|
Author
|
Topic: Dracula 1958 Blu-Ray
|
Adrian Winchester
Film God
Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted April 22, 2013 12:31 AM
I don't have Blu Ray yet, so I'm watching the new release via the DVD in the same box, but I've to say that the clarity is so good that I'm noticing details I haven't seen before, which makes interesting viewing. Whilst I repect every Hammer fan's right to not buy it, it's quite something to see a landmark film of this sort with shots never before seen in the UK, due to the censor cuts. I certainly wouldn't part with my Derann print, which is great, but like the DVD/Blu Ray, it isn't perfect; e.g. the degree of contrast in places results in faces sometimes being a bit over exposed. Basically, both the Super 8 print and the Blu Ray/DVD please the eye, but in different ways.
[ April 22, 2013, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Adrian Winchester ]
--------------------
Adrian Winchester
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted April 22, 2013 05:02 AM
Like you Adrian, I don't possess a Blu Ray player and have no
intention of buying one,the only time I relented in buying a Blu Ray disc was a few weeks ago when the "Black Sunday" Bava
special edition was released, and that was just for the "extras"
on a separate normal disc.Myself, I don't envisage me buying this
release just for a few seconds of extra footage,maybe secondhand
from Amazon sometime.A little idea to ponder, what if this film had
been made in B/W, I wonder if there would have been discussions on shadow detail.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timothy Ramzyk
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 220
From: Milwaukee,WI,USA
Registered: Nov 2006
|
posted April 24, 2013 12:11 AM
quote:
It sounds Lee like theres a war going on on some other forum.
I used to have the 8x200' "White Zombie" issued by Collectors
Club and bought from Perry's, which considering, was quite a
good copy with clear sound for a film of such vintage.
Sadly, the new Blu-ray represents a missed opportunity. Holland Releasing chose to employ far too much digital correction filtering. This is probably why Kino provided both the filtered print and the raw HD techline transfer as an extra. The raw edition looks quite nice, but is perhaps a bit on the dark side, the filtered too smooth and bright. The consensus seems to be that they should have cleaned up the sound, repaired some damage, balanced the contrast and steadied the picture, of the "raw" version, but not bleached & scrubbed the living pooh out of it with Digital Noise Reduction. Then you'd really have had something, which is essentially the version in between the two provided.
This is still possible with the master they have. I wish the film was revered enough overseas for someone like Masters of Cinema to take it on.
I had a Niles Cinema print, which the raw version on the Blu-ray easily bests (and is more complete), the new disk is also better than the earlier Roan DVD and still earlier Roan laserdisc. It's just a shame that they coulda nailed it this time and didn't.
[ April 24, 2013, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: Timothy Ramzyk ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted July 13, 2013 08:01 AM
Further to the news of the restored scenes from a Japanese print
stored in their archives, in the latest issue of "Little Shoppe of
Horrors", Dick Klemensens excellent mag on all things Hammer,
one of the contributors,who was a film archivist, pours scorn on
how the Japanese made such a big thing out of getting this film out to view. He goes on to say that the idea that a film needs five days to acclimatise is rubbish, as five hours would do it, he says
that water damage to film kept in containers during a "fire" is
not possible, especially as water would not have been used in
such conditions by a fire fighting force.If a film had been water
damaged in any circumstances, it would have been given an immediate bath in chemicals & water to stop emulsion lift.Having read this article, I find i agree with him, and the
Japanese were not as caring of film as they tried to make out,
more than likely the print had been ignored and vinegar had
done the rest.He even says that any archivist knowing a print
was in such a damaged state, would not have tried to show it
on any viewing equipment, except rewinders and a viewing
strip.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
