A question for film buffs, re: deterioration

[takearushfan]

Well then the censoring "makes sense", as in the fact that it was filmed in the UK, not "makes sense" as in going through the act of censoring it. (bad wording, I know)

I managed to find the following from a reviewer on Amazon's site:

Vault of Horror (1973) was originally released as an R-Rated film but was later re-cut to get a PG rating. This re-cut version is the only version owned by 20th Century Fox. When developing the DVD, we did research information about an uncut print which was released theatrically but after several attempts, we were unsuccessful in securing a copy of that print. To satisfy the consumer demand for the title on DVD, we decided to move forward with the widescreen PG version we had in the vaults and included it with Tales from the Crypt (1972) as part of the Midnite Movies Double Feature series.

So, in all fairness they (supposedly) did try. The unfortunate part is that if they tried a little harder/waited a little longer they might have been able to secure the unedited print.

[takearushfan]

The movie was shot with 35mm Panaflex cameras using Kodak Eastmancolor ECN-2 negative film.

Normally the original negative is transferred to video via flying spot scanner (e.g. Rank Cintel) but if unavailable, a distribution positive print can be scanned. The scratch was on the film.


[Attachment 7899 - Click to enlarge]
http://www.danalee.ca/ttt/film_for_television.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_DataCine

Devices like the Snell Archangel Ph.C process the image in either auto or manual assist modes but in almost all cases color grading (correction) is done by a human specialist using a device like the Davinci Resolve.


[Attachment 7900 - Click to enlarge]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_grading

I'm reviving this thread because I noticed something I had to mention. When viewing "When a Stranger Calls" ('79) in SD, it's not too bad. However, I recently upgraded to an HDCP-compliant HD monitor, using an HDMI cable. When I blew up the picture I was horrified. Yes, obviously it won't look stellar under the circumstances, but I'm seeing things I never could make out before and I'm even more disappointed now. These aren't just those artifacts that are typical and you'd expect to see when blowing up a SD source. There are not just the scratch marks and grain I previously mentioned, but there's (literally) constant spots, speckles, blotches and more. I know the previous general consensus was decided that the transfer was probably straight from the master, but I'm really having trouble believing that now. Are you all 100% certain that this couldn't have been taken from a different source? Thanks again.

[transporterfan]

I know the previous general consensus was decided that the transfer was probably straight from the master, but I'm really having trouble believing that now. Are you all 100% certain that this couldn't have been taken from a different source? Thanks again.

I am 100% certain studios can take wonderful master material and completely ruin it.
Anyone who (like me) bought the wide screen 1989 DVD version of Black Rain (Ridley Scott/Paramount/Micheal Douglas) can attest to that. Having bought the original VHS version (appalling, almost unwatchable quality) I had hoped the DVD would be pristine. To say I was disappointed wasn't in it! I swear I could have done better with a camcorder in a movie theatre!

I will never buy the bluray version on principle. They have had made enough money out of me selling me crap.

The general consensus is probably right.

[jagabo]

There are not just the scratch marks and grain I previously mentioned, but there's (literally) constant spots, speckles, blotches and more.

Why does this surprise you? They often take whatever prints they have lying around and digitize it. Sometimes even from video tape.

I happen to have a DVD rip of the 1979 version of When a Stranger Calls on my computer right now. It's not so bad. I've seen a lot worse.

[Hoser Rob]

Maybe > 5 years ago I would have expected them to spend money on a good transfer.

But now, with DVD sales so flat the studios won't OK big ticket productions if they aren't pretty dang sure they'll make back their costs in theatres, I wouldn't expect anything like that. Especially for minor cult movies.

[takearushfan]

Jagabo, you said "sometimes even from video tape", so that would be one aspect of my surprise. That is, the possibility that sometimes studios don't even use film, even if available. Also, the "whatever prints they have lying around" thing bothers me, as Hoser Rob got into after your post.
In general, what I'm trying to say is that I'm surprised, disappointed and p*ssed that studios don't strive to find the best to work with, despite having the money to do so. I mean Sony?! ... come on now. Even if it's true that they couldn't find anything better than what was used, they could've done some touching up.

[jagabo]

I'm surprised, disappointed and p*ssed that studios don't strive to find the best to work with, despite having the money to do so.

Nobody was thinking about preserving those old second rate films. Studios often have to scour the world looking for "lost" prints or video tapes.

[Seeker47]

A couple points to add here. Ridley Scott was generally rather meticulous. I recall the cinematography on "Black Rain" being very good indeed, back when it originally played in theaters. (Can't say I thought too well of the film itself, though.)

Also thought that I'd note a reverse type of problem that turns up even in cases where the sources were (still) first rate, and probably no expense was spared. There are cases where an older classic film can gain new and surprising issues when seen in today's hi-def. I'm reminded of films like "Gone With the Wind", where some effects shots will now look quite fake by today's standards -- but where this would pass in prior, non-hi-def versions -- or you can now see that bodies lying on the ground are really dummies, etc. The extra res can reveal levels of detail previously unnoticed.

[edDV]

"When a Stranger Calls" was originally a low budget TV movie so would never have had first class treatment but if the studio wanted to put in effort with sufficient budget, they could certainly do better.

An example of the latter was the 1996 restoration of Alfred Hitchcock's 1956 "Vertigo" first for theater and letterbox Laserdisc release, then for wide DVD. The restoration was was well documented in additional features includied on both media types. A full documentary of the restoration "Obsessed with Vertigo" was separately released. The restoration was considered so important, they held a "premiere" for it in San Fransisco which I attended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertigo_%28film%29
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0192387/
http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/wiki/Documentary:_Obsessed_with_Vertigo_-_New_Life_for_Hi...7s_Masterpiece

Even though this restoration was state of art back in 1996, there is talk of a fresh effort for Digital Cinema and Blu-ray.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/274411/vertigo-additional-restoration-coming

[takearushfan]

WASC was intended to be a TV movie? I'm not sure I get what you mean.

[jagabo]

WASC was intended to be a TV movie? I'm not sure I get what you mean.

"Made for TV" movies are low budget films not intended for theatrical release. They are usually only shown on TV once or twice then get tossed into storage. Then they get burned up in a warehouse fire.

I don't think the 1979 WASC was made for TV though.

[takearushfan]

WASC was intended to be a TV movie? I'm not sure I get what you mean.

"Made for TV" movies are low budget films not intended for theatrical release. They are usually only shown on TV once or twice then get tossed into storage. Then they get burned up in a warehouse fire.

I don't think the 1979 WASC was made for TV though.

Yep, I know what made for TV movies are, such as "The Day After" or (ironically) "When a Stranger Calls Back".
My confusion was that my thought is the same as you said in your last sentence. The first WASC wasn't made for TV, unless EdDV knows or meant otherwise.

[edDV]

WASC was intended to be a TV movie? I'm not sure I get what you mean.

"Made for TV" movies are low budget films not intended for theatrical release. They are usually only shown on TV once or twice then get tossed into storage. Then they get burned up in a warehouse fire.

I don't think the 1979 WASC was made for TV though.

Yep, I know what made for TV movies are, such as "The Day After" or (ironically) "When a Stranger Calls Back".
My confusion was that my thought is the same as you said in your last sentence. The first WASC wasn't made for TV, unless EdDV knows or meant otherwise.

No I got that impression from another post. It was a low budget film though.

[takearushfan]

Definitely a theatrical release:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVAx84hpo-c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR6JtT9S7Cw

Basically an upgrade of the last vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XfyJiK4xIo

Finally, a TV spot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMugfJu_q78

Plus, the IMDB doesn't have the (TV) mark next to the film's listing.

[takearushfan]

"No I got that impression from another post. It was a low budget film though."

Go figure, I just posted all that stuff, lol.