Betamax digitizing help of a rare film.

[dellsam34]

My Blu-ray 2 disc set arrived, I would say if you can get a quality like this from a Beta cassette go for it:

[LetThemEatCake]

My Blu-ray 2 disc set arrived, I would say if you can get a quality like this from a Beta cassette go for it:

it's impossible of course but I already knew this, I wanted to preserve an unseen cut of the movie for many years, that's all. Also, notice when Cleopatra goes into Rome, it looks like an overcast day when in fact it's meant to be really sunny, and the gold is near silver all throughout the film thanks to irresponsible digital color correction.

[dellsam34]

I see gold as gold and silver as silver, I think it’s time for you to see an eye doctor. Besides what do you think gold would look like through a betamax cassette?

[lordsmurf]

My Blu-ray 2 disc set arrived, I would say if you can get a quality like this from a Beta cassette go for it:

Never going to happen.
This is an instance where archiving the Betamax is a complete waste of time and funds.

[LetThemEatCake]

I see gold as gold and silver as silver, I think it’s time for you to see an eye doctor. Besides what do you think gold would look like through a betamax cassette?

again, this is not about betamax quality. Also, my eyesight is perfect thank god, and I have trained my eyes to see color properly. For instance, not only is the gold in those images heavily blue/green, the sky and sea are also magenta toned. It's an atrocious transfer on the Cleopatra bluray I'm sorry to say, but it's not a unique problem. It's on every single bluray today.

[LetThemEatCake]

My Blu-ray 2 disc set arrived, I would say if you can get a quality like this from a Beta cassette go for it:

Never going to happen.
This is an instance where archiving the Betamax is a complete waste of time and funds.

why? even if it was the only surviving version of a film? that's very close minded I'm sorry to say.

[DB83]

If it's on EVERY blu ray you watch then something really is wrong with your setup.

PS

Glad to see lordsmurf back in the fold

[LetThemEatCake]

If it's on EVERY blu ray you watch then something really is wrong with your setup.

PS

Glad to see lordsmurf back in the fold

It is but not the same problems on every bluray. One thing that is across the board is problems with highlights. There is no such thing as highlights anymore. There are many several films were you can still download a hq scan of a film print, this is what Amazon prime and TCM do, so what you get is basically a bluray where you can still see dust specks and scratches and accurate color and they look amazing, becuase it's like in the old days in a theater. Anyway, if you happen to encounter one of those files, you can see the film's highlights are white, as they should be. Now, blu-ray and the digital revisionism for some strange reason do not like highlights, so they make the highlights look grey and dull. They most recently did it with another Elizabeth Taylor vehicle called BOOM. If you happen to see an old bluray or even the VHS, her clothes are WHITE and the highlights are highlights. Now her clothes are yellow and the highlights are overcast grey. Seriously, I'm not making this up, but this was discovered with years of research. Apparently I'm the only one to notice it.

[johnmeyer]

It is but not the same problems on every bluray. One thing that is across the board is problems with highlights. There is no such thing as highlights anymore. There are many several films were you can still download a hq scan of a film print, this is what Amazon prime and TCM do, so what you get is basically a bluray where you can still see dust specks and scratches and accurate color and they look amazing, becuase it's like in the old days in a theater. Anyway, if you happen to encounter one of those files, you can see the film's highlights are white, as they should be. Now, blu-ray and the digital revisionism for some strange reason do not like highlights, so they make the highlights look grey and dull. They most recently did it with another Elizabeth Taylor vehicle called BOOM. If you happen to see an old bluray or even the VHS, her clothes are WHITE and the highlights are highlights. Now her clothes are yellow and the highlights are overcast grey. Seriously, I'm not making this up, but this was discovered with years of research. Apparently I'm the only one to notice it.

If you are the only one to notice it, what does that tell you??

Have you had your TV set calibrated by an ISF-certified technician? Do you even know what ISF is?

The people who produce these DVDs and Blu-Ray versions know more about standards, colors, grading, legal limits, and other technical aspects of producing and transferring films than everyone in this forum put together. Yes, there are some schlock transfers and cheap re-issues where they use old prints instead of negatives, but this isn't one of them.

[LetThemEatCake]

It is but not the same problems on every bluray. One thing that is across the board is problems with highlights. There is no such thing as highlights anymore. There are many several films were you can still download a hq scan of a film print, this is what Amazon prime and TCM do, so what you get is basically a bluray where you can still see dust specks and scratches and accurate color and they look amazing, becuase it's like in the old days in a theater. Anyway, if you happen to encounter one of those files, you can see the film's highlights are white, as they should be. Now, blu-ray and the digital revisionism for some strange reason do not like highlights, so they make the highlights look grey and dull. They most recently did it with another Elizabeth Taylor vehicle called BOOM. If you happen to see an old bluray or even the VHS, her clothes are WHITE and the highlights are highlights. Now her clothes are yellow and the highlights are overcast grey. Seriously, I'm not making this up, but this was discovered with years of research. Apparently I'm the only one to notice it.

If you are the only one to notice it, what does that tell you??

Have you had your TV set calibrated by an ISF-certified technician? Do you even know what ISF is?

The people who produce these DVDs and Blu-Ray versions know more about standards, colors, grading, legal limits, and other technical aspects of producing and transferring films than everyone in this forum put together. Yes, there are some schlock transfers and cheap re-issues where they use old prints instead of negatives, but this isn't one of them.

I've seen the same films on tv, computers, cell-phones, and it's the same. For instance Blade Runner was DESTROYED in its final cut by Ridley Scott himself!! I am the only one that notices it because I have not invested in home theaters or anything like that, so I don't have to go through the futile psychological dislocation of acknowledging that the 3k home theater is crap.

It's impossible to discuss this subject, the pro-digital dogma established, in this case by digital restorers who want to 'own' these masterpiece films and transform them to their likiing is too strong. But in a few years time, the films we love will be wiped out entirely by digitally revised versions. It's like Invasion of the body snatchers, they look the same, they feel the same but they are not the same.

[DB83]

From an online review:

"Cleopatra is presented on Blu-ray courtesy of 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment with an AVC encoded 1080p transfer in 2.22:1. As fans of this film no doubt know, Fox released a Cleopatra Blu-ray in the United Kingdom last year which my colleague Dr. Svet Atanasov reviewed here. I imported this region free title since I am such a huge fan of the film and couldn't wait for its announced domestic release. I have included five screenshots from the UK edition (the last five accompanying this review in locations 31-35) which show there is no appreciable difference between these two releases, leading me to believe these are almost certainly the same transfer. In fact the only major difference between the UK and US releases was the decision to place the Entr'acte at the beginning of the second disc rather than the end of the first disc, something that had riled the more persnickety consumers who picked up the UK release. Otherwise, this domestic release is very much in line with what Svet discussed in his review of the UK edition. Some people have grumbled about the color timing of this release, alleging a blue tint, but if anything I feel this may be just slightly (and I emphasize slightly) on the brown side, something that tends to happen with aging elements (I have subtracted a half a point due to this, but obviously your mileage may well vary). That said, this is simply a staggering transfer of large format source elements, one absolutely rife with impeccable fine object detail and some amazing depth of field in the location sequences. There is no damage that I noticed anywhere throughout this transfer, and also no compression artifacts. Best of all, there hasn't been any over aggressive digital tweaking here, and the result is a beautifully filmic presentation."

Sorry my friend but you are in a minority of one. And if you are the only person that notices things like gold not being gold (just to give one example) then there really is something amiss either with your tv, other display devices, players etc. Incorrectly calibrated, incorrectly color-adjusted etc etc.

And the entry into Rome is available in HD on youtube. The sky is quite blue from where I sit and I certainly do not have 20/20 vision.

[DB83]

And from the other review that is referred to above:

"Presented in an aspect ratio of 2.22:1, encoded with MPEG-4 AVC and granted a 1080p transfer, Joseph L. Mankiewicz's Cleopatra arrives on Blu-ray courtesy of 20th Century Fox-UK.

The high-definition transfer is enormously impressive. Detail, clarity, and especially image depth easily rival those of the outstanding Blu-ray release of William Wyler's Ben-Hur, which Warner Brothers produced last year. The massive panoramic scenes also look incredibly fluid (if you have the ability to project your Blu-rays on large screens, prepare to be overwhelmed by the stunning visuals). Also, even though there have been some concerns about the color grading of the new high-definition transfer, in my opinion both color saturation and color balance are very convincing.

There are absolutely no traces of problematic denoising or sharpening corrections. Unsurprisingly, when blown through a digital projector Cleopatra very much looks like film, boasting organic qualities that are typically extremely easy to appreciate if an older film has undergone a meticulous restoration and lab technicians have not tried to 'modernize' it. The high-definition transfer is also free of annoying flecks, scratches, and debris. All in all, this is breathtakingly beautiful presentation of a legendary film, which I am convinced will appear on many Top 10 lists at the end of 2012. (Note: This is a Region-Free Blu-ray disc. Therefore, you will be able to play it on your PS3 or SA regardless of your geographical location. For the record, there is no problematic PAL or 1080/50i content preceding the disc's main menu)."

[dellsam34]

The OP should stick to his own sources of quality that he judges from, shitty TV lossy broadcast and VHS, Obviously he has no taste for high quality.

DB83, My blu-ray copy is region B not A yet it has entrance scene in the first disc, the frame rate though is 24p not 25. I’m glad they didn’t do the pull down and they kept the original frame rate of the film.

[johnmeyer]

I am the only one that notices it because I have not invested in home theaters or anything like that, so I don't have to go through the futile psychological dislocation of acknowledging that the 3k home theater is crap.

Good grief. Speaking for myself, I usually try to appear smarter than I actually am, rather than the other way around (I don't always succeed, of course).

I assume you meant 4K, but maybe 3K has some special meaning in your "Betamax is OK" world.

It's impossible to discuss this subject, the pro-digital dogma established, in this case by digital restorers who want to 'own' these masterpiece films and transform them to their likiing is too strong. But in a few years time, the films we love will be wiped out entirely by digitally revised versions. It's like Invasion of the body snatchers, they look the same, they feel the same but they are not the same.

Invoking the tennis player John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious!"

Have you not read that most feature films have deteriorated because film stock, by its nature, is not stable? Have you not seen any of the hundreds of restoration featurettes where archivists spend years and millions of dollars painstakingly trying to restore a film so that it looks like it did when it was originally seen in theaters.

No one can be this uninformed and I therefore must conclude that we are all being trolled. Time to stop the feeding.

[manono]

I assume you meant 4K, but maybe 3K has some special meaning in your "Betamax is OK" world.

I was confused at first as well, but decided that by 3k he meant 3,000 dollar. Then he'd be saying that those of us with expensive home theater systems (not me) are in denial, refusing to believe the money has been wasted.

Of course, both that and everything else he wrote in that post is utter nonsense. He's welcome to believe what he wants, of course, but he shouldn't be pushing it to others. I've wondered for some time now why this thread has lasted as long as it has. And here I am adding to the bloat.

[manono]

Also, notice when Cleopatra goes into Rome, it looks like an overcast day when in fact it's meant to be really sunny, and the gold is near silver all throughout the film thanks to irresponsible digital color correction.

Blu-Rays are designed to be viewed on television sets, not computer monitors. Because of differences in luma/brightness/gain, what seems dark or 'overcast' on a computer monitor will seem perfectly bright and as it should when viewed on a properly calibrated television set. In my own projects, I regularly lower the levels for DVD as compared to what I upload to YouTube.

[lingyi]

no word yet but if he fails what should I do?

I really hate to be snippy, but if after all the advice you've been given, I agree with DB83: you've received at least half a dozen answers of what to do. It's time to either do something or get on to something else.

So, given your response, my final piece of advice is to find something else to do. I feel like I've wasted my time.

Highly technical advice that I don't understand, but thank you very much!

Don't spend anymore time trying to educate the OP, as he already poo-poo johnmeyer and DB83's clear instructions and advice!

[LetThemEatCake]

I am the only one that notices it because I have not invested in home theaters or anything like that, so I don't have to go through the futile psychological dislocation of acknowledging that the 3k home theater is crap.

Good grief. Speaking for myself, I usually try to appear smarter than I actually am, rather than the other way around (I don't always succeed, of course).

I assume you meant 4K, but maybe 3K has some special meaning in your "Betamax is OK" world.

It's impossible to discuss this subject, the pro-digital dogma established, in this case by digital restorers who want to 'own' these masterpiece films and transform them to their likiing is too strong. But in a few years time, the films we love will be wiped out entirely by digitally revised versions. It's like Invasion of the body snatchers, they look the same, they feel the same but they are not the same.

Invoking the tennis player John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious!"

Have you not read that most feature films have deteriorated because film stock, by its nature, is not stable? Have you not seen any of the hundreds of restoration featurettes where archivists spend years and millions of dollars painstakingly trying to restore a film so that it looks like it did when it was originally seen in theaters.

No one can be this uninformed and I therefore must conclude that we are all being trolled. Time to stop the feeding.

it was only a matter of time before someone used the troll word to silence any criticism of revisionist restorations. Been at this for a long time now.

[LetThemEatCake]

I assume you meant 4K, but maybe 3K has some special meaning in your "Betamax is OK" world.

I was confused at first as well, but decided that by 3k he meant 3,000 dollar. Then he'd be saying that those of us with expensive home theater systems (not me) are in denial, refusing to believe the money has been wasted.

Of course, both that and everything else he wrote in that post is utter nonsense. He's welcome to believe what he wants, of course, but he shouldn't be pushing it to others. I've wondered for some time now why this thread has lasted as long as it has. And here I am adding to the bloat.

that's exactly what I meant. I'm not trying to push my views on anyone, someone posted bluray screengrabs of Cleopatra and I said my opinion, the film doesn't look at all like it once used to look. And IMMEDIATELY the troll accusations came because it is forbidden to discuss this subject, let alone say that these restorers, who are hardware fanatics and not film lovers(there is a world of a difference) don't know what they are doing. It's forbidden. But that's fine, I don't suffer for it, I'm lucky enough to have found unaltered film scans on torrents and I just watch those.

[LetThemEatCake]

Also, notice when Cleopatra goes into Rome, it looks like an overcast day when in fact it's meant to be really sunny, and the gold is near silver all throughout the film thanks to irresponsible digital color correction.

Blu-Rays are designed to be viewed on television sets, not computer monitors. Because of differences in luma/brightness/gain, what seems dark or 'overcast' on a computer monitor will seem perfectly bright and as it should when viewed on a properly calibrated television set. In my own projects, I regularly lower the levels for DVD as compared to what I upload to YouTube.

I can't find many images right now but this is how the film initially looked on dvd and judging from old clips, how it looked like on release too. There is no way the wild differences in tone and brightness can be blamed on deterioration. The Cleopatra bluray has an entirely different tone and brightness than what it should be. This is not restoration. These are sick people who love hardware and want to use it for as far as it will go. And they want to author the films themselves too. They want the available versions to be THEIRS and not of their creators. But again, useless to discuss this topic.
[Attachment 50065 - Click to enlarge]

[DB83]

It's not forbidden to post an opinion. But when an opinion is posted to get IMO a reaction against those who probably know more about these things despite your claims than you do - I refer to the above quoted reviews - then there is an element of trolling.

Can you honestly be serious that the above image was how the film looked in 1963 ? Can anyone remember that far back ? So we all use our eyes and judge from there. Even dvds have an element of digital restoration/color and brightness/contrast correction about them. So what you see is the restorer's opinion of how it should look.

But do look for those images and post them in direct comparison to the ones already posted. After all, all that glitters is not gold.

PS Although I have seen the entrance into Rome on the yt clip I would also like to see a cap of that from both a blu ray and the dvd showing the 'overcast' sky

[dellsam34]

The job of the restorers is to make the movie look close to reality when it was first shot not close to a deteriorated and altered copy of the film like the one you posted. The only way to know how the original print looked like is to own one and a film projector to see it, Having seen the n'th copy in the movie theater is not a valid judgement.

[poisondeathray]

You can search "cleopatra trailer screenshots 1963" and wikimedia has a bunch linked on google images

eg.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1963_Cleopatra_trailer_screenshot_(52).jpg

If this is representative, then it suggests that the 1963 trailer version had "warmer" colors . The tint is more bluish on the BD screenshots above

But the thing is, it depends on how screenshots were taken, and a variety of things, you can find warmer ones as well
eg.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1963_Cleopatra_trailer_screenshot_(76).jpg

Compare the stone colors, very different despite being from the same trailer, supposedly

My time machine is busted (again...) so I don't know how it supposedly looks like .

You can make the BD version look any way you want. Programs like free version of Resolve are very powerful .

More difficult to make adjustments with a low quality version

[DB83]

Here's another review from someone who, unlike the OP, does not know his ass from his elbow

"Once known as the most beautiful woman in the world, Elizabeth Taylor deserves a breathtaking transfer for her most scandalous role, and she gets it with this stunning restoration of 'Cleopatra.' Fox pulls out all the stops in this vibrant 1080p/AVC MPEG-4 rendering that features exceptional clarity, spectacular contrast, perfect color balance, and a sensual lushness that honors both the title character and the actress who portrays her. Nary a speck or errant scratch sully the pristine source material that looks as if it were minted yesterday, yet despite the slick appearance, the image maintains a warm, film-like feel that makes this larger-than-life epic accessible.

From the vividly illustrated opening credits to the expansive exteriors and intimate close-ups, this transfer brings 'Cleopatra' to brilliant life. The picture, shot in the Todd-AO format and featuring Oscar-winning cinematography by Leon Shamroy, is so sharp, individual faces in the massive crowd sequences are easy to discern. Details in the soldiers' breastplates, the intricate weavings of costumes, Cleopatra's heavily glittered eyelids, complex tapestry designs, and intricate wall etchings are all exquisitely precise. Despite the wide aspect ratio, depth remains palpable, allowing us to drink in the richness of Cleopatra's palace, the expanse of the battlefield, and the pageantry that accompanies Cleopatra's arrival in Rome. Inky black levels complement Cleopatra's raven-colored hair and cast a lovely sheen over nocturnal scenes. Shadow detail, however, is never compromised, and crush is never an issue.

Colors pop beautifully, from the deep reds of carpets and gowns to the lush azure blue of sky and sea, and from the bright gold of Cleopatra's headdress to the array of pastels that comprises much of the women's wardrobe. Though the palette is varied and bold, hues are never overplayed or over-pushed, so the image always flaunts a pleasing naturalness even in the face of staggering opulence. Fleshtones are spot on, too. Taylor's creamy complexion is often on full display, thanks to her revealing wardrobe, and it contrasts nicely with the ruddy skin tones of Burton and Harrison.

Close-ups are sparingly employed, despite the allure of Taylor's beauty, but they wield incredible impact. Facial features are well-defined, individual strands of hair are visible, and the craftsmanship of the jewelry and headdresses that often adorn Cleopatra is strikingly evident. In fact, the picture is so crisp, even in medium shot, it's easy to pick out Taylor's scar from the tracheotomy she was forced to undergo during her near-fatal bout with pneumonia in the very early days of shooting.

No banding, noise, pixilation, or other annoyances disrupt the presentation, and no enhancements, such as edge sharpening or noise reduction, rear their ugly heads. Say what you will about the content of 'Cleopatra,' but there's no denying this is one beautiful film starring a breathtakingly glamorous actress, and this exceptional transfer reverently honors them both."






    

[dellsam34]

You can search "cleopatra trailer screenshots 1963" and wikimedia has a bunch linked on google images

eg.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1963_Cleopatra_trailer_screenshot_(52).jpg

If this is representative, then it suggests that the 1963 trailer version had "warmer" colors . The tint is more bluish on the BD screenshots above

But the thing is, it depends on how screenshots were taken, and a variety of things, you can find warmer ones as well
eg.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1963_Cleopatra_trailer_screenshot_(76).jpg

Compare the stone colors, very different despite being from the same trailer, supposedly

My time machine is busted (again...) so I don't know how it supposedly looks like .

You can make the BD version look any way you want. Programs like free version of Resolve are very powerful .

More difficult to make adjustments with a low quality version

Those are DVD screenshots, Blurry and washed out colors, do you have scans from the original movie? No you don't, so the whole argument has no grounds.

[manono]

Review with screencaps that might be more to LetThemEatCake's liking. Not so "overcast".

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_reviews_59/cleopatra_blu-ray.htm

Cleopatra looks ravishing on Blu-ray from Fox. Colors are vibrant, detail tight and there is even a wonderful touch of grain. The film is divided over two dual-layered Blu-ray discs. The extensive Art direction and the endless sets produce a vivid, highly impressive presentation. Contrast via the 1080P resolution is exceptional. I don't have much more to say than the below screen captures can determine. Brilliant and highly impressive.

[davexnet]

I don't think the OP is necessarily wrong, the restoration is clean and noise free, but the colors are the choice of the person
doing the restoration. The original, scanned, film elements are faded with color shift. Can't rely on that, so what do you do?
To illustrate my point, here is an image from the Sound Of Music, one from the restoration done in 2000, for DVD
and one from the recent 4K restoration. Both attempts are/were good faith efforts.

The more faded-looking is from an Xvid avi I made myself (using Auto-GK) more that 10 years ago, from said DVD.
I still have the DVD, this is how it looks. I don't have the Blu-ray, but the image posted is a screen shot
from this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drnBMAEA3AM
I've seen enough images of the recent restoration, this is representative of how that looks.

[dellsam34]

You can search "cleopatra trailer screenshots 1963" and wikimedia has a bunch linked on google images

So you think the red carpet should look orange instead of red?

[poisondeathray]

[
Those are DVD screenshots, Blurry and washed out colors, do you have scans from the original movie? No you don't, so the whole argument has no grounds.

Maybe his argument

But my point is there is wide variation there . There many factors go into how a screenshot is taken.

If those were taken from the same DVD, notice how the colors are different within the same batch

If we look at modern BD's, even the same BD, same year, but different studio release can have different colors .


And those BD screenshots suggest that the BD can be easily manipulated to have almost any "look" you want . Tough to do with a betamax copy.

[poisondeathray]

So you think the red carpet should look orange instead of red?

Nope, this looks closer to what I would expect . Just my opinion. I wasn't around in 1963

But is it not feasible that different DVD's , different BD's, different film projector setups could have different colors ? That's my point