restorers used to say that if a film wasn't preserved in camera negative or in a good intermediate film stock with low contrast, but in a exibition print, the film had lost the original photography, since after dupe process and printing the contrast and texture would never be the same of the original prints premire. But with introduction of very low contrast duplication stock, and finer grain printing stocks, this wasn't so much a problem as before, After digital age and digital projectors (2K and 4K) with high dynamic range this is no longer a problem.

    Robert Harris

    Why “interpositive?”

    All Fox 3-Strips do not have the problem. Some are quite lovely.

    If you’re going to presume certain technical facts, please take care toward accuracy.

  35. Will Krupp

    DOWN ARGENTINE WAY looks brilliant on DVD. I can only imagine what blu-ray could do with it.

    Note that the 23-year-old Betty Grable's big break Down Argentine Way (1941 Fox) IS available on iTunes in HD; I own it and it looks AMAZING.

  36. Any screencaptures.???
    The only image I found it's from Home Theater Review, but I'm not sure if it's from a cropped screen capture or a image still from somewhere else :

    [​IMG]

    Their review gave 4/5 star to image quality. Too much kindness in this regard…

    https://www.hometheaterforum.com/forever-amber-blu-ray-review/

    A earlier video release, DVD : http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/dvd_reviews_59/forever_amber.htm
    No need to say this DVD looks just horrible.

    And a earlie blu ray : https://www.cinefaniac.fr/dvd/test-466-foreveramber-ottopreminger.html
    Also horrible…

  37. Alberto_D

    Any screencaptures.???
    The only image I found it's from Home Theater Review, but I'm not sure if it's from a cropped screen capture or a image still from somewhere else :

    [​IMG]

    Their review gave 4/5 star to image quality. Too much kindness in this regard…

    https://www.hometheaterforum.com/forever-amber-blu-ray-review/

    A earlier video release, DVD : http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/dvd_reviews_59/forever_amber.htm
    No need to say this DVD looks just horrible.

    And a earlie blu ray : https://www.cinefaniac.fr/dvd/test-466-foreveramber-ottopreminger.html
    Also horrible…

    Alberto, while you are entitled to share your opinions, I must take issue with their inconsistency.

    On the one hand you have reposted the image from Matt Hough’s review, claiming not to know whether it’s a screen grab from the Blu-ray or a still shot. On the other hand you have dismissed his scoring of the image quality at 4 out of 5 as “too much kindness”.

    From what I gather from your posts, you’ve neither seen the Blu-ray, nor are you certain whether the supplied image is sampled from the Blu-ray (let alone representative of it), so I can’t see upon what basis you’re making the claim that Mr Hough’s video score is too generous. He has already seen the product, as have other members here who have also reported enthusiastically about it.

  38. Ohh, I forgot to tell that I based it in a parallel with Mr Harris gaving 2.5/5 star.
    Knowing Harris capability to judge technicolor, I found the Home Theater Forum review too kind.

    I also based in the fact it reported look worse than Leave Her to… and Drums ….
    The DVD and earlier blu ray edition also gave me some idea about poor elements available.

    I would thank if someone could post screen captures to allow me have a better idea of how exactly it looks. But I presume it don't look very good. And very good it's not just about sharpness and grain, but a contrast/ dynamic and colors.

  39. Alberto_D

    Ohh, I forgot to tell that I based it in a parallel with Mr Harris ging 2/5 star.
    Knowing Harris capability to judge technicolor, I found the Home Theater Forum review too kind.

    I also based in the fact it reported look worse than Leave Her to… And Drums ….
    The DVD and earlier blu ray edition also gave me some idea about poor elements available.

    To be accurate, RAH's rating was 2.5 while Matt's was 4.0 on a 1-5 rating scale. Now, as much as I value RAH's reviews and thoughts, he's looking at these discs from a different perspective than most of us. Normally, I expect his rating to be harsher than those of us with less film knowledge than him. My disc grades on disc usually run 0.5-1.0 higher than RAH's. Furthermore, RAH is watching these discs on a projector system while Matt is reviewing these discs on a 65" OLED. Screen sizes do affect ratings because some quality deficiencies are more obvious on a much larger screen. Most of us have 65" or smaller screens which is why many people are in agreement with Matt's 4.0 rating.

  40. I corrected it to 2.5 now.

    I was editing my post when you did the last reply. I said :

    "I would thank if someone could post screen captures to allow me have a better idea of how exactly it looks. But I presume it don't look very good. And very good it's not just about sharpness and grain, but a contrast/ dynamic and colors."

    A 50 inch screen it's enough in my opinion, to see details. The problem is with LED-LCD (LED backlight) is that you can't stay close to screen, cause it get darker in the sides than in the center. LCD technology for me it's a falacy, a disgrace. For 4K a disgrace even worse. If you stay 90 degree in front of it and several emter away, the necessary to try solve the miserable ligh distribution along screen area, and distortions of view angle, the image will be too far away to see enven the full 1080p resolution. For 4k… even worse…
    50 inch is fine for OLED and nor good form watch LCD, but to see details on LCD, just to judge some aspect, if can handle.

    I can't afford a OLED TV, tax here and imoportation are a huge absurd, the worst in planet. OLED life spam is 50% and cost double of LCD. So it's like it was 4x more expansive. And I dobn't watch films on LCD, as I consider it a failure technology. I use a monitor to judge grabs and clips.
    LCD destroyed movies experience for me. The poor dynamic for shadows and highlights make me sick. I refuse to enjoy movies in such "crapynology"

    Back to judge movies, there is two ways. The first is direct judge image as plessant or not in detail, and we can consider photography intention and technical limitation of a given decade, comparing to good quality images of movies shot in the same format and close year.
    The other is to judge based also in what elements the team have to work with. It's more fair with the team and can give value to a hard work.
    A review need to have these two basic elements, and I believe Harris and even Home Theater guys use to do good work balancing these aspects.

    I can't finish or even give my full opinion as I didn't watch it or have good screen captures, and also because I don't know well how was the elements available to the restoration team.
    A restoration demo video comparing before and after would be great.

    DVD Beaver used to me more detalist and critic about grain, waxy grain reduction, edge enhancment halo, sharpness, commenting every aspect. Now it just make a fast comment, with few critics.

  41. Alberto_D

    I corrected it to 2.5 now.

    I was editing my post when you did the last reply. I said :

    "I would thank if someone could post screen captures to allow me have a better idea of how exactly it looks. But I presume it don't look very good. And very good it's not just about sharpness and grain, but a contrast/ dynamic and colors."

    A 50 inch screen it's enough in my opinion, to see details. The problem is with LED-LCD (LED backlight) is that you can't stay close to screen, cause it get darker in the sides than in the center. LCD technology for me it's a falacy, a disgrace. For 4K a disgrace even worse. If you stay 90 degree in front of it and several emter away, the necessary to try solve the miserable ligh distribution along screen area, and distortions of view angle, the image will be too far away to see enven the full 1080p resolution. For 4k… even worse…
    50 inch is fine for OLED and nor good form watch LCD, but to see details on LCD, just to judge some aspect, if can handle.

    I can't afford a OLED TV, tax here and imoportation are a huge absurd, the worst in planet. OLED life spam is 50% and cost double of LCD. So it's like it was 4x more expansive. And I dobn't watch films on LCD, as I consider it a failure technology. I use a monitor to judge grabs and clips.
    LCD destroyed movies experience for me. The poor dynamic for shadows and highlights make me sick. I refuse to enjoy movies in such "crapynology"

    So you haven't seen the disc yet you're going to judge somebody's disc grade that has thoroughly viewed it. That's all I needed to know, carry on, without any further responses from me.

  42. You are right I can't judghe now. !!!
    If I sounded arrogant I apologise to the reviewer from Home Theater Forum.

    Allow me to say that I just have a feeling it was too kind.
    That's because I remamber about Leave Her to Heaven have problems with shadowns and saturation in highlights, and the elements for it better was than for Forever Amber. Drums Among Mohank have also problems and is also reported as having better elements than Forever Amber. And Leave her.. and Drum Among… was restored with the best technology to recover detail and manage dynamic range, if I remamber well.
    You can blame me with some reason, but it wasn't a so blind judment, as it have references.

    Maybe this forum have or had some competitive moments, and my text sounded somewhat agressive in this context, but it's not my intention.

    Allow me to respectfully suggest the implemantation of screen grabs for the reviews.

    If storage space wasn't a problem, clips of seconds, removed withou reencoding the video, would be the ideal. For DVD it was possible to remove short clips without reencoding, since it have "key frames" . It was possible to cut clips if it did not cut between the key frames.

  43. You are right I can't judghe now. !!!
    If I sounded arrogant I apologise to the reviewer from Home Theater Forum.

    Allow me to say that I just have a feeling it was too kind.
    That's because I remamber about Leave Her to Heaven have problems with shadowns and saturation in highlights, and the elements for it better was than for Forever Amber. Drums Among Mohank have also problems and is also reported as having better elements than Forever Amber. And Leave her.. and Drum Among… was restored with the best technology to recover detail and manage dynamic range, if I remamber well.
    You can blame me with some reason, but it wasn't a so blind judment, as it have references.

    Maybe this forum have or had some competitive moments, and my text sounded somewhat agressive in this context, but it's not my intention.

    Allow me to respectfully suggest the implemantation of screen grabs for the reviews.

    If storage space wasn't a problem, clips of seconds, removed withou reencoding the video, would be the ideal. For DVD it was possible to remove short clips without reencoding, since it have "key frames" . It was possible to cut clips if it did not cut between the key frames.

  44. You are right I can't judghe now. !!!
    If I sounded arrogant I apologise to the reviewer from Home Theater Forum.

    Allow me to say that I just have a feeling it was too kind.
    That's because I remamber about Leave Her to Heaven have problems with shadowns and saturation in highlights, and the elements for it better was than for Forever Amber. Drums Among Mohank have also problems and is also reported as having better elements than Forever Amber. And Leave her.. and Drum Among… was restored with the best technology to recover detail and manage dynamic range, if I remamber well.
    You can blame me with some reason, but it wasn't a so blind judment, as it have references.

    Maybe this forum have or had some competitive moments, and my text sounded somewhat agressive in this context, but it's not my intention.

    Allow me to respectfully suggest the implemantation of screen grabs for the reviews.

    If storage space wasn't a problem, clips of seconds, removed withou reencoding the video, would be the ideal. For DVD it was possible to remove short clips without reencoding, since it have "key frames" . It was possible to cut clips if it did not cut between the key frames.

  45. You are right I can't judghe now. !!!
    If I sounded arrogant I apologise to the reviewer from Home Theater Forum.

    Allow me to say that I just have a feeling it was too kind.
    That's because I remamber about Leave Her to Heaven have problems with shadowns and saturation in highlights, and the elements for it better was than for Forever Amber. Drums Among Mohank have also problems and is also reported as having better elements than Forever Amber. And Leave her.. and Drum Among… was restored with the best technology to recover detail and manage dynamic range, if I remamber well.
    You can blame me with some reason, but it wasn't a so blind judment, as it have references.

    Maybe this forum have or had some competitive moments, and my text sounded somewhat agressive in this context, but it's not my intention.

    Allow me to respectfully suggest the implemantation of screen grabs for the reviews.

    If storage space wasn't a problem, clips of seconds, removed withou reencoding the video, would be the ideal. For DVD it was possible to remove short clips without reencoding, since it have "key frames" . It was possible to cut clips if it did not cut between the key frames.

  46. You are right I can't judghe now. !!!
    If I sounded arrogant I apologise to the reviewer from Home Theater Forum.

    Allow me to say that I just have a feeling it was too kind.
    That's because I remamber about Leave Her to Heaven have problems with shadowns and saturation in highlights, and the elements for it better was than for Forever Amber. Drums Among Mohank have also problems and is also reported as having better elements than Forever Amber. And Leave her.. and Drum Among… was restored with the best technology to recover detail and manage dynamic range, if I remamber well.
    You can blame me with some reason, but it wasn't a so blind judment, as it have references.

    Maybe this forum have or had some competitive moments, and my text sounded somewhat agressive in this context, but it's not my intention.

    Allow me to respectfully suggest the implemantation of screen grabs for the reviews.

    If storage space wasn't a problem, clips of seconds, removed withou reencoding the video, would be the ideal. For DVD it was possible to remove short clips without reencoding, since it have "key frames" . It was possible to cut clips if it did not cut between the key frames.

  47. You are right I can't judghe now. !!!
    If I sounded arrogant I apologise to the reviewer from Home Theater Forum.

    Allow me to say that I just have a feeling it was too kind.
    That's because I remamber about Leave Her to Heaven have problems with shadowns and saturation in highlights, and the elements for it better was than for Forever Amber. Drums Among Mohank have also problems and is also reported as having better elements than Forever Amber. And Leave her.. and Drum Among… was restored with the best technology to recover detail and manage dynamic range, if I remamber well.
    You can blame me with some reason, but it wasn't a so blind judment, as it have references.

    Maybe this forum have or had some competitive moments, and my text sounded somewhat agressive in this context, but it's not my intention.

    Allow me to respectfully suggest the implemantation of screen grabs for the reviews.

    If storage space wasn't a problem, clips of seconds, removed withou reencoding the video, would be the ideal. For DVD it was possible to remove short clips without reencoding, since it have "key frames" . It was possible to cut clips if it did not cut between the key frames.

  48. Well, let's analyze the text of the HTF review :

    "The film’s original 1.37:1 theatrical aspect ratio is faithfully reproduced here in a 1080p transfer using the AVC codec. It’s obvious Fox has performed major clean-up on this title as there are no stray dust specks and debris or reel change markers at any point in the presentation. Still, with compromised Eastmancolor elements rather than the original three-strip Technicolor elements to work off of, image quality varies throughout. In scenes in brightly lit rooms or in the sunny outdoors (as on Amber’s wedding day to the Earl), the image quality is splendid with excellent sharpness, very good color, and close-to-accurate skin tones. But much of this film takes place in darkened rooms, in alleyways, or at night (the entire first fifteen minutes is at night and in darkened environments), and the black levels are severely compromised here being milky gray rather than true black and crushing details in the shadows on a regular basis. Skin tones sometimes take on an orangey tone in these moments. The movie has been divided into 24 chapters."

    It's a clear and fine text, describe the problems with scenes that wasn't shot with a lot of light. In dark conditions it got much worse. The dark scenes takes a good deal of the movie. Judging by the text it is far from perfect or far from great. Do it deserves 4/5 star ?
    If it's kind like that, how many star to Gone With The Wind blu ray ? Seven ?
    I'm noting making fun or turing dow the review, it's just how I felt about.
    Maybe the reviewer just was nice considering the work of the restoration team, limited to the poor surviving material available. It's nice to consider it as respect to the hard tax in such work.

    The few problem is that not everyone read or have time to read the entire review and sometimes just look to the score.
    I repeart, I'm not blaming anyone, it's just a comment. I'm sure they tried the best. The text it's a proof of the good work.

  49. Well, let's analyze the text of the HTF review :

    "The film’s original 1.37:1 theatrical aspect ratio is faithfully reproduced here in a 1080p transfer using the AVC codec. It’s obvious Fox has performed major clean-up on this title as there are no stray dust specks and debris or reel change markers at any point in the presentation. Still, with compromised Eastmancolor elements rather than the original three-strip Technicolor elements to work off of, image quality varies throughout. In scenes in brightly lit rooms or in the sunny outdoors (as on Amber’s wedding day to the Earl), the image quality is splendid with excellent sharpness, very good color, and close-to-accurate skin tones. But much of this film takes place in darkened rooms, in alleyways, or at night (the entire first fifteen minutes is at night and in darkened environments), and the black levels are severely compromised here being milky gray rather than true black and crushing details in the shadows on a regular basis. Skin tones sometimes take on an orangey tone in these moments. The movie has been divided into 24 chapters."

    It's a clear and fine text, describe the problems with scenes that wasn't shot with a lot of light. In dark conditions it got much worse. The dark scenes takes a good deal of the movie. Judging by the text it is far from perfect or far from great. Do it deserves 4/5 star ?
    If it's kind like that, how many star to Gone With The Wind blu ray ? Seven ?
    I'm noting making fun or turing dow the review, it's just how I felt about.
    Maybe the reviewer just was nice considering the work of the restoration team, limited to the poor surviving material available. It's nice to consider it as respect to the hard tax in such work.

    The few problem is that not everyone read or have time to read the entire review and sometimes just look to the score.
    I repeart, I'm not blaming anyone, it's just a comment. I'm sure they tried the best. The text it's a proof of the good work.

  50. Well, let's analyze the text of the HTF review :

    "The film’s original 1.37:1 theatrical aspect ratio is faithfully reproduced here in a 1080p transfer using the AVC codec. It’s obvious Fox has performed major clean-up on this title as there are no stray dust specks and debris or reel change markers at any point in the presentation. Still, with compromised Eastmancolor elements rather than the original three-strip Technicolor elements to work off of, image quality varies throughout. In scenes in brightly lit rooms or in the sunny outdoors (as on Amber’s wedding day to the Earl), the image quality is splendid with excellent sharpness, very good color, and close-to-accurate skin tones. But much of this film takes place in darkened rooms, in alleyways, or at night (the entire first fifteen minutes is at night and in darkened environments), and the black levels are severely compromised here being milky gray rather than true black and crushing details in the shadows on a regular basis. Skin tones sometimes take on an orangey tone in these moments. The movie has been divided into 24 chapters."

    It's a clear and fine text, describe the problems with scenes that wasn't shot with a lot of light. In dark conditions it got much worse. The dark scenes takes a good deal of the movie. Judging by the text it is far from perfect or far from great. Do it deserves 4/5 star ?
    If it's kind like that, how many star to Gone With The Wind blu ray ? Seven ?
    I'm noting making fun or turing dow the review, it's just how I felt about.
    Maybe the reviewer just was nice considering the work of the restoration team, limited to the poor surviving material available. It's nice to consider it as respect to the hard tax in such work.

    The few problem is that not everyone read or have time to read the entire review and sometimes just look to the score.
    I repeart, I'm not blaming anyone, it's just a comment. I'm sure they tried the best. The text it's a proof of the good work.

  51. Well, let's analyze the text of the HTF review :

    "The film’s original 1.37:1 theatrical aspect ratio is faithfully reproduced here in a 1080p transfer using the AVC codec. It’s obvious Fox has performed major clean-up on this title as there are no stray dust specks and debris or reel change markers at any point in the presentation. Still, with compromised Eastmancolor elements rather than the original three-strip Technicolor elements to work off of, image quality varies throughout. In scenes in brightly lit rooms or in the sunny outdoors (as on Amber’s wedding day to the Earl), the image quality is splendid with excellent sharpness, very good color, and close-to-accurate skin tones. But much of this film takes place in darkened rooms, in alleyways, or at night (the entire first fifteen minutes is at night and in darkened environments), and the black levels are severely compromised here being milky gray rather than true black and crushing details in the shadows on a regular basis. Skin tones sometimes take on an orangey tone in these moments. The movie has been divided into 24 chapters."

    It's a clear and fine text, describe the problems with scenes that wasn't shot with a lot of light. In dark conditions it got much worse. The dark scenes takes a good deal of the movie. Judging by the text it is far from perfect or far from great. Do it deserves 4/5 star ?
    If it's kind like that, how many star to Gone With The Wind blu ray ? Seven ?
    I'm noting making fun or turing dow the review, it's just how I felt about.
    Maybe the reviewer just was nice considering the work of the restoration team, limited to the poor surviving material available. It's nice to consider it as respect to the hard tax in such work.

    The few problem is that not everyone read or have time to read the entire review and sometimes just look to the score.
    I repeart, I'm not blaming anyone, it's just a comment. I'm sure they tried the best. The text it's a proof of the good work.

  52. Well, let's analyze the text of the HTF review :

    "The film’s original 1.37:1 theatrical aspect ratio is faithfully reproduced here in a 1080p transfer using the AVC codec. It’s obvious Fox has performed major clean-up on this title as there are no stray dust specks and debris or reel change markers at any point in the presentation. Still, with compromised Eastmancolor elements rather than the original three-strip Technicolor elements to work off of, image quality varies throughout. In scenes in brightly lit rooms or in the sunny outdoors (as on Amber’s wedding day to the Earl), the image quality is splendid with excellent sharpness, very good color, and close-to-accurate skin tones. But much of this film takes place in darkened rooms, in alleyways, or at night (the entire first fifteen minutes is at night and in darkened environments), and the black levels are severely compromised here being milky gray rather than true black and crushing details in the shadows on a regular basis. Skin tones sometimes take on an orangey tone in these moments. The movie has been divided into 24 chapters."

    It's a clear and fine text, describe the problems with scenes that wasn't shot with a lot of light. In dark conditions it got much worse. The dark scenes takes a good deal of the movie. Judging by the text it is far from perfect or far from great. Do it deserves 4/5 star ?
    If it's kind like that, how many star to Gone With The Wind blu ray ? Seven ?
    I'm noting making fun or turing dow the review, it's just how I felt about.
    Maybe the reviewer just was nice considering the work of the restoration team, limited to the poor surviving material available. It's nice to consider it as respect to the hard tax in such work.

    The few problem is that not everyone read or have time to read the entire review and sometimes just look to the score.
    I repeart, I'm not blaming anyone, it's just a comment. I'm sure they tried the best. The text it's a proof of the good work.

  53. Well, let's analyze the text of the HTF review :

    "The film’s original 1.37:1 theatrical aspect ratio is faithfully reproduced here in a 1080p transfer using the AVC codec. It’s obvious Fox has performed major clean-up on this title as there are no stray dust specks and debris or reel change markers at any point in the presentation. Still, with compromised Eastmancolor elements rather than the original three-strip Technicolor elements to work off of, image quality varies throughout. In scenes in brightly lit rooms or in the sunny outdoors (as on Amber’s wedding day to the Earl), the image quality is splendid with excellent sharpness, very good color, and close-to-accurate skin tones. But much of this film takes place in darkened rooms, in alleyways, or at night (the entire first fifteen minutes is at night and in darkened environments), and the black levels are severely compromised here being milky gray rather than true black and crushing details in the shadows on a regular basis. Skin tones sometimes take on an orangey tone in these moments. The movie has been divided into 24 chapters."

    It's a clear and fine text, describe the problems with scenes that wasn't shot with a lot of light. In dark conditions it got much worse. The dark scenes takes a good deal of the movie. Judging by the text it is far from perfect or far from great. Do it deserves 4/5 star ?
    If it's kind like that, how many star to Gone With The Wind blu ray ? Seven ?
    I'm noting making fun or turing dow the review, it's just how I felt about.
    Maybe the reviewer just was nice considering the work of the restoration team, limited to the poor surviving material available. It's nice to consider it as respect to the hard tax in such work.

    The few problem is that not everyone read or have time to read the entire review and sometimes just look to the score.
    I repeart, I'm not blaming anyone, it's just a comment. I'm sure they tried the best. The text it's a proof of the good work.

  54. Let's go to facts, please.

    All of the Fox nitrate 3-strip productions have horrific problems, with the exception of one that that survived via original masters.

    There is a huge difference between a poor quality Eastman Color representation of a Technicolor production, and anything derived directly from the black & white elements.

    As many have seen on Blu-ray, a well-produced Eastman IP, derived from the b/w negatives, can deliver a quality image — but still below that of using the original b/w elements.

    The problem with the Fox elements, which has been noted here ad nauseam, is that there is virtually no way to represent the films as they would have looked, although some experimentation may still be in order.

    The Fox safety elements were not only poorly made, but produced en masse, pushing film through hardware to allow junking of the original elements.

    As far as I can ascertain, there was no planning, no forethought, and no real care or concern regarding what was being done.

    The only thing that we know as an absolute, is that the current archival staff at Fox, only has what they have, and can only deliver, in this case to Twilight Time, what they can.

    On the other side of the equation, these are generally very high quality films, which warranted the Technicolor process, and the fact that Twilight Time is willing to make the investment to release them, something that all should applaud loudly.

    This is why I feel comfortable, rating a film image-wise as a 2.5, and still Recommending its purchase.

    As to the image used in the review, it gives an idea of the period and overall look of the production, but in no represents the disc. I actually don't recall even ever having seen it in the film.

    Probably a production 8 x 10 Kodachrome taken on set.

    RAH

  55. Let's go to facts, please.

    All of the Fox nitrate 3-strip productions have horrific problems, with the exception of one that that survived via original masters.

    There is a huge difference between a poor quality Eastman Color representation of a Technicolor production, and anything derived directly from the black & white elements.

    As many have seen on Blu-ray, a well-produced Eastman IP, derived from the b/w negatives, can deliver a quality image — but still below that of using the original b/w elements.

    The problem with the Fox elements, which has been noted here ad nauseam, is that there is virtually no way to represent the films as they would have looked, although some experimentation may still be in order.

    The Fox safety elements were not only poorly made, but produced en masse, pushing film through hardware to allow junking of the original elements.

    As far as I can ascertain, there was no planning, no forethought, and no real care or concern regarding what was being done.

    The only thing that we know as an absolute, is that the current archival staff at Fox, only has what they have, and can only deliver, in this case to Twilight Time, what they can.

    On the other side of the equation, these are generally very high quality films, which warranted the Technicolor process, and the fact that Twilight Time is willing to make the investment to release them, something that all should applaud loudly.

    This is why I feel comfortable, rating a film image-wise as a 2.5, and still Recommending its purchase.

    As to the image used in the review, it gives an idea of the period and overall look of the production, but in no represents the disc. I actually don't recall even ever having seen it in the film.

    Probably a production 8 x 10 Kodachrome taken on set.

    RAH

  56. Alberto_D

    Well, let's analyze the text of the HTF review :

    "The film’s original 1.37:1 theatrical aspect ratio is faithfully reproduced here in a 1080p transfer using the AVC codec. It’s obvious Fox has performed major clean-up on this title as there are no stray dust specks and debris or reel change markers at any point in the presentation. Still, with compromised Eastmancolor elements rather than the original three-strip Technicolor elements to work off of, image quality varies throughout. In scenes in brightly lit rooms or in the sunny outdoors (as on Amber’s wedding day to the Earl), the image quality is splendid with excellent sharpness, very good color, and close-to-accurate skin tones. But much of this film takes place in darkened rooms, in alleyways, or at night (the entire first fifteen minutes is at night and in darkened environments), and the black levels are severely compromised here being milky gray rather than true black and crushing details in the shadows on a regular basis. Skin tones sometimes take on an orangey tone in these moments. The movie has been divided into 24 chapters."

    It's a clear and fine text, describe the problems with scenes that wasn't shot with a lot of light. In dark conditions it got much worse. The dark scenes takes a good deal of the movie. Judging by the text it is far from perfect or far from great. Do it deserves 4/5 star ?
    If it's kind like that, how many star to Gone With The Wind blu ray ? Seven ?
    I'm noting making fun or turing dow the review, it's just how I felt about.
    Maybe the reviewer just was nice considering the work of the restoration team, limited to the poor surviving material available. It's nice to consider it as respect to the hard tax in such restoration work.

    The few problem is that not everyone read or have time to read the entire review and sometimes just look to the score.
    I repeart, I'm not blaming anyone, it's just a comment. I'm sure they tried the best. The text it's a proof of the good work.

    Hopefully, my final post on the subject.

    Mr. Hough's comments are based upon his eyes, and his personal experience with the film.

    His comments form a fair review of the disc, and will allow readers to get a better idea of what they will be seeing based upon expectations similar to their own.

    There is real value to that review.

    If he has never seen an original nitrate, or an original 3-strip acetate print, (yes, they are different) then his point of relevance is different from those who have.

    From that perspective, his review is fine, and I see no problems with it.

    If you have a serious interest in the subject matter, then I would suggest that you owe it to yourself to experience an original print, thereby educating yourself to the subject.

    It would be a true eye-opener for you.

    RAH

  57. Alberto_D

    Well, let's analyze the text of the HTF review :

    "The film’s original 1.37:1 theatrical aspect ratio is faithfully reproduced here in a 1080p transfer using the AVC codec. It’s obvious Fox has performed major clean-up on this title as there are no stray dust specks and debris or reel change markers at any point in the presentation. Still, with compromised Eastmancolor elements rather than the original three-strip Technicolor elements to work off of, image quality varies throughout. In scenes in brightly lit rooms or in the sunny outdoors (as on Amber’s wedding day to the Earl), the image quality is splendid with excellent sharpness, very good color, and close-to-accurate skin tones. But much of this film takes place in darkened rooms, in alleyways, or at night (the entire first fifteen minutes is at night and in darkened environments), and the black levels are severely compromised here being milky gray rather than true black and crushing details in the shadows on a regular basis. Skin tones sometimes take on an orangey tone in these moments. The movie has been divided into 24 chapters."

    It's a clear and fine text, describe the problems with scenes that wasn't shot with a lot of light. In dark conditions it got much worse. The dark scenes takes a good deal of the movie. Judging by the text it is far from perfect or far from great. Do it deserves 4/5 star ?
    If it's kind like that, how many star to Gone With The Wind blu ray ? Seven ?
    I'm noting making fun or turing dow the review, it's just how I felt about.
    Maybe the reviewer just was nice considering the work of the restoration team, limited to the poor surviving material available. It's nice to consider it as respect to the hard tax in such restoration work.

    The few problem is that not everyone read or have time to read the entire review and sometimes just look to the score.
    I repeart, I'm not blaming anyone, it's just a comment. I'm sure they tried the best. The text it's a proof of the good work.

    Hopefully, my final post on the subject.

    Mr. Hough's comments are based upon his eyes, and his personal experience with the film.

    His comments form a fair review of the disc, and will allow readers to get a better idea of what they will be seeing based upon expectations similar to their own.

    There is real value to that review.

    If he has never seen an original nitrate, or an original 3-strip acetate print, (yes, they are different) then his point of relevance is different from those who have.

    From that perspective, his review is fine, and I see no problems with it.

    If you have a serious interest in the subject matter, then I would suggest that you owe it to yourself to experience an original print, thereby educating yourself to the subject.

    It would be a true eye-opener for you.

    RAH

  58. Mr Harris, I would like to see a original 3 strip print projection. But I'm too far away to visit any place able to do so.

    All restorer who worked with 3 strip use to say no video system can reproduce it, the "glow of colors", even if many original prints, like from 30's, looks quite bad on video transfer or. The original print of Gone With The Wind, showed in the restoration documentary how it was used for color study reference, looked very poor.
    Looking to the video, to such contrast and look of the 3 strip from GWTW, it's difficult to imagine such thing can look good in a real projection.
    For other side, a HD transfer from Guliver's Travel, made in 50's dye tranfer technology, looked fine.

    I have no real problem with the review. As I said the text it's very good. Just the score sounds a bit optimistic, probably considering the difficult task the restorers had with poor surviving elements.

  59. Mr Harris, I would like to see a original 3 strip print projection. But I'm too far away to visit any place able to do so.

    All restorer who worked with 3 strip use to say no video system can reproduce it, the "glow of colors", even if many original prints, like from 30's, looks quite bad on video transfer or. The original print of Gone With The Wind, showed in the restoration documentary how it was used for color study reference, looked very poor.
    Looking to the video, to such contrast and look of the 3 strip from GWTW, it's difficult to imagine such thing can look good in a real projection.
    For other side, a HD transfer from Guliver's Travel, made in 50's dye tranfer technology, looked fine.

    I have no real problem with the review. As I said the text it's very good. Just the score sounds a bit optimistic, probably considering the difficult task the restorers had with poor surviving elements.

  60. Alberto_D

    Mr Harris, I would like to see a original 3 strip print projection. But I'm too far away to visit any place able to do so.

    All restorer who worked with 3 strip use to say no video system can reproduce it, the "glow of colors", even if many original prints, like from 30's, looks quite bad on video transfer or. The original print of Gone With The Wind, showed in the restoration documentary how it was used for color study reference, looked very poor.
    Looking to the video, to such contrast and look of the 3 strip from GWTW, it's difficult to imagine such thing can look good in a real projection.
    For other side, a HD transfer from Guliver's Travel, made in 50's dye tranfer technology, looked fine.

    I have no real problem with the review. As I said the text it's very good. Just the score sounds a bit optimistic, probably considering the difficult task the restorers had with poor surviving elements.

    I think I'm out and I get pulled back in again…

    Forever Amber may be many things, but it is not a "restoration."

  61. Alberto_D

    Mr Harris, I would like to see a original 3 strip print projection. But I'm too far away to visit any place able to do so.

    All restorer who worked with 3 strip use to say no video system can reproduce it, the "glow of colors", even if many original prints, like from 30's, looks quite bad on video transfer or. The original print of Gone With The Wind, showed in the restoration documentary how it was used for color study reference, looked very poor.
    Looking to the video, to such contrast and look of the 3 strip from GWTW, it's difficult to imagine such thing can look good in a real projection.
    For other side, a HD transfer from Guliver's Travel, made in 50's dye tranfer technology, looked fine.

    I have no real problem with the review. As I said the text it's very good. Just the score sounds a bit optimistic, probably considering the difficult task the restorers had with poor surviving elements.

    I think I'm out and I get pulled back in again…

    Forever Amber may be many things, but it is not a "restoration."

  62. Do you mind If I ask you how much better it is, in terms of colors and contrast, and shadow details, compared to this DVD edition ?

    http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/dvd_reviews_59/forever_amber.htm

    Please don't tell me it's the same transfer from this edition :

    https://www.cinefaniac.fr/dvd/test-466-foreveramber-ottopreminger.html

    I would not undertand people finding this (below) as acceptable image for color and contrast. I looks more like a color newspaper :

    [​IMG]

    Even worse for these other examples :

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    For me a film can have Imax resolution, but if colors and constrast are horrible, the image it's horrible.

    Bryan^H

    I watched this early this morning with a cup of coffee(nothing like coffee, and a movie to start your day:)) and was happily satisfied with it.

  63. Do you mind If I ask you how much better it is, in terms of colors and contrast, and shadow details, compared to this DVD edition ?

    http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/dvd_reviews_59/forever_amber.htm

    Please don't tell me it's the same transfer from this edition :

    https://www.cinefaniac.fr/dvd/test-466-foreveramber-ottopreminger.html

    I would not undertand people finding this (below) as acceptable image for color and contrast. I looks more like a color newspaper :

    [​IMG]

    Even worse for these other examples :

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    For me a film can have Imax resolution, but if colors and constrast are horrible, the image it's horrible.

    Bryan^H

    I watched this early this morning with a cup of coffee(nothing like coffee, and a movie to start your day:)) and was happily satisfied with it.

  64. Yes, I think the key bit to be gleaned from this discussion is that the text of the video review is far more important than a number rating. If it was just about numbers, I wouldn't bother writing anything; I'd just slap a number on it and go along to another movie. I myself place a lot more attention to RAH's (and other writers') words and less to number ratings.

  65. Yes, I think the key bit to be gleaned from this discussion is that the text of the video review is far more important than a number rating. If it was just about numbers, I wouldn't bother writing anything; I'd just slap a number on it and go along to another movie. I myself place a lot more attention to RAH's (and other writers') words and less to number ratings.

  66. I find numbers so very hard to come up with, especially with titles like this.

    What's the appropriate number for "This film looks as good as it could possibly look in 2018, and is a perfectly satisfactory disc representing the best surviving film elements, but can never look the way it did on its original release thanks to poor asset management over half a century ago"?

  67. Alberto_D

    Do you mind If I ask you how much better it is, in terms of colors and contrast, and shadow details, compared to this DVD edition ?

    http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/dvd_reviews_59/forever_amber.htm

    Please don't tell me it's the same transfer from this edition :

    https://www.cinefaniac.fr/dvd/test-466-foreveramber-ottopreminger.html

    I would not undertand people finding this (below) as acceptable image for color and contrast. I looks more like a color newspaper :

    [​IMG]

    Even worse for these other examples :

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    For me a film can have Imax resolution, but if colors and constrast are horrible, the image it's horrible.

    I'm not sure what the problem is. My screen captures are fairly close to the images you posted. It looks fine to me.

    Better than the Fox Cinema Archives disc….do you have that one?

  68. Alberto_D

    I would thank if someone could post screen captures to allow me have a better idea of how exactly it looks. But I presume it don't look very good. And very good it's not just about sharpness and grain, but a contrast/ dynamic and colors.

    If you want to know how the disc presents the film, buy the disc!

  69. Sorry to say, I really have no intention to be rude or unkind to anybody, but I'm afraid you and others are way more tolerant to image quality than me, at least in terms of colors and dynamic range.
    I can't accept a technicolor film looking gray, muddy, crushed, much more than a non technicolor film. For me it look like a color newspaper page.

    If this bellow it's fine to you, I don't know what else can I say :

    [​IMG]

    For me this particular screngrab it's a xerox…

    Why spent $$$$$ with 4K transfer and manage colors so poorly ?
    Maybe the commercial color correction softwares available are not designed for this particular kind of situation, and fail to adjust even the middle tones color and contrast.
    If shadows tones are mostly lost, at least middle range and highlights should (in theory) be possible to get better adjusts.

    The encoding codecs used for HD (TV and Blu Ray) are in general so poor, that even little adjusts in gamma, to try get more a bit more from shadows, tends to make a lot of digital artefacts visible. And most editions have some artefacts in shadows even without push gamma.
    One more problem to watch films in cases like that.

    Bryan^H

    I'm not sure what the problem is. My screen captures are fairly close to the images you posted. It looks fine to me.

    Better than the Fox Cinema Archives disc….do you have that one?

  70. I understand you may think my insistence was anoying. Sorry if I created this feeling in this topic.
    But I believe people have the right to know what they are buying. Otherwise the purpose of many web reviews, specially DVD Beaver and Blu-Ray.Com, would be lost.

    Anyway Bryan's reply helped to find out this edition looks not good anyway.
    Hope better digital tools be developed one day to better and easier manage situations like this.

    Robin9

    If you want to know how the disc presents the film, buy the disc!

  71. Alberto_D

    I understand you may think my insistence was anoying. Sorry if I created this feeling in this topic.
    But I believe people have the right to know what they are buying. Otherwise the purpose of many web reviews, specially DVD Beaver and Blu-Ray.Com, would be lost.

    Anyway Bryan's reply helped to find out this edition looks not good anyway.
    Hope better digital tools be developed one day to better and easier manage situations like this.

    Well in my opinion you are missing out if you like this movie and passing on it. I think it is the best it will ever look.

  72. I'm not saying I did a good work, or even that's acceptable, specially because I used screen captures (source compressed by HD encoding and for jpeg of screengrabs creating artefacts that are also anhanced when trying to work hiden details and tones). It also enhanced some color bleeding and banding that was present in the original image got from web, and creates some chroma effect.

    But I feel these example shows that perhaps more could be done to make middle tones and some highlights looks better, if working from professional files rich bits uncompressed, wtih new created tools specially for cases like that :

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    I believe the industry could, or should, create new and better tools to manage color in film restoration projects.
    I don't intent to be arrogant. I just wish more could be done to try to restore old films.

  73. While I understand everyone's desire that a film be presented in the best possible transfer with as close a representation of the film's original look, that simply isn't always possible. For me, it's always about the film. No matter how pristine a film looks and sounds, if it's a crappy film, it's not going to make the film any better. Yet a good film, even with faded colors, some debris here and there etc. will always hook me in.

  74. I found I'm not alone :

    http://nixpixdvdmoviereviewsandmore…2/forever-amber-blu-ray-2oth-century-fox.html

    "Forever Amber arrives on Blu-ray via Twilight Time, alas, with far less than stellar results. At the time Fox chose to release this movie via its MOD/DVD archive, I considered that disc nothing better than a Frisbee. I now suspect these very same elements have been regurgitated for this new to Blu release. What an ugly little mess it is! The main titles appear crisp and inviting. But once we move into the body of the piece it’s the same old story. We all know the history of Fox’s short-sightedness in the mid-1970’s; junking virtually all of their original 3-strip Technicolor elements and archiving only poorly contrasted (oft, misregistered) Eastman IP’s for posterity. Badly done, but especially for a picture like Forever Amber, on which Zanuck had lavished a grotesque amount of time and money (the picture, holding the dubious distinction of being the most expensive movie ever made at Fox from 1947 to 1956). Virtually none of these assets are on full display in this abysmal and very second-rate 1080p offering.
    We have witnessed Fox work minor miracles on other back catalog suffering a similar fate; Leave Her To Heaven(1945), Captain from Castile (1947) and Niagara (1953) among them. Make no mistake: none of the aforementioned accurately recaptures the vibrancy of vintage Technicolor either. But at least they sport reasonably attractive and refined images, with considerable color correction and image stabilization applied to illicit a watchable incarnation. Forever Amber has not been the recipient of such attention to detail. I would argue, this is not even a new scan from Fox because what I am seeing here looks suspiciously close to my DVD-viewing experience with marginal improvements in overall image resolution. Flesh tones are atrociously orange here. The whole image tends to lean rather severely towards dark and muddy navy blues and/or pinkish reds. We get clumpy colors throughout that, at times, suggest an almost ‘colorized’ approach to a vintage B&W movie.

    Worse, minor edge enhancement has been applied to an image that, for the most part, is sorely lacking in any fine detail, is frequently soft, slightly out of focus to downright blurry, and sports amplified film grain and weaker than anticipated contrast. This renders dark, or dimly lit scenes (of which there are many) a muddy and indistinguishable mess. Honestly, this is one of the worst looking 1080p transfers to emerge from Fox’s mastering facilities. I find nothing remotely redeemable to recommend it to you! In no way does Forever Amber minutely hint, or even aspire to replicate its vintage Technicolor. There are moments where only disembodied heads are discernible on the screen, floating in a sea of murky blue-blackness. Misalignment of the original 3-strip Technicolor also results in very annoying halos throughout this transfer.
    Lastly, the Fox logo appearing at the beginning of Forever Amber is not indigenous to the period – but rather from a vintage owing to the late 70’s, window-boxed to give the illusion it belongs, and, significantly grainier than the rest of the image that follows it. In the 70’s it became something of the mis-guided fashion among all of the studios to take their older movies, lop off the original logos and insert what was then their more contemporary alternatives. Dumb! Ridiculous practice, indeed. Fox could have easily unearthed a vintage logo to reinstate for this transfer. A good many Fox movies from this same vintage have already found their way to Blu-ray with the gaudy-hue Technicolor Fox logo. So, how hard could it have been to do the same here?!? Also, if this transfer has been derived from a new 4K scan, as it has been advertised, it's one of the most disheartening examples I have ever seen – period! "

    Thomas T

    While I understand everyone's desire that a film be presented in the best possible transfer with as close a representation of the film's original look, that simply isn't always possible. For me, it's always about the film. No matter how pristine a film looks and sounds, if it's a crappy film, it's not going to make the film any better. Yet a good film, even with faded colors, some debris here and there etc. will always hook me in.

  75. Alberto_D

    I found I'm not alone :

    http://nixpixdvdmoviereviewsandmore…2/forever-amber-blu-ray-2oth-century-fox.html

    "Forever Amber arrives on Blu-ray via Twilight Time, alas, with far less than stellar results. At the time Fox chose to release this movie via its MOD/DVD archive, I considered that disc nothing better than a Frisbee. I now suspect these very same elements have been regurgitated for this new to Blu release. What an ugly little mess it is! The main titles appear crisp and inviting. But once we move into the body of the piece it’s the same old story. We all know the history of Fox’s short-sightedness in the mid-1970’s; junking virtually all of their original 3-strip Technicolor elements and archiving only poorly contrasted (oft, misregistered) Eastman IP’s for posterity. Badly done, but especially for a picture like Forever Amber, on which Zanuck had lavished a grotesque amount of time and money (the picture, holding the dubious distinction of being the most expensive movie ever made at Fox from 1947 to 1956). Virtually none of these assets are on full display in this abysmal and very second-rate 1080p offering.
    We have witnessed Fox work minor miracles on other back catalog suffering a similar fate; Leave Her To Heaven(1945), Captain from Castile (1947) and Niagara (1953) among them. Make no mistake: none of the aforementioned accurately recaptures the vibrancy of vintage Technicolor either. But at least they sport reasonably attractive and refined images, with considerable color correction and image stabilization applied to illicit a watchable incarnation. Forever Amber has not been the recipient of such attention to detail. I would argue, this is not even a new scan from Fox because what I am seeing here looks suspiciously close to my DVD-viewing experience with marginal improvements in overall image resolution. Flesh tones are atrociously orange here. The whole image tends to lean rather severely towards dark and muddy navy blues and/or pinkish reds. We get clumpy colors throughout that, at times, suggest an almost ‘colorized’ approach to a vintage B&W movie.

    Worse, minor edge enhancement has been applied to an image that, for the most part, is sorely lacking in any fine detail, is frequently soft, slightly out of focus to downright blurry, and sports amplified film grain and weaker than anticipated contrast. This renders dark, or dimly lit scenes (of which there are many) a muddy and indistinguishable mess. Honestly, this is one of the worst looking 1080p transfers to emerge from Fox’s mastering facilities. I find nothing remotely redeemable to recommend it to you! In no way does Forever Amber minutely hint, or even aspire to replicate its vintage Technicolor. There are moments where only disembodied heads are discernible on the screen, floating in a sea of murky blue-blackness. Misalignment of the original 3-strip Technicolor also results in very annoying halos throughout this transfer.
    Lastly, the Fox logo appearing at the beginning of Forever Amber is not indigenous to the period – but rather from a vintage owing to the late 70’s, window-boxed to give the illusion it belongs, and, significantly grainier than the rest of the image that follows it. In the 70’s it became something of the mis-guided fashion among all of the studios to take their older movies, lop off the original logos and insert what was then their more contemporary alternatives. Dumb! Ridiculous practice, indeed. Fox could have easily unearthed a vintage logo to reinstate for this transfer. A good many Fox movies from this same vintage have already found their way to Blu-ray with the gaudy-hue Technicolor Fox logo. So, how hard could it have been to do the same here?!? Also, if this transfer has been derived from a new 4K scan, as it has been advertised, it's one of the most disheartening examples I have ever seen – period! "

    You’re not only flogging that horse, but quoting someone who doesn’t understand the technology.

    Time to buy a copy, support a Twilght Time, and move on.

  76. Alberto_D

    We have witnessed Fox work minor miracles on other back catalog suffering a similar fate; Leave Her To Heaven(1945), Captain from Castile (1947) and Niagara (1953) among them. Make no mistake: none of the aforementioned accurately recaptures the vibrancy of vintage Technicolor either. But at least they sport reasonably attractive and refined images, with considerable color correction and image stabilization applied to illicit a watchable incarnation.

    I don't believe that Fox destroyed their three strip acetate materials so NIAGARA doesn't belong on this list. Also, the word is "elicit."

  77. I have watched the Blu-ray twice with friends. I don’t have any problems with it and they didn’t either for it looks good to us and the story is great. Time to step off the soapbox. We know you don’t like it, even though you have not seen it.

  78. Robert Harris

    You’re not only flogging that horse, but quoting someone who doesn’t understand the technology.

    Time to buy a copy, support a Twilght Time, and move on.

    Gee, I don't know, Robert. You gave this disc a 2.5. I gave it a 1 out of 5. Sounds to me like our tastes and level of expectations were pretty much aligned here.

    What exactly did I say that was so wrong? I said the disc looked ugly and faded to my eyes, and stated that I believe Fox could do better. I'll support quality releases. The rest, you needn't bother to peddle. We're well beyond the era in Blu-ray mastering where fans of the classics should merely be 'grateful' to accept anything in lieu of nothing. Lowering standards doesn't give us the product we deserve. It merely gives us stuff like this! Sony understands this mantra and has for some time undertaken an aggressive program to restore what it can from less than perfectly archived elements.

    Time for Fox to get with that program too instead of offering us a 'hit or miss' mentality on remastering; for every Doctor Dolittle, a Forever Amber. No thanks. Be consistent. That's all I'm expecting. Forever Amber will never be perfect. But it could definitely be a lot better. And I recall so well TT's original release of Journey to the Center of the Earth, with Fox claiming there was nothing more to be done to salvage the title in high def, only to retreat from that assessment a little over a year later (mostly from being inundated with an outcry from ardent fans of this picture), releasing a vastly superior remaster via TT that was infinitely more satisfying for fans. So, yes. The ability to do better is there. Is it yet cost effective? Possibly, not.

    Regarding your assessment of my lack of 'understanding' for the 'technology'. Yep – you're right. I didn't go to school to become a film restorationist. But it doesn't take one to see Forever Amber has not been given its due on Blu-ray. All you need to see its deficiencies is a good pair of eyes. I've got those. And just so we're very clear here, I have always, and will continue to hold your critical assessments of movie art and restoration techniques in very VERY high regard. You obviously have the experience to back them up. I'm not at all certain I can say the same for your throwing my review in totem under the proverbial bus, essentially saying "don't read him, he doesn't know anything."

    And again, my review did not demand perfection from Fox. It was, alas, extremely disappointed to find Forever Amber given short shrift, when basic color balancing and contrast correction might have enhanced this viewing experience greatly. I mean, if they can't even seek out and tack on the right vintage of the Fox logo to the opener of this release, I know exactly how much time, research and energy they spent on it!

  79. Nick*Z

    Gee, I don't know, Robert. You gave this disc a 2.5. I gave it a 1 out of 5. Sounds to me like our tastes and level of expectations were pretty much aligned here.

    What exactly did I say that was so wrong? I said the disc looked ugly and faded to my eyes, and stated that I believe Fox could do better. I'll support quality releases. The rest, you needn't bother to peddle. We're well beyond the era in Blu-ray mastering where fans of the classics should merely be 'grateful' to accept anything in lieu of nothing. Lowering standards doesn't give us the product we deserve. It merely gives us stuff like this! Sony understands this mantra and has for some time undertaken an aggressive program to restore what it can from less than perfectly archived elements.

    Time for Fox to get with that program too instead of offering us a 'hit or miss' mentality on remastering; for every Doctor Dolittle, a Forever Amber. No thanks. Be consistent. That's all I'm expecting. Forever Amber will never be perfect. But it could definitely be a lot better. And I recall so well TT's original release of Journey to the Center of the Earth, with Fox claiming there was nothing more to be done to salvage the title in high def, only to retreat from that assessment a little over a year later (mostly from being inundated with an outcry from ardent fans of this picture), releasing a vastly superior remaster via TT that was infinitely more satisfying for fans. So, yes. The ability to do better is there. Is it yet cost effective? Possibly, not.

    Regarding your assessment of my lack of 'understanding' for the 'technology'. Yep – you're right. I didn't go to school to become a film restorationist. But it doesn't take one to see Forever Amber has not been given its due on Blu-ray. All you need to see its deficiencies is a good pair of eyes. I've got those. And just so we're very clear here, I have always, and will continue to hold your critical assessments of movie art and restoration techniques in very VERY high regard. You obviously have the experience to back them up. I'm not at all certain I can say the same for your throwing my review in totem under the proverbial bus, essentially saying "don't read him, he doesn't know anything."

    And again, my review did not demand perfection from Fox. It was, alas, extremely disappointed to find Forever Amber given short shrift, when basic color balancing and contrast correction might have enhanced this viewing experience greatly. I mean, if they can't even seek out and tack on the right vintage of the Fox logo to the opener of this release, I know exactly how much time, research and energy they spent on it!

    I think you've picked a poor example…

    My comments were directed to not to you, but to Alberto_D.

    But to respond to your comments, the situation with films such as Forever Amber, and I've not examined the elements, but I have for several of other Fox productions of the era, is very simple.

    Either we have the Blu-ray that Twilight Time offers, or we get nothing.

    Not because Fox is being either lazy or holding pursestrings closed, but because there is no where else to go on the film.

    RAH

  80. Well, I never said Twilight Time effort wasn't worth of respect.
    Every good intention effort is worth respect for old neglected films, even if have problems !


    If Fox, at present time, have no interest or budget to better digitally restore it and try the best possible stat of the art color correction, twilight at least is bringing it to HD. So Robert Harris is right to said to applaud it.

    But the fact that the colors and contrast wasn't worked enough, despite TT spent money in a 4K transfer, it's a bit strange. Unless the french blu ray, which I based to judge the quality of this new blu ray (as Bryan^H said it look almost the same) it's in reality worse than this new transfer.

    On your TV, do this scene from Twilight.T BD looks like this image ?

    [​IMG]

    This image, from pinterest, looks better than the captures from the french BD, and better than the videos took from Fox DVD. Still not very good, but at least not so much gray and muddy

    If I was famous, like a actor, I would start a campaign for research and development of better color correction tools for film restoration. As far as I know most tools used today was not trully designed for such cases, but are tools used to pos production of modern movies.

    Think with me. A scratched and dirty film, take many time and money to restore. But a movie with color problems require just adjust scenes to scene and not slow time consuming frame by frame fixes. It's a wast to let a movie in bad colors only because nobody care about create better digital tools for colors.

    I didn't knew Nick was member of this forum. Please don't start a rivality discussion because of me. I would feel guilty if people don't get well along due points raised by my posts.

  81. Well, I finally sat down tonight and watched the TT of Forever Amber in its entirety and considering some of the things said here, not without some trepidation. Having seen the film before in various broadcast, theatrical revivals and DVD incarnations I can honestly say it's the best I've ever seen it look (which doesn't mean it's pristine). The clarity is very good and my only nitpicking is that the transfer is darker than I would have liked. If you're fan of the film, picking it up is a no brainer. If it's all about showing off your home theater, skip it. I'd go with Mr. Harris' unbiased expertise rather than a self proclaimed "expert" with an agenda.

  82. Thomas T

    Well, I finally sat down tonight and watched the TT of Forever Amber in its entirety and considering some of the things said here, not without some trepidation. Having seen the film before in various broadcast, theatrical revivals and DVD incarnations I can honestly say it's the best I've ever seen it look (which doesn't mean it's pristine).

    Thank you!

    That is exactly my experience. I'm happy to have it. This is the best I have ever seen it look as well, so why would I not be pleased?

  83. After watching the TT Blu ray of Forever Amber and noticing the color palette was weaker and darker than I remember and the ending was different than the French Sidonis Blu Ray that I purchased a few years ago in Paris,
    Puzzled, I put on the French Blu ray. The picture is not as sharp as TT but colors are much beautiful and more vibrant. The ending IS DIFFERENT…There is no Cornel Wilde voiceover at the end. Amber looks out the window and then closes it…no narration or judgement. Which is the original ending?
    Even though the French Blu Ray has forced French subtitles, it is now my version of choice.

  84. Ken Koc

    The ending IS DIFFERENT…There is no Cornel Wilde voiceover at the end. Amber looks out the window and then closes it…no narration or judgement. Which is the original ending?

    Actually, neither is the "original" ending. The original ending had no voiceover but it didn't end with Amber closing the window. It ended with Amber sitting at her dressing table in front of her mirror putting on make up as she prepares to meet yet another "suitor". The implication being that though Charles II had abandoned her, there will always be another man to take care of her. This scene was cut to appease the Legion of Decency and we are left to believe with the added voiceover that she will be punished by being alone and abandoned for her "sins". It is 1947 after all and bad girls had to be punished! At least they didn't kill her off. The elimination of that scene causes a jump in David Raksin's seamless scoring.

  85. Have you tried to match the saturation of TT to the french BD by using the saturation setting from your TV ?
    Its diffiuclt to imagine the colors of TT to be worse than the french BD…

    This bring one concern. Is the CRI (eastman negative that survied), the only master that survived for this film, in very cold storage to avoid further color fadding ? Have new protection masters created for film preservation ?
    Maybe Robert Harris know.

    Ken Koc

    After watching the TT Blu ray of Forever Amber and noticing the color palette was weaker and darker than I remember and the ending was different than the French Sidonis Blu Ray that I purchased a few years ago in Paris,
    Puzzled, I put on the French Blu ray. The picture is not as sharp as TT but colors are much beautiful and more vibrant. The ending IS DIFFERENT…There is no Cornel Wilde voiceover at the end. Amber looks out the window and then closes it…no narration or judgement. Which is the original ending?
    Even though the French Blu Ray has forced French subtitles, it is now my version of choice.

  86. Alberto_D

    Have you tried to match the saturation of TT to the french BD by using the saturation setting from your TV ?
    Its diffiuclt to imagine the colors of TT to be worse than the french BD…

    This bring one concern. Is the CRI (eastman negative that survied), the only master that survived for this film, in very cold storage to avoid further color fadding ? Have new protection masters created for film preservation ?
    Maybe Robert Harris know.

    Alberto,

    You’re over-thinking.

    I’ve examined the elements, came up with the best and most financially viable solution.

    It’s all garbage.

    Once the image is gone, along with shadow detail, end of show.

    I’ve said this many times.

    “It is what it is.”

    That said, there may be another possible angle, but just for a few of the films.

    Wouldn’t be perfect, but it might be a bit better.

    Not so much for Amber, although something might be done to help it a bit. That would be very expensive.

    We can do testing, with base costs around $50,000.

    Nothing else to be done, and certainly not in photoshop.

    Can you provide or find financing?

  87. Mr Harris, I didn't wanted to sound insistent that time. I was more like refering about the preservation of the elements (storage and safety masters manufaturing) than crticizing, in the last post.
    I found a bit strange than a new 4K transfer would look worse in colors than a 2011 or 2012 HD transfer, and that's why I suggested to Ken to try change saturation setting of his TV. It wasn't sarcasm of mine.

    I never suggested use Photoshop to restore colors. I used cause it's what I have, and I did in a combination of many tools and not a plugin to treat fadded kodack negatives, since would be useless in this case. What I imagine is that in theory it's possible to develop better digital tools that could work better and easier for this and many other films.
    The shadows are mostly gone, I agree.

    I can't finance… 🙂
    We need to try turn Bill Gates into a vintage film goer.

    The CRI despite fadded have more sharp image details than old dye tranfer prints, specially if it could be better aligne the 3 color channels, like with Warner's Ultra Resolution os similar, even being a simple color film copy instead of 3 strips.
    Have any dye transfer print survived, or even a cinecolor print, or even a 16mm TV B&W print, with better shadow detail or at least with something able to be enhanced with digital tools ?
    If a print with more shadow details survived, even if a quite lower resolution dye tranfer print or B&W print, there is hope (if money could drop from sky) that future tools could perfect align it with the CRI, match the remaining contrast of both, and try to transplant only the shadow details into the CRI image. If was B&W a little dvanced colorization would would solve the issue.

    A 16mm would look granier and softer, in a "shadow detail transplant" case, but better than nothing. And many 80's movies have some film 35mm stock for some low light scenes, with only the shadowns looking like 16mm or worse, and we don't find it so strange.

    Anyway, like you say, people are enjoying this new edition, thanks to Twilight Time effort.

  88. Alberto_D

    Mr Harris, I didn't wanted to sound insistent that time. I was more like refering about the preservation of the elements (storage and safety masters manufaturing) than crticizing, in the last post.
    I found a bit strange than a new 4K transfer would look worse in colors than a 2011 or 2012 HD transfer, and that's why I suggested to Ken to try change saturation setting of his TV. It wasn't sarcasm of mine.

    I never suggested use Photoshop to restore colors. I used cause it's what I have, and I did in a combination of many tools and not a plugin to treat fadded kodack negatives, since would be useless in this case. What I imagine is that in theory it's possible to develop better digital tools that could work better and easier for this and many other films.
    The shadows are mostly gone, I agree.

    I can't finance… 🙂
    We need to try turn Bill Gates into a vintage film goer.

    The CRI despite fadded have more sharp image details than old dye tranfer prints, specially if it could be better aligne the 3 color channels, like with Warner's Ultra Resolution os similar, even being a simple color film copy instead of 3 strips.
    Have any dye transfer print survived, or even a cinecolor print, or even a 16mm TV B&W print, with better shadow detail or at least with something able to be enhanced with digital tools ?
    If a print with more shadow details survived, even if a quite lower resolution dye tranfer print or B&W print, there is hope (if money could drop from sky) that future tools could perfect align it with the CRI, match the remaining contrast of both, and try to transplant only the shadow details into the CRI image. If was B&W a little dvanced colorization would would solve the issue.

    A 16mm would look granier and softer, in a "shadow detail transplant" case, but better than nothing. And many 80's movies have some film 35mm stock for some low light scenes, with only the shadowns looking like 16mm or worse, and we don't find it so strange.

    Anyway, like you say, people are enjoying this new edition, thanks to Twilight Time effort.

    16mm is not helpful.

    Resolution is not the problem.

    Shadow detail cannot be transplanted to an image that already has blocked details.

    Yes, nitrates survive on some of the films. These are (in many cases) the original studio prints. The database, or most of it, can be accessed on the UCLA Film & TV Archive website.

    Go here:

    https://cinema.library.ucla.edu/vwebv/search?searchArg=forever+amber&searchCode=GKEY^&searchType=0&recCount=50

    You may find it informative.

    These are 65 – 80 year old prints, that (generally) have many runs.

    As you seem genuinely passionate, here are a few test frames (not fully color corrected), as we've been around the block on these films…

    First – Nitrate print

    View attachment 43169

    Test of CRI -Y / + DUPE Y master, to by-pass fade

    View attachment 43171

    and finally, proving another point, a c. 1961 dye transfer print, with C dye later removed, and replaced by DUPE Y master, derived from CRI.

    View attachment 43172

    It must be understood that the quality of elements vary, on a picture by picture basis, few prints survive on acetate stock, and that the color of nitrate, especially early, and with the added G record, also vary. This also does not get into physical damage.

    I can assure you, that Fox is doing everything possible, within rational financial parameters to save this library.

  89. Thank you very much for the link and for the nice image channel recombination examples. :thumbs-up-smiley:
    Yes, FOX is trying hard, Shaw Belston is in charge of the preservation depatment, last time I read about.
    Money it's a problem, as always.

    About transplant, it's impossible today. But think about future or near future…
    If 3 years before Lowry Digital Images start, somone had came to you and said it was possible to grain by grain digitally process a image to compare similar frames and extract more image details from it without aperture correction, removing a film generation loss, you wouldn't had believed.

    A CRI when very well made, and when still new or with very few (minimal/irrelevant) fadding could have a dynamic range similar to a Dye transfer print. Am I right ?
    Sadly is not the case of Forever Amber. A future technolgy for transplant is the only hope to atenuate the missing shadow problem. If all edges and textures of all channels are aligned (like Warner's Ultra Resolution or better), from both sources, and if tones in common for both are matched, all perfect, it's possible, in theory, to digitally sellect a grayscale range from the shadow channels from donator print, and sellect the range from the CRI which would reciere it, and place over, with a soft range transition zone.

    I found interesting to think about the sentence : "The films negatives was destroyed (only prints and poor masters left) and as result the film's original photography it's lost today" Something like that was said somehwere, about Leave Her to Heaven.

    We can agree if we think the camera negative had far more information than a faded CRI left or a dye trans print.
    But if good dye transfer original prints survived, and if new duplications from it could have zero loss today (like digital projection alternative) someone could argue that if people could still watch the film like people watched on premiere, the films would not had really lost the photography art.
    It wouldn't be like Gone With The Wind, that got better and better prints as the dye trans print technology evolved from 30's to 70's, but would stay like first premiere, let's say.

    But blu ray goers don't like very much video transfers from original dye tranfer prints. They prefer high picture details, sharper, and dynamic from camera negative or fine grain masters.
    Since you always said no video system can recreate a dye transfer print projection experience, what do you believe people would prefer, if they could watch the Twilight Time blu ray compared to a original dye transfer print projection of forever Amber ?

  90. They must be 2 different transfers , since the ending is different on both blu rays. The TT transfer is sharper and cleaner, but the color on that version is not as vivid as the French blu ray. Having said that, it definitely an older transfer.
    I am curious that FOX has both versions of the film. The TT version has the voice over of a line that Cornell Wilde says earlier in the film.
    "Haven't we caused enough unhappiness? May God have mercy on us both for our sins."
    The French version does not have that voiceover.

  91. Alberto_D

    Thank you very much for the link and for the nice image channel recombination examples. :thumbs-up-smiley:
    Yes, FOX is trying hard, Shaw(n) Belston is in charge of the preservation depatment, last time I read about.
    Money it's a problem, as always.

    About transplant, it's impossible today. But think about future or near future…
    If 3 years before Lowry Digital Images start, somone had came to you and said it was possible to grain by grain digitally process a image to compare similar frames and extract more image details from it without aperture correction, removing a film generation loss, you wouldn't had believed.

    Yes.

    A CRI when very well made, and when still new or with very few (minimal/irrelevant) fadding could have a dynamic range similar to a Dye transfer print. Am I right ?

    You are not.

    Sadly is not the case of Forever Amber. A future technolgy for transplant is the only hope to atenuate the missing shadow problem. If all edges and textures of all channels are aligned (like Warner's Ultra Resolution or better), from both sources, and if tones in common for both are matched, all perfect, it's possible, in theory, to digitally sellect a grayscale range from the shadow channels from donator print, and sellect the range from the CRI which would reciere it, and place over, with a soft range transition zone.

    It is not.

    I found interesting to think about the sentence : "The films negatives was destroyed (only prints and poor masters left) and as result the film's original photography it's lost today" Something like that was said somehwere, about Leave Her to Heaven.

    Truly?

    We can agree if we think the camera negative had far more information than a faded CRI left or a dye trans print.
    But if good dye transfer original prints survived, and if new duplications from it could have zero loss today (like digital projection alternative) someone could argue that if people could still watch the film like people watched on premiere, the films would not had really lost the photography art.

    No.

    It wouldn't be like Gone With The Wind, that got better and better prints as the dye trans print technology evolved from 30's to 70's, but would stay like first premiere, let's say.

    They were not better. They were different.

    But blu ray goers don't like very much video transfers from original dye tranfer prints. They prefer high picture details, sharper, and dynamic from camera negative or fine grain masters.

    Truly?

    Since you always said no video system can recreate a dye transfer print projection experience, what do you believe people would prefer, if they could watch the Twilight Time blu ray compared to a original dye transfer print projection of forever Amber ?

    You can't seriously be asking that question.

    You can now stop asking questions, and giving opinions, and do your homework…

  92. I just found this on TCM in an article about FOREVER AMBER.
    I have found the answer to the 2 versions.
    " According to memos and correspondence in PCA files, in an effort to reverse the Legion's "C" rating, Twentieth Century-Fox officials agreed with PCA recommendations that a voice-over prologue and epilogue be added. A PCA memo states that Preminger was "vehemently opposed" to the epilogue because Bruce's voice-over admission of sin is heard over a shot of Amber, and threatened to disassociate himself from the entire production if the edit was carried out. There is no evidence that Preminger took any such action. The additional soundtrack material and cutting instructions were shipped to over 400 exhibitors and were in full effect on all prints in release by mid-December 1947. Based on these changes, the Legion of Decency reclassified Forever Amber from a "C" or "condemned" rating to a "B" or "morally objectional in part" rating on 8 December 1947."

  93. Yeah, only If a original print is found somewhere for Forever Amber…
    The UCLA library catalogy have no dye treansfer print for Forever Amber , Hairspray and Forever Kinight.

    I found interesting to imagine people preferences. A somewhat soft detail dye transfer print (we don't have) projected on big screen, or a sharp 4K transfer from CRI in a 60 inch OLED TV ? What would they choose if had the chance to watch both … I bet the first…

    People liked this Gulliver's Travels BD edition heroically restored from a technicolor dye transfer print (made in the 50's or so)
    But I'm sure they would prefer a BD from camera negative restoration, if it had survived.
    http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews44/gullivers_travels_blu-ray.htm

    About the "original photography be lost" refers to the image quality of the restorations hadn't it due dynamic range losses of CRI, and not about the dye transfer print references be able preserve the photography director's work, in case of Leave Her to Heaven. At least was what I remamber or understood back then.

    Robert Harris

    "Since you always said no video system can recreate a dye transfer print projection experience, what do you believe people would prefer, if they could watch the Twilight Time blu ray compared to a original dye transfer print projection of Forever Amber ? "

    You can't seriously be asking that question.

    You can now stop asking questions, and giving opinions, and do your homework…

  94. Alberto_D

    Yeah, only If a original print is found somewhere for Forever Amber…
    The UCLA library catalogy have no dye treansfer print for Forever Amber , Hairspray and Forever Kinight.

    I found interesting to imagine people preferences. A somewhat soft detail dye transfer print (we don't have) projected on big screen, or a sharp 4K transfer from CRI in a 60 inch OLED TV ? What would they choose if had the chance to watch both … I bet the first…

    People liked this Gulliver's Travels BD edition heroically restored from a technicolor dye transfer print (made in the 50's or so)
    But I'm sure they would prefer a BD from camera negative restoration, if it had survived.
    http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews44/gullivers_travels_blu-ray.htm

    About the "original photography be lost" refers to the image quality of the restorations hadn't it due dynamic range losses of CRI, and not about the dye transfer print references be able preserve the photography director's work, in case of Leave Her to Heaven. At least was what I remamber or understood back then.

    I'll agree with whatever you say, and leave it at that…

  95. Yeah, I wonder if they'll ever be able to successfully scan a Technicolor print? If they could, it would mean scanning each frame at various densities, not much light for the lighter parts of the frame & really pushing it through for the darker bits, & then re-assembling each frame using a lot of technology…it's never going to happen is it 🙂

  96. Uhnn, I found why I upset Bob Harris that much. :wacko:
    I had fastly read non-circulating, and interpreted as non existing print.

    After I finally had the "harduos work" of put the mouse over it and clic over it, I found :

    • M17513
    • Collection:MP Motion Picture Collection
    • Format:8 reels of 8 (136 min.) (ca. 16000 ft.) : opt sd., IB Technicolor ; 35 mm. nitrate print. NOTES: Studio print. Cataloging based on transcription made by AFI cataloger.
    • Number of Items:1
    • Notes:Numerous splices; otherwise good condition: r1,2,4-8; poor condition (perf. scratches visible in image, first 2 min.): r3 (Melnitz cond. report, 11/17/1989).

    What a shame I did in my previous post… :laugh:
    [​IMG]

    I'm happy that a nitrate technicolor print exist. But it have some problems.

    Sorry Mr Harris if my anxiety and hurry&arrogance offended your very good will in provide very nice informations to me.
    At least my homework it's ready now.
    Living and learning…

    I once contacted a developer of digital film restoration tools, and talked about a idea I had for new tools to restore technicolor films, in terms of scratches, dirt, stains. If would use informations from one color layer to repair damage in another color layer, by changing it using color gradient spectrum analyze. In the email they said it was very interesting but would require too much investment. Id would probably be able to fix "hell scratches" without leave artefacts.

  97. The best film scanner are already able to capture all stops of modern films. Some from few years ago used this aproach, combining different exposures. But today I believe there are sensors already able to easier capture all the dynamic range of film.

    Some technical concerns for very hi resolution digital cameras was dynamic range limitations compared to chemical film. I never understood why nobody created a cinema dig camera using beam splitter prisms, like technicolor camera prisms, to expose one bright image to a sensor and a dark image to another sensor. The right combination from both, digitally, and not as a simple overlay, would create a much better dynamic.

    It would not reduce so much the sensibility of the camera for dark places, since the prism would only need to split a fraction of the light, like let's say 13% (and not 50% like technicolor), to the sensor that would capture highlights, leaving 87% for the sensor for shadows and middle tones.

    Billy Batson

    Yeah, I wonder if they'll ever be able to successfully scan a Technicolor print? If they could, it would mean scanning each frame at various densities, not much light for the lighter parts of the frame & really pushing it through for the darker bits, & then re-assembling each frame using a lot of technology…it's never going to happen is it 🙂

    When scanner and telecines had serious imitations, Kodak created a film to be easier for scanning. It was in early 90's |I believe, when digital image effects started to become more often in films and required digital intermediation.

    But I presume real time telecine machines have these limitations you said, and not modern advanced expansive slower scanning.
    Telecine/scanning for many old films tends to be more expansive in many cases, cause the elements can be fragile and require very carefull handly and slow transfer, to ensure no aditional damage.

    I presume, I imagine, that in a technicolor print it's a bit easier to recover hidden tones in shadows, in portions that appears somewhat flat. While in CRI you try to push the gamma and the flat dark area still looks flat. It's like tonalities ends more suddenly than in other film stock or film prints.

    Billy Batson

    All these scanning devises are supposed to work from low-contrast elements, original b/w or colour negative, interpositive or fine grain positive (b/w), anything with too much contrast, & it doesn't go well.

  98. The print need to have the details you wish to the scanner manage to get it. And for you see such details, if they exist, you would need to enhance the image digitally to bring-up the details that is hiden in dark and bright areas, otherwise these hiden details would be very afected by video compression, if we talk about watch in blu ray.
    Original technicolor dye trasnfer prints have high contrast, and to get the details to allow you see in a a video transfer in BD, I supose it need the treatement I said.

    Talking abou actual film exibition prints. Modern film prints are made from internegatives that was made from interpositives that was made from original camera negative. And not all steps are always made in the best duplication stock or best film printers. If prints in 50's and 60's was made from internegaties, it would look horrible, since duplication stock back then wasn't good as today for color film.
    The final print can't be made in fine grain duplication stock, expansive and too dark to project. The first two steps, interpositive creation and internegative, can be in prime film stocks, but some few film labs cut costs with internegative.

    The printer it's important too. High speed printer can work fast, produce a lot of copies per day, but tends to have more image detail (sharp detail) loss than step contact printers (printers that shot frame by frame. The final exhibition prints are almost always made in fast printers, since the demand is high and time is short.

    With digital intermediation and finishing in digital healm, much films were being direct printed in digital film recorder as internegatives, using pollyester film (resitant to make hundred copies) and send to labs to duplication in conventional digital printer. This until the photochemical age nearly died today with the majority of theater having digital projection systems.

    Billy Batson

    Well you could be right, I've been out of the game for a few years, so I don't know what the latest gizmos can do, but I'll only believe it when I see a decent scan from a projection print.

  99. I don’t think this is noted anywhere in HTF’s rulebook, but I’d have hoped the wishes of a thread’s host would be respected by members as a matter of common courtesy.

    Not into judging anyone’s motives, but I do care when individual conduct unfairly affects others; and given the degree of latitude in evidence in this thread, I’d ask that this opinion also be allowed to be expressed here:-

    The interminable calling out and haranguing of Mr Harris has ruined this thread for me. I feel this is unfair towards Mr Harris, earnest readers and the product under review.

    No thread host should be driven to the point of having to say: “You can now stop asking questions, and giving opinions”, as Mr Harris did in his inline responses in post #95. Yet, even that plain, direct request was completely ignored. This is offensive.

    Frankly, I was amazed by the patience and generosity that Mr Harris displayed in post #92, giving the poster the benefit of the doubt and providing a wealth of detailed clarity. Not that it seemed to make a jot of difference!

    This burdensome and inconsiderate behaviour shows no signs of abating, and I’d ask moderators to please step in before more topics are ruined in this way.

  100. I have to second RMajidi's post. While I'm all for giving leeway to have individual opinions expressed, the passive/aggressive posts ("I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend" while continuing the tirade) have hijacked this thread. I peek in to see comments on TT's Forever Amber only to find the dead horse is still being flayed 🙁

  101. My advice is quite simple, it takes at least two people to have a topic discussion. If some of you have grown tired by a person's posts then ignore them, stop engaging in conversation about those posts, and sooner, not later, those topics will die off the vine.

  102. Robert Crawford

    My advice is quite simple, it takes at least two people to have a topic discussion. If some of you have grown tired by a person's posts then ignore them, stop engaging in conversation about those posts, and sooner, not later, those topics will die off the vine.

    I'd feel better if this "advice" was applied consistently across the board by HTF moderators rather than pick and choose. I've seen some perfectly harmless (to my eye) posts that were told "Enough, stop it already!" while others get a pass. But then again, I'm not a moderator, am I? 🙂

  103. Thomas T

    I'd feel better if this "advice" was applied consistently across the board by HTF moderators rather than pick and choose. I've seen some perfectly harmless (to my eye) posts that were told "Enough, stop it already!" while others get a pass. But then again, I'm not a moderator, am I? 🙂

    It's not a policy which is suppose to be consistent, but just a nugget of advice. And, right, you're not a moderator as it's harder than you think when dealing with different people, personalities and situations.:)

  104. Sometimes I cross the limits… I need to police myself, since sometimes my curiosity it's too strong.

    What about we talk about the film itself and not about transfers?
    Was this really the most expansive film up to the 40's, as I read somewhere on web ?

  105. Robert Crawford

    My advice is quite simple, it takes at least two people to have a topic discussion. If some of you have grown tired by a person's posts then ignore them, stop engaging in conversation about those posts, and sooner, not later, those topics will die off the vine.

    Another solution is to place someone on your "ignore" list. Unfortunately either I've forgotten how to do that or the facility has been removed.

  106. Robin9

    Another solution is to place someone on your "ignore" list. Unfortunately either I've forgotten how to do that or the facility has been removed.

    Just click on a person's name to the left of their post and you will see an option to click on "ignore". You can do the same by going to a person's profile page which has the same option.

  107. One expects the kind of aggression towards Mr. Harris on other boards, not here. Mr. Harris is a treasure and has been at this a very long time. Even when I occasionally don't agree with him, I cannot ever dispute his expertise and why he's saying something. Then again, I'm always astonished when people who actually know things are lambasted, but I guess that is the nature of the beast.

Leave a Reply