What am I looking at in this BD shot?

[takearushfan]

Hey,
This is bugging me. They did a great job on a classic with the exception of this one shot. It wasn't there on my DVD or iTunes version but it contains - I don't know what. I'm hoping someone can figure it out/explain. It almost looks like some sort of overlay on certain sections of the house. In motion you can see that it's definitely stationary "on top" of the original "moving" footage. Not that I think this is possible but it's almost as if they saw parts in the shot they wanted to clean up, "took notes", then forgot to remove them 0_o
I attached the clip as an m2ts...
Thanks in advance

[smrpix]

Looks like they tried to shadow-in some of the flat bright spots to make it creepier. It may actually be an optical effect added at the film stage. Hard to know if it's a mistake or intentional without lab notes or an earlier generation to compare to. Can you post the same clip from the DVD?

[JVRaines]

How clumsy. Both images weave but not at the same time, suggesting an optically printed effect. Maybe it was a demo that never got finished.

[takearushfan]

I no longer own the DVD or iTunes version, as I figured this would be the best release and it is, with this exception. Really, it's not on those other copies.
It's assumed they didn't have the rights to the original print, if that makes any difference.
What might you mean by an optically printed effect? What do you think the long-term intent was?

[JVRaines]

Optical printing is the way non-practical effects were done before the days of digital composition. Films were overlapped, cropped, and/or zoomed and then rephotographed to make a finished composite. That the added shadows weave a bit left-to-right, characteristic of film running through a gate, suggests that they were added before the film was digitally sampled. I assume this was a quick-and-dirty effect meant to make the house look more decrepit. How can you be sure it's not in the other versions? Memory plays tricks.

[smrpix]

It's assumed they didn't have the rights to the original print, if that makes any difference.
What might you mean by an optically printed effect? What do you think the long-term intent was?

If this is a legal copy made by the original production house of course they would have rights to any original elements they needed.

As I stated earlier, my best guess is that they were adding shadows to an improperly lit scene. Whether that was added at the film stage, the DVD stage or the Blu Ray stage I do not know. It's entirely possible that has always been there but you never noticed it because it was buried in the blacks and/or lower resolution of other sources. It's entirely possible it's a mistake -- if these kinds of shadows were added electronically rather than optically I would expect them to be softened and better blended. Is there another shot of the front of the house you can compare it to? It's also entirely possible that it's a deliberate mistake that acts as watermark by which illegal copies can be traced.

[takearushfan]

It's from the German BD, as it's not on Blu in the States. The distributor that released it isn't Universal so I don't know how they got the rights but yes, it's a legal copy.
I no longer have another version to compare it to.
My thoughts on it not being in older versions is that yes, even though it's a classic I've seen a million times (therefore it immediately struck me as sticking out like a sore thumb), I might not have been able to see it as well before. This is, of course, what you've mentioned already, I know. It just felt like far too much of a sore thumb.
I suppose in a way, that's a good thing. It means they did a good enough job to notice things you couldn't before; essentially the point of HD.
Now that I've sorted that out, it's almost amusing rather than irritating. I wonder why they only did it in one shot. There are a couple others just like it (so similar that it might as well be the same shot) and they didn't do that... or at least if they did, it was done much better

[smrpix]

If you can post the similar shots, even a still, it would be interesting to compare side by side.

You would have to examine the actual licensing rights to know what is and isn't included. It's genarally in everyone's best interest that it looks and sounds as good as possible. Personally, I like the insights provided by flaws.

[takearushfan]

Well, iTunes refuses to understand that no, I haven't "download all available" to my computer. I sold the DVD a while back too, so we're SOL there.
I do think they did an incredible job. Typically, from my experience, most foreign restorations of US films are shoddy for various reasons. This is one that is better in sound too. I too like the revelations upgrades provide. I was only concerned as I didn't "think" it was there originally. Now I wish I had a reference to see how "covered up" it looked before.