A few words about…™ Operation Petticoat — in Blu-ray

Not much of an upgrade 3.5 Stars

The other Olive release as licensed by Paramount, is another fun Cary Grant film. This one released in 1959, and directed by Blake Edwards, has Mr. Grant is teamed with Tony Curtis.

The film was shot by Russell Harlan, who had become an Edwards staple. Most will know his name from his work on Red River, Ruby Gentry and To Kill a Mockingbird.

Billed as a high-definition digital restoration, Operation Petticoat comes across as a half-baked project, with occasionally problematic color, and a bit too much detritus, wear and tear to be taken seriously.

As announced by Olive, their new Signature release will be locked at 3,500 copies. While you may purchase as many copies as you feel you need, presumably up to 3,500 (if you act quickly enough) Olive, in an attempt to combat scalping and hoarding, limits purchases through their own website at five copies per household.

Like it companion release, Father Goose, Operation Petticoat was previously released by Olive on Blu-ray several years ago.

While I’m a huge fan of Olive’s Blu-rays, their products, especially those emblazoned with the Signature moniker, need a bit more shepherding toward higher quality imagery, before that moniker is used, especially for something marketed as restored.

Image – 3.25

Audio – 5

4k Up-rez – 3

Pass / Fail – Pass

Upgrade – No

RAH

Published by

Robert Harris

editor,member

95 Comments

  1. Robert Crawford

    I have a hard time believing this BD isn't an upgrade over the horrible DVD. Even the prior BD was an upgrade over the 2001 DVD.

    Robert,

    The term used should have been BD for upgrade. As with Father Goose, these seem to be the same transfers, but now, even with extras, have a higher data throughput, via BD-50s.

    Final result seems to be about the same.

  2. Rick Thompson

    Apparently the same botched job as the last, which to my eyes had more drop-outs and debris than the DVD. So much for anything Paramount.

    Placing things in perspective, I believe the general audience will love it.

  3. I won't love it and I won't be buying it – I figured this was going to be like this – they're obviously using the same master and giving it the bit rates (whatever those are) they should have in the first place. Sorry, this is shameful. And they will presumably be sitting on most of those 3500 copies for a very long time.

  4. Robert Harris

    While I'm a huge fan of Olive's Blu-rays, their products, especially those emblazoned with the Signature moniker, need a bit more shepherding toward higher quality imagery, before that moniker is used, especially for something marketed as restored.

    I would hate to see Olive slipping back to their days of when I purchased their first edition of "The Quiet Man". It was advertised as a restoration of the 4K kind; but to no avail, as little evidence of such appeared on my screen. Enter Olive's "Signature" series. Truly, that edition of "The Quiet Man" lived up to its word; but I had certain resentments about the whole double-purchase of it all. And no doubt, "High Noon" looked fantastic; but I was also lucky enough to not have purchased their earlier version, so there was no resentment there.
    But Olive does need to be on notice, as I have no intention of supporting their products that have misleading banners and/or claims attached to it. The Signature Series; meant to lift their stature and, perhaps, our loyalties have all but lost the majority of a once earned credibility. I am sorry to report that I will not be purchasing "The Miracle Worker", "Father Goose" or "Operation Petticoat" under their current conditions and claims. Both "Signature" editions of "The Quiet Man" and "High Noon" had proven Olive's newfound capabilities; thus making it much too late for them to turn back their own clocks.

  5. Robert Harris

    Robert,

    The term used should have been BD for upgrade. As with Father Goose, these seem to be the same transfers, but now, even with extras, have a higher data throughput, via BD-50s.

    Final result seems to be about the same.

    So Olive has basically lied about the following in bold:

    OLIVE SIGNATURE FEATURES

    • New High-Definition digital restoration
    • Audio commentary by critic Adrian Martin
    • “That’s What Everybody Says About Me” – with Jennifer Edwards and actress Lesley Ann Warren
    • “The Brave Crew of the Petticoat” – with actors Gavin MacLeod and Marion Ross
    • “The Captain and His Double: Cary Grant’s Struggle of the Self” – with Marc Eliot, author of Cary Grant: A Biography
    • Universal Newsreel footage of Cary Grant and the opening of Operation Petticoat at the Radio City Music Hall
    • Archival footage of the submarine USS Balao, which doubled as the USS Sea Tiger in Operation Petticoat
    • Essay by critic Chris Fujiwara
  6. Very difficult as a layman to understand what the various terms mean. For me, if it's a title I like, I will upgrade/buy the blu-ray. If it is a reissued blu-ray it has to be a reasonable uplift in quality for a repurchase (eg TT's Journey). If it is a favourite title I will repurchase even for a small uplift in quality. None of the Olive reissues appeal to me.

  7. Robert Harris

    Placing things in perspective, I believe the general audience will love it.

    If this new copy looks essentially the same as the prior Blu-ray, a score of 3.25 is extremely generous of you. I rated the other disc 2 and could have gone lower. The extensive dirt and damage were very distracting, and I don't think the "general audience" expecting crystal clarity on every Blu-ray will care for it at all.

  8. – Screener Encoding Errors –

    It has come to our attention that our Blu-ray editions of Olive Signature Operation Petticoat and Olive Signature Father Goose, originally scheduled for release on November 7, were affected by encoding errors during replication. These digital glitches are present in Blu-ray screeners that you may have received already or will receive in the next few days. Because the final quality control does not meet our standards, we will be correcting these glitches before commercial release and resubmitting new discs for review. As a consequence of these fixes, please be advised we will also be postponing the street date for both titles. Stay tuned, and we will update you when a new street date has been determined. We thank you for your patience as we work to resolve these issues.

    Thank you,
    Olive Films

  9. Robert Harris

    – Screener Encoding Errors –

    It has come to our attention that our Blu-ray editions of Olive Signature Operation Petticoat and Olive Signature Father Goose, originally scheduled for release on November 7, were affected by encoding errors during replication. These digital glitches are present in Blu-ray screeners that you may have received already or will receive in the next few days. Because the final quality control does not meet our standards, we will be correcting these glitches before commercial release and resubmitting new discs for review. As a consequence of these fixes, please be advised we will also be postponing the street date for both titles. Stay tuned, and we will update you when a new street date has been determined. We thank you for your patience as we work to resolve these issues.

    Thank you,
    Olive Films

    Could the "encoding errors" mean that they accidentally used entirely the wrong master? Probably a stretch. That'd be kind of a big whoopsie to slip through Quality Control.

  10. Robert Harris

    – Screener Encoding Errors –

    It has come to our attention that our Blu-ray editions of Olive Signature Operation Petticoat and Olive Signature Father Goose, originally scheduled for release on November 7, were affected by encoding errors during replication. These digital glitches are present in Blu-ray screeners that you may have received already or will receive in the next few days. Because the final quality control does not meet our standards, we will be correcting these glitches before commercial release and resubmitting new discs for review. As a consequence of these fixes, please be advised we will also be postponing the street date for both titles. Stay tuned, and we will update you when a new street date has been determined. We thank you for your patience as we work to resolve these issues.

    Thank you,
    Olive Films

    Thank you RAH! Your noted criticism of these upcoming releases just didn't match Olive's initial press release in which they promoted restoration efforts with these two titles. Very happy to see Olive addressing this issue.

  11. JoshZ

    Could the "encoding errors" mean that they accidentally used entirely the wrong master? Probably a stretch. That'd be kind of a big whoopsie to slip through Quality Control.

    Anything is possible. The message is interestingly vague.

  12. oh , if you could only get that same response from VCI about Topper, and know that a replacement was on the way, or a memo sent out about The Miracle Worker…… makes one wonder, if these really were ready for release, or rushed

  13. Robert Harris

    Anything is possible. The message is interestingly vague.

    The claim of a "New High-Definition digital restoration" always sounded a bit suspect, like it would wind up being the same scan as before with a little digital clean-up. But you stated in the prior thread about this movie that you were told this would be a totally new element and restoration. That doesn't at all seem to be the case, unless the wrong master was used.

    I suppose the person you spoke to previously could have simply been misinformed. I'm not in a position to judge that.

  14. JoshZ

    The claim of a "New High-Definition digital restoration" always sounded a bit suspect, like it would wind up being the same scan as before with a little digital clean-up. But you stated in the prior thread about this movie that you were told this would be a totally new element and restoration. That doesn't at all seem to be the case, unless the wrong master was used.

    I suppose the person you spoke to previously could have simply been misinformed. I'm not in a position to judge that.

    I believe that it’s Father Goose that’s a new scan.

  15. Robert Harris

    I believe that it’s Father Goose that’s a new scan.

    In the thread about that movie, you said: "Both Grant films appear to be the same transfers, with the new BD, at a higher bitrate. Final results seem to be very similar, although the new product may be slightly better."

    It sounds to me like neither is a new scan.

  16. JoshZ

    In the thread about that movie, you said: "Both Grant films appear to be the same transfers, with the new BD, at a higher bitrate. Final results seem to be very similar, although the new product may be slightly better."

    It sounds to me like neither is a new scan.

    Father Goose is a new 4k scan. The current Blu-ray may not be representative of the final work. I have no more info than anyone else.

  17. Robert Harris

    Father Goose is a new 4k scan. The current Blu-ray may not be representative of the final work. I have no more info than anyone else.

    Was the prior Blu-ray for Father Goose that 4k scan? I never watched that one, just Petticoat.

  18. While we wait for Olive to fix the issues with Operation Petticoat, a bit of trivia:

    Joan O'Brien, who plays the voluptuous Lt. Crandall, was for a couple of years married to guitarist Billy Strange, a member of the famed Wrecking Crew and a favorite of Brian Wilson. Billy Strange also wrote the song "Limbo Rock." I got to know him during his later years and I attended his 75th birthday party in Nashville in 2005.

  19. JoshZ

    Was the prior Blu-ray for Father Goose that 4k scan? I never watched that one, just Petticoat.

    I don’t think so, which would lead one to believe that the new Olive Signature should be beautiful.

    What could be helpful is a bit more transparency. The only possible tech flaw that I noted, was a momentary digital breakup, that I wrote off, without checking further, to a bit of dust on the disc.

    I have no doubt that Olive went to the trouble and expense of accessing the OCN, and scanning in 4k. No reason to fake that. My problem was that it didn’t look as it should, presuming a new image harvest.

    Understand that a 4k harvest is a big deal. If done correctly, it’s time consuming, and expensive. Think of it as taking the cut original negative, and properly coloring the entire film from shot to shot. This can be weeks of work, if done meticulously. Months, if there is fade in the neg, which should be minimal for a film shot on 5251.

    Location work was done in Jamaica, so processing could still have been performed at a top lab. The neg should be in good shape, but who knows…

  20. Richard Gallagher

    While we wait for Olive to fix the issues with Operation Petticoat, a bit of trivia:

    Joan O'Brien, who plays the voluptuous Lt. Crandall, was for a couple of years married to guitarist Billy Strange, a member of the famed Wrecking Crew and a favorite of Brian Wilson. Billy Strange also wrote the song "Limbo Rock." I got to know him during his later years and I attended his 75th birthday party in Nashville in 2005.

    Billy Strange was also a top arranger, most famously with Nancy Sinatra ("Boots", a series of hits, and all those duets with Lee Hazlewood) and sometimes with Frank, too.

  21. "The delay in release is due to the presence of digital artifacts on the screeners. It was an error made in replication and unrelated to the masters used. If you're asking about the masters used, we can confirm that Father Goose is from a 4K scan of the original camera negative, a different master than our 2013 blu-ray. Operation Petticoat is sourced from the same master as our 2014 blu-ray, but with considerable digital restoration undertaken."

    Above from a BR.com post taken from a Facebook response by Olive.

    Also, this release is delayed until November 28th. Amazon has changed the release date on their site.

  22. Well, I own the earlier "Operation Petticoat" BD and was more-or-less happy with it. When I started hearing about how crap the new release was (wow, RAH, do the posters at BRDC love what you have to say :thumbs-up-smiley:), my upgrade hopes were dashed and I focused on "Father Goose" which had still eluded me. Now, I guess it's more waiting and hoping. Thanks again, RAH (I'd use Robert, but it seems a bit familiar?). :thumbsup:

  23. They have indicated tech problems, and are fixing those of which they are aware, and presumably feel need to be fixed.

    They’ve performed a 4k OCN scan. Extremely expensive, if performed properly with a high end final result. Going that route, for which I commend them, can open a Pandora’s box of problems.

  24. Robert Harris

    They’ve performed a 4k OCN scan. Extremely expensive, if performed properly with a high end final result.

    For Petticoat or for Father Goose? I thought you said that only Father Goose had a new 4k scan?

  25. JoshZ

    For Petticoat or for Father Goose? I thought you said that only Father Goose had a new 4k scan?

    A Facebook response from Olive:

    "The delay in release is due to the presence of digital artifacts on the screeners. It was an error made in replication and unrelated to the masters used. If you're asking about the masters used, we can confirm that Father Goose is from a 4K scan of the original camera negative, a different master than our 2013 blu-ray. Operation Petticoat is sourced from the same master as our 2014 blu-ray, but with considerable digital restoration undertaken."

  26. ArnoldLayne

    No new screener prior to the street date?

    I received a screener and watched it last night. The new disc looks only minimally different than the 2014 copy. Olive (or Paramount) has added small letterbox bars to bring the aspect ratio to 1.85:1 (the prior copy was 16:9), slightly darkened the image, and tweaked the colors a little. Otherwise, it's clearly the same master. Still coated with scratches and heavy grain.

  27. I received an e mail from Amazon this morning stating my copy of Operation Petticoat has shipped and will arrive tomorrow. I was concerned about my order since Amazon has it listed as currently unavailable. I'm looking forward to the new supplements on the disc, even if there is little improvement to the picture quality.

  28. Blimpoy06

    I received an e mail from Amazon this morning stating my copy of Operation Petticoat has shipped and will arrive tomorrow. I was concerned about my order since Amazon has it listed as currently unavailable. I'm looking forward to the new supplements on the disc, even if there is little improvement to the picture quality.

    mine arrives tomorrow as well..I never purchased the original from Olive as there was no HOH so now I buy….the film is terrific entertainment and could not be re-made today as there are sadly no actors like Grant and Curtis anywhere to be seen……..

  29. Robert Harris

    – Screener Encoding Errors –

    It has come to our attention that our Blu-ray editions of Olive Signature Operation Petticoat and Olive Signature Father Goose, originally scheduled for release on November 7, were affected by encoding errors during replication. These digital glitches are present in Blu-ray screeners that you may have received already or will receive in the next few days. Because the final quality control does not meet our standards, we will be correcting these glitches before commercial release and resubmitting new discs for review. As a consequence of these fixes, please be advised we will also be postponing the street date for both titles. Stay tuned, and we will update you when a new street date has been determined. We thank you for your patience as we work to resolve these issues.

    Thank you,
    Olive Films

    I watched my Olive Signature edition of 'Operation Petticoat' today. I am very disappointed to report the presence of two screen tears during the film. By screen tears, I mean digital glitches. The very thing that I believe delayed these Olive Signature releases.

    I did not document the time stamp for the first glitch. It only lasted a second or so and I was too lazy to get the cat off my lap and get up to look at the time display on my Blu-ray player. However, later, when the second glitch occurred, I did repeat that section of the film several times and made note of the time. The second glitch was 100% reproducible each time I played it. This is what it looks like:

    [​IMG]

    Near the bottom of the screen, extending from Cary Grant's chest pocket button to Joan O'Brien's shirt collar. It occurs at time stamp 1:37:05.

    I have notified Olive customer service about this via email. I fear some of the defective discs got shipped to retailers by mistake. Either that or a re-press didn't correct all of the errors. I purchased my copy from Amazon and received it last week.

    I haven't watched my copy of 'Father Goose' yet. I hope it doesn't have the same issues. I will let you know what I hear from Olive.

    Mark

  30. Olive Films responded very quickly. Here's the email I received:

    Hello Mark,

    Thank you for getting in touch. You're correct that these releases were delayed due to encoding errors, and that's exactly what you're seeing on the screenshot you've taken. Some of the faulty units must have fallen through the cracks, and we're very sorry to see that you ended up with one. We're more than happy to facilitate an exchange so that you can get a corrected copy.

    If you'd like to check whether you received a faulty blu-ray of Father Goose, the error occurs at 0:05:37. If your Father Goose blu-ray has this error, we'd like to exchange both discs for you.

    To exchange the disc(s), please give us your address and let us know whether you'll be exchanging both blu-rays or just Operation Petticoat. We will send you a prepaid mailer that you can use to send your disc(s) to us, and once we receive it, we will get your replacements on the way.

    Thank you very much for your understanding, and we sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.

    I checked my copy of 'Father Goose' at 0:5:37 and, sure enough, it has the glitch. Here's a photo of that spot:

    [​IMG]

    I've requested that Olive replace both titles.

    Mark

  31. JoshZ

    For what it's worth, the "corrected" disc that Olive sent me plays through without these digital errors. (The transfer still looks awful, unfortunately.)

    I have the corrected discs. The video presentation is about what I expected so I can’t agree with you about being awful.

  32. Robert Crawford

    I have the corrected discs. The video presentation is about what I expected so I can’t agree with you about being awful.

    It's good that you set your expectations low. That's necessary to watch this disc. Nevertheless, the master is still sourced from a substandard film element covered in scratches from start to finish, and the alleged "considerable digital restoration" amounted to little more than slightly tweaking the colors and adding tiny letterbox bars to the previously full-frame 16:9 transfer. Seemingly no digital repair was attempted on the extensive damage at all, much less was a new scan performed on a better condition element (as is badly needed).

    For the MSRP Olive is asking, this double-dip is a massive ripoff.

  33. JoshZ

    It's good that you set your expectations low. That's necessary to watch this disc. Nevertheless, the master is still sourced from a substandard film element covered in scratches from start to finish, and the alleged "considerable digital restoration" amounted to little more than slightly tweaking the colors and adding tiny letterbox bars to the previously full-frame 16:9 transfer. Seemingly no digital repair was attempted on the extensive damage at all, much less was a new scan performed on a better condition element (as is badly needed).

    For the MSRP Olive is asking, this double-dip is a massive ripoff.

    We all have our opinion, but I don’t agree with your opinion about my expectations. If you’re that unhappy with this release are you going to return it?

  34. My sense is that Olive has produced the best that was available to them.
    After all, they did address the issues that were in their control.
    And they did get back to Mark Booth pretty quickly, too.
    I'll take one of each, Olive.:thumbs-up-smiley:

  35. Robert Crawford

    We all have our opinion, but I don’t agree with your opinion about my expectations. If you’re that unhappy with this release are you going to return it?

    I received a review screener. Regardless, I don't return discs that have been opened and played even if I'm unhappy with them, any more than I'd ask for a refund on a movie ticket after I'd sat and watched the whole movie. That just seems obnoxious to me.

    However, the packaging explicitly promises a "New high-definition digital restoration," when the disc itself has no such thing and looks virtually identical to the crummy older Blu-ray from 2014. At Amazon's current price of $29.95, much less the full $39.95 MSRP, a strong case can be made that this is false advertising.

    The only things this disc offers over the older edition (currently available for $15) are a commentary and small handful of featurettes, all of which IMO are one-time-only watches.

    Had this been priced at $14.99 (possible as even $19.99) and didn't flagrantly lie about having a "restoration," I'd be more inclined to forgive it. Not like this, though.

  36. PMF

    My sense is that Olive has produced the best that was available to them.
    After all, they did address the issues that were in their control.

    At least some of the film damage could have been repaired digitally. From the looks of it, no attempt was made to do so. The only differences between this transfer and the prior Blu-ray are the tiny letterbox bars and slightly warmer colors.

  37. Olive is in a tough spot here. I don't want to come across as though I'm apologizing for their transfer, and at this time, I've chosen not to purchase it at the price its being offered, as I have the existing Blu-rays already. But we don't expect labels like Twilight Time or Kino to do work with titles they license; we almost always say in reviews that it's up to the copyright holder to address these issues. So I don't necessarily understand why Olive is perceived as this cartoon super-villain with the twirling mustache, when Kino gets a free pass for doing the exact same thing. Twilight Time generally chooses to pass on inferior masters and release nothing for that title rather than something of lesser quality; on one hand, I commend them for their standards, but on the other hand, sometimes you just want access to a title in whatever condition it exists (particularly if there's no hope of it being fixed).

    Olive limited this to 3500 copies – even if they sold each and every copy, and got a higher price at wholesale than film distributors normally get (and I'd be doubtful of both those things happening), that really doesn't leave a lot of money to perform the kind of cleanup and restoration work that a title like this might need. And Olive can only ever issue it on this disc. So they'd have no other source of revenue to use to try to recoup their expenses if they did decide to try to fund a restoration.

    The rights holder, Paramount, should really be handling this. Paramount should have done the restoration work on their dime, which would have resulted in them owning a new digital asset which could be utilized in a multitude of ways. Paramount could have used a new master for repertory bookings in theaters, to license out to other distributors internationally, to license to television, cable and streaming, and to sell on streaming services. Olive can't do any of that.

    This is one of my top Cary Grant films and I'd love to have a freshly restored, pristine version available. And I do think it's a little unfair for Olive to call it a new restoration, but to be fair to Olive, they're not the ones who started the dubious process of labeling anything and everything a restoration.

  38. JoshZ

    I received a review screener. Regardless, I don't return discs that have been opened and played even if I'm unhappy with them, any more than I'd ask for a refund on a movie ticket after I'd sat and watched the whole movie. That just seems obnoxious to me.

    However, the packaging explicitly promises a "New high-definition digital restoration," when the disc itself has no such thing and looks virtually identical to the crummy older Blu-ray from 2014. At Amazon's current price of $29.95, much less the full $39.95 MSRP, a strong case can be made that this is false advertising.

    The only things this disc offers over the older edition (currently available for $15) are a commentary and small handful of featurettes, all of which IMO are one-time-only watches.

    Had this been priced at $14.99 (possible as even $19.99) and didn't flagrantly lie about having a "restoration," I'd be more inclined to forgive it. Not like this, though.

    Like I previously stated, you're welcome to your opinion. When I first read your initial posts on my phone, I didn't notice your last name. I've been a fan of your reviews going back to your DVDFile.com days. Anyhow, my earlier post in October in this same thread I kind of agreed with your position that I have in bold. However, I kind of soften that initial take after reading some comments from Robert Harris.

  39. JoshZ

    I received a review screener. Regardless, I don't return discs that have been opened and played even if I'm unhappy with them, any more than I'd ask for a refund on a movie ticket after I'd sat and watched the whole movie. That just seems obnoxious to me.

    However, the packaging explicitly promises a "New high-definition digital restoration," when the disc itself has no such thing and looks virtually identical to the crummy older Blu-ray from 2014. At Amazon's current price of $29.95, much less the full $39.95 MSRP, a strong case can be made that this is false advertising.

    The only things this disc offers over the older edition (currently available for $15) are a commentary and small handful of featurettes, all of which IMO are one-time-only watches.

    Had this been priced at $14.99 (possible as even $19.99) and didn't flagrantly lie about having a "restoration," I'd be more inclined to forgive it. Not like this, though.

    Josh,

    Screenshot comparisons have proven that the Signature edition's image has been contrast adjusted and, IMHO, it *does* look better than the original Olive release. Yes, the heavy grain (particularly at the very beginning of the film) and dirt and scratches are still there. So, I agree that there is some misleading advertising going on here by Olive. However, the transfer WAS improved a little bit.

    It's just not enough to justify the rerelease, IMHO. But since I didn't own the first releases and I was able to get these Signature releases for under $20 each, I pulled the trigger.

    Mark

  40. Josh Steinberg

    […] And I do think it's a little unfair for Olive to call it a new restoration, but to be fair to Olive, they're not the ones who started the dubious process of labeling anything and everything a restoration.

    The word, term and usage of "Restoration" must be jealously guarded and applied correctly by all who are involved.
    That's the bottom line.

  41. PMF

    The word, term and usage of "Restoration" must be jealously guarded and applied correctly by all who are involved.
    That's the bottom line.

    Sure, no argument from me. The term is misused all the time. For instance, Criterion uses the word "restoration" to describe every new disc that they issue, including for relatively new movies. And yet, no one takes out the pitchforks against Criterion. I think the bottom line is that Olive has put out some less than stellar releases in the past, and as a result, people don't want to cut them any slack, which is fine, but at the same time, the term "restoration" has been used and misused in so many different ways that in and of itself, its now meaningless without further description of what its meant to entail. If every single other home video label feels free to throw around the word regardless of meaning, in my view it's not fair to be upset at Olive and only Olive for this.

    In the case of Operation Petticoat, in the press release Olive clearly stated that it was going to be the same master as the previous Blu-ray, with some tweaks applied. That's what the disc ended up being.

  42. Josh Steinberg

    Sure, no argument from me. The term is misused all the time. For instance, Criterion uses the word "restoration" to describe every new disc that they issue, including for relatively new movies. And yet, no one takes out the pitchforks against Criterion. I think the bottom line is that Olive has put out some less than stellar releases in the past, and as a result, people don't want to cut them any slack, which is fine, but at the same time, the term "restoration" has been used and misused in so many different ways that in and of itself, its now meaningless without further description of what its meant to entail. If every single other home video label feels free to throw around the word regardless of meaning, in my view it's not fair to be upset at Olive and only Olive for this.

    In the case of Operation Petticoat, in the press release Olive clearly stated that it was going to be the same master as the previous Blu-ray, with some tweaks applied. That's what the disc ended up being.

    They did state that when this encoding issue delayed this its release.

  43. Josh Steinberg

    In the case of Operation Petticoat, in the press release Olive clearly stated that it was going to be the same master as the previous Blu-ray, with some tweaks applied. That's what the disc ended up being.

    The press release made no such statement. The press release says the same thing that the disc packaging does: "New High-Definition digital restoration." The clarification that Operation Petticoat would reuse the previous Blu-ray master with some tweaking was made on Facebook. That information has not been widely distributed. A consumer who doesn't happen to follow Olive Films' Facebook page (and read every response to user comments) would be unlikely to know this information before purchasing.

  44. Mark Booth

    Josh,

    Screenshot comparisons have proven that the Signature edition's image has been contrast adjusted and, IMHO, it *does* look better than the original Olive release.

    I made some of those screenshot comparisons! The differences are very small and frankly not noticeable unless you compare the discs side-by-side. That's far from the "new restoration" promised.

  45. JoshZ

    The press release made no such statement. The press release says the same thing that the disc packaging does: "New High-Definition digital restoration." The clarification that Operation Petticoat would reuse the previous Blu-ray master with some tweaking was made on Facebook. That information has not been widely distributed. A consumer who doesn't happen to follow Olive Films' Facebook page (and read every response to user comments) would be unlikely to know this information before purchasing.

    The following is what Olive stated:

    "The delay in release is due to the presence of digital artifacts on the screeners. It was an error made in replication and unrelated to the masters used. If you're asking about the masters used, we can confirm that Father Goose is from a 4K scan of the original camera negative, a different master than our 2013 blu-ray. Operation Petticoat is sourced from the same master as our 2014 blu-ray, but with considerable digital restoration undertaken."

    So you can take issue with their use of "digital restoration" in regard to Operation Petticoat. Furthermore, the same for 4K scan of the OCN for Father Goose.

  46. Josh Steinberg

    I don't follow Olive on Facebook, and I had that information.

    You had that information because the Facebook post was quoted in this thread. That is not the same as Olive putting the information into a publicly distributed press release (much less correcting the misleading disc packaging).

  47. Look, I really don't have any interest in arguing. You were saying that only people who bothered to follow Olive on Facebook knew the source of the transfer; I was saying that the information was more widely available. I think we can reasonably agree to disagree on this point.

  48. All I know is I sure wish I hadn't sold my old Olive releases! Maybe the price will come down pretty quickly on these signature titles. I'm generally really happy with Olive releases and they have released films that very few of the other labels (boutique or not) would have bothered with. I'm still very happy with their release of Strategic Air Command and Escape from Zahrain, two titles that are fairly obscure to the general population.

  49. Josh Steinberg

    Olive is in a tough spot here. I don't want to come across as though I'm apologizing for their transfer, and at this time, I've chosen not to purchase it at the price its being offered, as I have the existing Blu-rays already. But we don't expect labels like Twilight Time or Kino to do work with titles they license; we almost always say in reviews that it's up to the copyright holder to address these issues. So I don't necessarily understand why Olive is perceived as this cartoon super-villain with the twirling mustache, when Kino gets a free pass for doing the exact same thing. Twilight Time generally chooses to pass on inferior masters and release nothing for that title rather than something of lesser quality; on one hand, I commend them for their standards, but on the other hand, sometimes you just want access to a title in whatever condition it exists (particularly if there's no hope of it being fixed).

    It's not my intention to flood this thread with posts, but I do want to respond to this.

    The issue in this case is that Operation Petticoat is a double-dip reissue of a Blu-ray already released, which was widely criticized for its poor video quality. This isn't just a matter where we're lucky to get the movie on Blu-ray at all, in whatever condition it happens to be. That argument may have applied to the original disc, which is still available for less money, but not to this one. If Olive is going to justify reissuing the title with a Criterion-level $39.95 MSRP, they need to provide some reason for consumers to buy it.

    Further, the new disc is being issued under the label's premium "Olive Signature" branding. Based on earlier Olive Signature releases such as High Noon and Johnny Guitar, the Olive Signature line was presented as the company's attempt to compete with the Criterion Collection, providing high-quality video editions of classic movies, handled with more care and attention than Olive's usual licensed titles. Combined with the explicit promise of a "New High-Definition digital restoration," consumers have every reason to expect that this Olive Signature edition of Operation Petticoat will feature a new and significantly improved video transfer than the prior Blu-ray. Unfortunately, that is simply not what's really being sold.

    Aside from the new bonus features (which are decent, but hardly bountiful), the new Operation Petticoat disc offers no meaningful improvement in terms of a/v quality over the older, less expensive and still available Blu-ray. Its high $39.95 MSRP seems completely unmerited to me.

    A release this poor devalues the entire Olive Signature line and will leave consumers skeptical of future releases. Until RAH confirmed that they indeed had new and improved masters, I was very hesitant to buy the Olive Signature editions of A New Leaf and Letter from an Unknown Woman, which I normally would have jumped at. Going forward, I just don't think I can blindly trust any Olive Signature releases to have good quality until I read a review from a reputable source first.

  50. Josh Steinberg

    Olive is in a tough spot here. I don't want to come across as though I'm apologizing for their transfer, and at this time, I've chosen not to purchase it at the price its being offered, as I have the existing Blu-rays already. But we don't expect labels like Twilight Time or Kino to do work with titles they license; we almost always say in reviews that it's up to the copyright holder to address these issues. So I don't necessarily understand why Olive is perceived as this cartoon super-villain with the twirling mustache, when Kino gets a free pass for doing the exact same thing. Twilight Time generally chooses to pass on inferior masters and release nothing for that title rather than something of lesser quality; on one hand, I commend them for their standards, but on the other hand, sometimes you just want access to a title in whatever condition it exists (particularly if there's no hope of it being fixed).

    It's not my intention to flood this thread with posts, but I do want to respond to this.

    The issue in this case is that Operation Petticoat is a double-dip reissue of a Blu-ray already released, which was widely criticized for its poor video quality. This isn't just a matter where we're lucky to get the movie on Blu-ray at all, in whatever condition it happens to be. That argument may have applied to the original disc, which is still available for less money, but not to this one. If Olive is going to justify reissuing the title with a Criterion-level $39.95 MSRP, they need to provide some reason for consumers to buy it.

    Further, the new disc is being issued under the label's premium "Olive Signature" branding. Based on earlier Olive Signature releases such as High Noon and Johnny Guitar, the Olive Signature line was presented as the company's attempt to compete with the Criterion Collection, providing high-quality video editions of classic movies, handled with more care and attention than Olive's usual licensed titles. Combined with the explicit promise of a "New High-Definition digital restoration," consumers have every reason to expect that this Olive Signature edition of Operation Petticoat will feature a new and significantly improved video transfer than the prior Blu-ray. Unfortunately, that is simply not what's really being sold.

    Aside from the new bonus features (which are decent, but hardly bountiful), the new Operation Petticoat disc offers no meaningful improvement in terms of a/v quality over the older, less expensive and still available Blu-ray. Its high $39.95 MSRP seems completely unmerited to me.

    A release this poor devalues the entire Olive Signature line and will leave consumers skeptical of future releases. Until RAH confirmed that they indeed had new and improved masters, I was very hesitant to buy the Olive Signature editions of A New Leaf and Letter from an Unknown Woman, which I normally would have jumped at. Going forward, I just don't think I can blindly trust any Olive Signature releases to have good quality until I read a review from a reputable source first.

  51. Josh Steinberg

    Look, I really don't have any interest in arguing. You were saying that only people who bothered to follow Olive on Facebook knew the source of the transfer; I was saying that the information was more widely available. I think we can reasonably agree to disagree on this point.

    I hope we weren't arguing, but discussing these issues with Olive releases. Any argument should be taken up with Olive and not each other.

  52. Josh Steinberg

    Look, I really don't have any interest in arguing. You were saying that only people who bothered to follow Olive on Facebook knew the source of the transfer; I was saying that the information was more widely available. I think we can reasonably agree to disagree on this point.

    I hope we weren't arguing, but discussing these issues with Olive releases. Any argument should be taken up with Olive and not each other.

  53. Josh Steinberg

    Look, I really don't have any interest in arguing. You were saying that only people who bothered to follow Olive on Facebook knew the source of the transfer; I was saying that the information was more widely available. I think we can reasonably agree to disagree on this point.

    I hope we weren't arguing, but discussing these issues with Olive releases. Any argument should be taken up with Olive and not each other.

  54. I didn't own the first Olive releases of these two titles (Operation Petticoat & Father Goose). When I popped in the Signature version of Operation Petticoat to watch on Tuesday, I was immediately struck by the high amount of coarse grain at the beginning of the film. But as I settled into simply enjoying the film (which I had not seen in its entirety before), my thoughts about transfer quality disappeared. Ten minutes into the film I completely stopped noticing any dirt or scratches or any other transfer based issues. I couldn't even tell you if there ARE any transfer based issues, other than the heavy grain at the very beginning. My only interruption of simply enjoying the film was the two times there was visible encoding glitches. Those jumped out like a sore thumb and were easily noticeable.

    The bottom line for me is that the Olive Signature version of Operation Petticoat is highly watchable. If I owned the previous release it is doubtful I would have purchased the Signature version. But that doesn't make the Signature version utter trash. It is WELL worth the $20 I paid for it.

    Mark

  55. I didn't own the first Olive releases of these two titles (Operation Petticoat & Father Goose). When I popped in the Signature version of Operation Petticoat to watch on Tuesday, I was immediately struck by the high amount of coarse grain at the beginning of the film. But as I settled into simply enjoying the film (which I had not seen in its entirety before), my thoughts about transfer quality disappeared. Ten minutes into the film I completely stopped noticing any dirt or scratches or any other transfer based issues. I couldn't even tell you if there ARE any transfer based issues, other than the heavy grain at the very beginning. My only interruption of simply enjoying the film was the two times there was visible encoding glitches. Those jumped out like a sore thumb and were easily noticeable.

    The bottom line for me is that the Olive Signature version of Operation Petticoat is highly watchable. If I owned the previous release it is doubtful I would have purchased the Signature version. But that doesn't make the Signature version utter trash. It is WELL worth the $20 I paid for it.

    Mark

  56. I didn't own the first Olive releases of these two titles (Operation Petticoat & Father Goose). When I popped in the Signature version of Operation Petticoat to watch on Tuesday, I was immediately struck by the high amount of coarse grain at the beginning of the film. But as I settled into simply enjoying the film (which I had not seen in its entirety before), my thoughts about transfer quality disappeared. Ten minutes into the film I completely stopped noticing any dirt or scratches or any other transfer based issues. I couldn't even tell you if there ARE any transfer based issues, other than the heavy grain at the very beginning. My only interruption of simply enjoying the film was the two times there was visible encoding glitches. Those jumped out like a sore thumb and were easily noticeable.

    The bottom line for me is that the Olive Signature version of Operation Petticoat is highly watchable. If I owned the previous release it is doubtful I would have purchased the Signature version. But that doesn't make the Signature version utter trash. It is WELL worth the $20 I paid for it.

    Mark

  57. Robert Crawford

    I hope we weren't arguing, but discussing these issues with Olive releases. Any argument should be taken up with Olive and not each other.

    I agree. I think there was just an honest disagreement of whether Olive had made it known that Operation Petticoat was using the same original scan for the new edition, but on the whole, I don't think any of us are far apart on opinions.

    I think this release should be better, but frankly, I place most of that blame on Paramount. Paramount owns the elements, Paramount created the video transfer, and Paramount has the rights to exploit any new transfer. Like I said before, Olive is releasing 3500 copies which they can only sell on physical media domestically. That's not really enough profit potential to allow for quality work to be performed. Paramount, the rights holder, should do this because they have multiple potential revenue streams on this title. They can provide it to repertory theaters for theatrical bookings; they can sell it to broadcast and cable channels; they can license it to subscription services like Netflix; they can sell it on digital services like iTunes and Vudu; and they can license it to other distributors internationally. Paramount has a path to recoup the investment on the work needed. I'm not sure that Olive does. We don't expect Twilight Time to remaster a title; in reviews and discussions of TT product, the discussion always goes to, for example, that MGM provided a crappy master and should have done better.

    I'm not at all in disagreement that this should be better. And since I have the original disc, I'm not ready to rebuy it at this time. But I'm not sure this should be all on Olive either. Paramount owns these films; it would be nice if they'd take care of them too. I guess what I'm saying is, the end result between us is probably the same – I'm not buying the disc, and I'm not supporting the release. But I'm annoyed that Paramount can't do better by these titles that they own. That's irresponsible stewardship.

  58. Robert Crawford

    I hope we weren't arguing, but discussing these issues with Olive releases. Any argument should be taken up with Olive and not each other.

    I agree. I think there was just an honest disagreement of whether Olive had made it known that Operation Petticoat was using the same original scan for the new edition, but on the whole, I don't think any of us are far apart on opinions.

    I think this release should be better, but frankly, I place most of that blame on Paramount. Paramount owns the elements, Paramount created the video transfer, and Paramount has the rights to exploit any new transfer. Like I said before, Olive is releasing 3500 copies which they can only sell on physical media domestically. That's not really enough profit potential to allow for quality work to be performed. Paramount, the rights holder, should do this because they have multiple potential revenue streams on this title. They can provide it to repertory theaters for theatrical bookings; they can sell it to broadcast and cable channels; they can license it to subscription services like Netflix; they can sell it on digital services like iTunes and Vudu; and they can license it to other distributors internationally. Paramount has a path to recoup the investment on the work needed. I'm not sure that Olive does. We don't expect Twilight Time to remaster a title; in reviews and discussions of TT product, the discussion always goes to, for example, that MGM provided a crappy master and should have done better.

    I'm not at all in disagreement that this should be better. And since I have the original disc, I'm not ready to rebuy it at this time. But I'm not sure this should be all on Olive either. Paramount owns these films; it would be nice if they'd take care of them too. I guess what I'm saying is, the end result between us is probably the same – I'm not buying the disc, and I'm not supporting the release. But I'm annoyed that Paramount can't do better by these titles that they own. That's irresponsible stewardship.

  59. Robert Crawford

    I hope we weren't arguing, but discussing these issues with Olive releases. Any argument should be taken up with Olive and not each other.

    I agree. I think there was just an honest disagreement of whether Olive had made it known that Operation Petticoat was using the same original scan for the new edition, but on the whole, I don't think any of us are far apart on opinions.

    I think this release should be better, but frankly, I place most of that blame on Paramount. Paramount owns the elements, Paramount created the video transfer, and Paramount has the rights to exploit any new transfer. Like I said before, Olive is releasing 3500 copies which they can only sell on physical media domestically. That's not really enough profit potential to allow for quality work to be performed. Paramount, the rights holder, should do this because they have multiple potential revenue streams on this title. They can provide it to repertory theaters for theatrical bookings; they can sell it to broadcast and cable channels; they can license it to subscription services like Netflix; they can sell it on digital services like iTunes and Vudu; and they can license it to other distributors internationally. Paramount has a path to recoup the investment on the work needed. I'm not sure that Olive does. We don't expect Twilight Time to remaster a title; in reviews and discussions of TT product, the discussion always goes to, for example, that MGM provided a crappy master and should have done better.

    I'm not at all in disagreement that this should be better. And since I have the original disc, I'm not ready to rebuy it at this time. But I'm not sure this should be all on Olive either. Paramount owns these films; it would be nice if they'd take care of them too. I guess what I'm saying is, the end result between us is probably the same – I'm not buying the disc, and I'm not supporting the release. But I'm annoyed that Paramount can't do better by these titles that they own. That's irresponsible stewardship.

  60. If Criterion is also guilty, then let's address this stuff on their threads, as well.
    Yes, we want plenty of titles to be released on BD and we all know fully well that each and every transfer may have its inherent flaws;
    but misleading labels, banners and claims about transfers must end; here and now.
    From what I am gathering, this is about having accurate descriptions of the transfers being marketed.
    If the menu says Black Angus; then don't serve me another form of meat;
    which is something McDonald's has recently been caught at doing.
    If I wander into a Barnes and Noble and see a BD of interest on the shelf, I see only what is on the package and what is being touted.
    I want each and every claim to be accurate.
    For my money, if a transfer is not stellar then there should be no shame or hidings of such truths.
    I am more apt to forgive, respect and purchase a BD that may not be a so-called "Restoration";
    but, rather, a title that is honest in what's being presented to the consumer.
    Again, if Criterion and the likes are also guilty, then let's identify it and address it on their threads, as well.

  61. If Criterion is also guilty, then let's address this stuff on their threads, as well.
    Yes, we want plenty of titles to be released on BD and we all know fully well that each and every transfer may have its inherent flaws;
    but misleading labels, banners and claims about transfers must end; here and now.
    From what I am gathering, this is about having accurate descriptions of the transfers being marketed.
    If the menu says Black Angus; then don't serve me another form of meat;
    which is something McDonald's has recently been caught at doing.
    If I wander into a Barnes and Noble and see a BD of interest on the shelf, I see only what is on the package and what is being touted.
    I want each and every claim to be accurate.
    For my money, if a transfer is not stellar then there should be no shame or hidings of such truths.
    I am more apt to forgive, respect and purchase a BD that may not be a so-called "Restoration";
    but, rather, a title that is honest in what's being presented to the consumer.
    Again, if Criterion and the likes are also guilty, then let's identify it and address it on their threads, as well.

  62. If Criterion is also guilty, then let's address this stuff on their threads, as well.
    Yes, we want plenty of titles to be released on BD and we all know fully well that each and every transfer may have its inherent flaws;
    but misleading labels, banners and claims about transfers must end; here and now.
    From what I am gathering, this is about having accurate descriptions of the transfers being marketed.
    If the menu says Black Angus; then don't serve me another form of meat;
    which is something McDonald's has recently been caught at doing.
    If I wander into a Barnes and Noble and see a BD of interest on the shelf, I see only what is on the package and what is being touted.
    I want each and every claim to be accurate.
    For my money, if a transfer is not stellar then there should be no shame or hidings of such truths.
    I am more apt to forgive, respect and purchase a BD that may not be a so-called "Restoration";
    but, rather, a title that is honest in what's being presented to the consumer.
    Again, if Criterion and the likes are also guilty, then let's identify it and address it on their threads, as well.

  63. PMF

    misleading labels, banners and claims about transfers must end; here and now.

    Philip, I appreciate your passion, but unfortunately, that ship has long sailed. The term "restoration" holds no legal definition, unlike, say certain food products which must contain a certain amount of a certain ingredient to be labeled as such. So, you, or I, or Robert Harris might say, "this doesn't count as a restoration," to which any home video or label could correctly point out that there's no agreed-upon standard and no marketing regulation dictating how that term can be used.

    Almost every home video label, at this point in time, will consider a new scan of a film element to be a "restoration". Criterion calls everything they put out a "restoration" in the liner notes. Arrow just put out a new edition of Donnie Darko, a movie that's not even twenty years old, and called that a restoration – the truth is, the film elements are fine, and it was a new scan of the negative. Which isn't a bad thing, but it's not what I'd call a restoration.

    But what's a "restoration"? Legally, there's no one definition that studios and home video labels must use. It can mean what they want it to mean. As a result, the marketing people often like to include it everywhere.

    There's simply no mechanism by which to enforce the kind of request you're making.

  64. PMF

    misleading labels, banners and claims about transfers must end; here and now.

    Philip, I appreciate your passion, but unfortunately, that ship has long sailed. The term "restoration" holds no legal definition, unlike, say certain food products which must contain a certain amount of a certain ingredient to be labeled as such. So, you, or I, or Robert Harris might say, "this doesn't count as a restoration," to which any home video or label could correctly point out that there's no agreed-upon standard and no marketing regulation dictating how that term can be used.

    Almost every home video label, at this point in time, will consider a new scan of a film element to be a "restoration". Criterion calls everything they put out a "restoration" in the liner notes. Arrow just put out a new edition of Donnie Darko, a movie that's not even twenty years old, and called that a restoration – the truth is, the film elements are fine, and it was a new scan of the negative. Which isn't a bad thing, but it's not what I'd call a restoration.

    But what's a "restoration"? Legally, there's no one definition that studios and home video labels must use. It can mean what they want it to mean. As a result, the marketing people often like to include it everywhere.

    There's simply no mechanism by which to enforce the kind of request you're making.

  65. PMF

    misleading labels, banners and claims about transfers must end; here and now.

    Philip, I appreciate your passion, but unfortunately, that ship has long sailed. The term "restoration" holds no legal definition, unlike, say certain food products which must contain a certain amount of a certain ingredient to be labeled as such. So, you, or I, or Robert Harris might say, "this doesn't count as a restoration," to which any home video or label could correctly point out that there's no agreed-upon standard and no marketing regulation dictating how that term can be used.

    Almost every home video label, at this point in time, will consider a new scan of a film element to be a "restoration". Criterion calls everything they put out a "restoration" in the liner notes. Arrow just put out a new edition of Donnie Darko, a movie that's not even twenty years old, and called that a restoration – the truth is, the film elements are fine, and it was a new scan of the negative. Which isn't a bad thing, but it's not what I'd call a restoration.

    But what's a "restoration"? Legally, there's no one definition that studios and home video labels must use. It can mean what they want it to mean. As a result, the marketing people often like to include it everywhere.

    There's simply no mechanism by which to enforce the kind of request you're making.

  66. Josh Steinberg

    Philip, I appreciate your passion, but unfortunately, that ship has long sailed. The term "restoration" holds no legal definition, unlike, say certain food products which must contain a certain amount of a certain ingredient to be labeled as such. So, you, or I, or Robert Harris might say, "this doesn't count as a restoration," to which any home video or label could correctly point out that there's no agreed-upon standard and no marketing regulation dictating how that term can be used.

    Almost every home video label, at this point in time, will consider a new scan of a film element to be a "restoration". Criterion calls everything they put out a "restoration" in the liner notes. Arrow just put out a new edition of Donnie Darko, a movie that's not even twenty years old, and called that a restoration – the truth is, the film elements are fine, and it was a new scan of the negative. Which isn't a bad thing, but it's not what I'd call a restoration.

    But what's a "restoration"? Legally, there's no one definition that studios and home video labels must use. It can mean what they want it to mean. As a result, the marketing people often like to include it everywhere.

    There's simply no mechanism by which to enforce the kind of request you're making.

    In the same vein, if we are requesting honesty, then we should also ask that reviewers (official or unofficial) not label releases as ‘crap’ or ‘trash’. That kind of post is just as misleading (and given the Internet‘s penchant for emphasizing the negative, usually re-quoted).

  67. Josh Steinberg

    Philip, I appreciate your passion, but unfortunately, that ship has long sailed. The term "restoration" holds no legal definition, unlike, say certain food products which must contain a certain amount of a certain ingredient to be labeled as such. So, you, or I, or Robert Harris might say, "this doesn't count as a restoration," to which any home video or label could correctly point out that there's no agreed-upon standard and no marketing regulation dictating how that term can be used.

    Almost every home video label, at this point in time, will consider a new scan of a film element to be a "restoration". Criterion calls everything they put out a "restoration" in the liner notes. Arrow just put out a new edition of Donnie Darko, a movie that's not even twenty years old, and called that a restoration – the truth is, the film elements are fine, and it was a new scan of the negative. Which isn't a bad thing, but it's not what I'd call a restoration.

    But what's a "restoration"? Legally, there's no one definition that studios and home video labels must use. It can mean what they want it to mean. As a result, the marketing people often like to include it everywhere.

    There's simply no mechanism by which to enforce the kind of request you're making.

    In the same vein, if we are requesting honesty, then we should also ask that reviewers (official or unofficial) not label releases as ‘crap’ or ‘trash’. That kind of post is just as misleading (and given the Internet‘s penchant for emphasizing the negative, usually re-quoted).

  68. Josh Steinberg

    Philip, I appreciate your passion, but unfortunately, that ship has long sailed. The term "restoration" holds no legal definition, unlike, say certain food products which must contain a certain amount of a certain ingredient to be labeled as such. So, you, or I, or Robert Harris might say, "this doesn't count as a restoration," to which any home video or label could correctly point out that there's no agreed-upon standard and no marketing regulation dictating how that term can be used.

    Almost every home video label, at this point in time, will consider a new scan of a film element to be a "restoration". Criterion calls everything they put out a "restoration" in the liner notes. Arrow just put out a new edition of Donnie Darko, a movie that's not even twenty years old, and called that a restoration – the truth is, the film elements are fine, and it was a new scan of the negative. Which isn't a bad thing, but it's not what I'd call a restoration.

    But what's a "restoration"? Legally, there's no one definition that studios and home video labels must use. It can mean what they want it to mean. As a result, the marketing people often like to include it everywhere.

    There's simply no mechanism by which to enforce the kind of request you're making.

    In the same vein, if we are requesting honesty, then we should also ask that reviewers (official or unofficial) not label releases as ‘crap’ or ‘trash’. That kind of post is just as misleading (and given the Internet‘s penchant for emphasizing the negative, usually re-quoted).

  69. Can't argue with that.

    For me, when I look at reviews, numerical scores don't really mean much to me. Nor do I need a thesis-length essay on the pluses and minuses of a certain release. I know when I write a review on my Cary Grant or Blind Buy pages, I try to put what I'm seeing in context. So, for the original Operation Petticoat, I think I wrote something to the effect that while it didn't look up to the same standard as Warner Archive or Sony Blu-ray titles, that it was still miles better than the previous VHS and DVD editions. Not pristine, but not unwatchable. I feel like that's probably more helpful to people than just saying "it's crap".

    There are very few discs I've tried to watch that were unwatchable to the point that I turn them off. In my experience, "disappointing" is far more common than "garbage".

  70. Can't argue with that.

    For me, when I look at reviews, numerical scores don't really mean much to me. Nor do I need a thesis-length essay on the pluses and minuses of a certain release. I know when I write a review on my Cary Grant or Blind Buy pages, I try to put what I'm seeing in context. So, for the original Operation Petticoat, I think I wrote something to the effect that while it didn't look up to the same standard as Warner Archive or Sony Blu-ray titles, that it was still miles better than the previous VHS and DVD editions. Not pristine, but not unwatchable. I feel like that's probably more helpful to people than just saying "it's crap".

    There are very few discs I've tried to watch that were unwatchable to the point that I turn them off. In my experience, "disappointing" is far more common than "garbage".

  71. Can't argue with that.

    For me, when I look at reviews, numerical scores don't really mean much to me. Nor do I need a thesis-length essay on the pluses and minuses of a certain release. I know when I write a review on my Cary Grant or Blind Buy pages, I try to put what I'm seeing in context. So, for the original Operation Petticoat, I think I wrote something to the effect that while it didn't look up to the same standard as Warner Archive or Sony Blu-ray titles, that it was still miles better than the previous VHS and DVD editions. Not pristine, but not unwatchable. I feel like that's probably more helpful to people than just saying "it's crap".

    There are very few discs I've tried to watch that were unwatchable to the point that I turn them off. In my experience, "disappointing" is far more common than "garbage".

  72. Josh Steinberg

    Philip, I appreciate your passion, but unfortunately, that ship has long sailed. The term "restoration" holds no legal definition, unlike, say certain food products which must contain a certain amount of a certain ingredient to be labeled as such. So, you, or I, or Robert Harris might say, "this doesn't count as a restoration," to which any home video or label could correctly point out that there's no agreed-upon standard and no marketing regulation dictating how that term can be used.

    Almost every home video label, at this point in time, will consider a new scan of a film element to be a "restoration". Criterion calls everything they put out a "restoration" in the liner notes. Arrow just put out a new edition of Donnie Darko, a movie that's not even twenty years old, and called that a restoration – the truth is, the film elements are fine, and it was a new scan of the negative. Which isn't a bad thing, but it's not what I'd call a restoration.

    But what's a "restoration"? Legally, there's no one definition that studios and home video labels must use. It can mean what they want it to mean. As a result, the marketing people often like to include it everywhere.

    There's simply no mechanism by which to enforce the kind of request you're making.

    Aeons ago, I was discussing “restoration” with a Technicolor rep.

    We could not agree on the use of the word, as he believed that if someone shipped a printing neg to the lab…

    And they cleaned it of surface dust….

    And that the next print was slightly cleaner than the last…

    That they had “restored” the film.

    We never spoke again.

  73. Josh Steinberg

    Philip, I appreciate your passion, but unfortunately, that ship has long sailed. The term "restoration" holds no legal definition, unlike, say certain food products which must contain a certain amount of a certain ingredient to be labeled as such. So, you, or I, or Robert Harris might say, "this doesn't count as a restoration," to which any home video or label could correctly point out that there's no agreed-upon standard and no marketing regulation dictating how that term can be used.

    Almost every home video label, at this point in time, will consider a new scan of a film element to be a "restoration". Criterion calls everything they put out a "restoration" in the liner notes. Arrow just put out a new edition of Donnie Darko, a movie that's not even twenty years old, and called that a restoration – the truth is, the film elements are fine, and it was a new scan of the negative. Which isn't a bad thing, but it's not what I'd call a restoration.

    But what's a "restoration"? Legally, there's no one definition that studios and home video labels must use. It can mean what they want it to mean. As a result, the marketing people often like to include it everywhere.

    There's simply no mechanism by which to enforce the kind of request you're making.

    Aeons ago, I was discussing “restoration” with a Technicolor rep.

    We could not agree on the use of the word, as he believed that if someone shipped a printing neg to the lab…

    And they cleaned it of surface dust….

    And that the next print was slightly cleaner than the last…

    That they had “restored” the film.

    We never spoke again.

  74. Josh Steinberg

    Philip, I appreciate your passion, but unfortunately, that ship has long sailed. The term "restoration" holds no legal definition, unlike, say certain food products which must contain a certain amount of a certain ingredient to be labeled as such. So, you, or I, or Robert Harris might say, "this doesn't count as a restoration," to which any home video or label could correctly point out that there's no agreed-upon standard and no marketing regulation dictating how that term can be used.

    Almost every home video label, at this point in time, will consider a new scan of a film element to be a "restoration". Criterion calls everything they put out a "restoration" in the liner notes. Arrow just put out a new edition of Donnie Darko, a movie that's not even twenty years old, and called that a restoration – the truth is, the film elements are fine, and it was a new scan of the negative. Which isn't a bad thing, but it's not what I'd call a restoration.

    But what's a "restoration"? Legally, there's no one definition that studios and home video labels must use. It can mean what they want it to mean. As a result, the marketing people often like to include it everywhere.

    There's simply no mechanism by which to enforce the kind of request you're making.

    Aeons ago, I was discussing “restoration” with a Technicolor rep.

    We could not agree on the use of the word, as he believed that if someone shipped a printing neg to the lab…

    And they cleaned it of surface dust….

    And that the next print was slightly cleaner than the last…

    That they had “restored” the film.

    We never spoke again.

  75. Well, I can think of one thing that's never needed to be restored, and that's my faith in these discussions; as articulated by the finest of HTF. Sometimes sobering, sometimes humbling; but always educational, real and ultimately grounded.
    Thank you.:thumbsup:

  76. David Weicker

    In the same vein, if we are requesting honesty, then we should also ask that reviewers (official or unofficial) not label releases as ‘crap’ or ‘trash’. That kind of post is just as misleading (and given the Internet‘s penchant for emphasizing the negative, usually re-quoted).

    And what if the disc actually is crap? As this one is.

    Having been promised a new high-definition digital restoration, I was dumbfounded to watch this disc and find that it had the same lousy video transfer I already expressed disappointment with three years ago, with negligible attempt to improve it.

    As far as I'm aware, Operation Petticoat is not a nearly "lost" movie that is lucky to exist at all, and whose last surviving film element had to be dug up from an old swimming pool in the Yukon. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but better quality elements for it should still exist. And even if they don't, better digital clean-up tools could have been employed on this master to repair at least some of the damage. I see no evidence of that happening. Instead, all Paramount did was slap some letterbox on it and adjust the color temperature minimally, and Olive considered that sufficient to call it a "restoration."

    For what it being marketed and sold as a premium product at a premium price point with prestige branding, this disc is manifestly crap. Had it been a budget release, I'd have a lot more tolerance for it.

    IMO, of course.

  77. I dabble in the classic car world too and restoration means something different to just about everyone. A frame off nut and bolt from top to bottom redo of a car for me is a restoration but for some folks spraying a Maaco resale red paint job and polishing the mag wheels counts as a restoration even if the car is leaking oil all over the place.

  78. I have the same encoding issues that Mark posted about and have emailed Olive Films regarding replacement discs.

    [GALLERY=media, 4621]OperationPetticoat by Rodney posted Dec 8, 2017 at 1:59 PM[/GALLERY]

    [GALLERY=media, 4620]FatherGoose by Rodney posted Dec 8, 2017 at 1:59 PM[/GALLERY]

  79. Rodney

    I have the same encoding issues that Mark posted about and have emailed Olive Films regarding replacement discs.

    [GALLERY=media, 4621]OperationPetticoat by Rodney posted Dec 8, 2017 at 1:59 PM[/GALLERY]

    [GALLERY=media, 4620]FatherGoose by Rodney posted Dec 8, 2017 at 1:59 PM[/GALLERY]

    Which retailer did you buy them from? I bought my non-encoding issue discs from Amazon.

  80. I'm having issues with my FATHER GOOSE disc, which I got from Amazon. Every now and again the picture slows down for a second or two, then is fine. The sound is fine during these episodes, it's just the picture that slows down considerably. Same places every time. One of the sequences this occurs in is in the screen grab from FATHER GOOSE that someone posted above. The picture doesn't break up like it does in the photo, but this is the same scene. Odd.

    And unfortunately Amazon is out of stock, so can't return it for replacement.

  81. Mark Booth

    Is anyone else besides me starting to wonder if all of the copies purchased so far are actually the bad encodes? Did anyone purchase a problem-free 'Operation Petticoat' Signature edition yet?

    Mark

    I haven't watched my discs in their entirety, but i played them during those scenes you noted without any encode issues.

  82. Robert Crawford

    I haven't watched my discs in their entirety, but i played them during those scenes you noted without any encode issues.

    ahollis

    I purchased both titles from Amazon and they are corrected,

    That's good news, thanks guys!

    Mark

  83. Olive Films emailed me today to let me know my returned copies of 'Operation Petticoat' and 'Father Goose' arrived at their facility and the corrected replacements will ship out today. They supplied me with a USPS tracking number.

    I received the prepaid return mailer from Olive on Monday (Dec 11) and mailed it back early Tuesday morning. That's a darn fast turnaround. And the email notice with tracking number is a very nice touch.

    Bravo, Olive!

    Mark

  84. I watched the Signature Blu-ray this afternoon. My disc was obviously a corrected one since I saw none of the anomalies pictured above. I never owned the previous Blu-ray, so all I had to go with on this one is the disc I own. While the picture had some problems with soft shots and color variations, I didn't notice any distracting debris. Color sometimes seemed too overbaked.

    Anyway, glad to have it in the collection even with a less than stellar transfer. Thankfully, I got it for a very cheap price.

Leave a Reply