|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 13, 2016 - 2:15 PM
|
|
|
By: |
Bob DiMucci
(Member)
|
From a 2015 posting at hollywood-elsewhere.com: How many times have I written about the ongoing visual tragedy of Marlon Brando‘s One-Eyed Jacks? For too many years the 8-perf VistaVision splendor of this classic 1961 western, shot by Charles Lang, has been unviewable due to the film rights having lapsed into public domain, which has resulted in several atrocious-looking DVD dupes (largely sourced from a decent-looking Paramount laser disc issued in the ’90s) flooding the market. Well, this nightmare is finally at an end with Universal and Martin Scorsese‘s The Film Foundation having recently agreed to join forces on a 4K “restoration” of One Eyed Jacks. A Universal Q2 report divulged the basics earlier this month, and this morning Film Foundation managing director Jennifer Ahn confirmed that the One-Eyed Jacks project is a definite go. Yes, Universal and not Paramount, the original distributor. I’ve assumed all along that Paramount had retained rights but apparently not. The rights issue turned out to be “much more complicated than it seems,” Ahn says, “but ultimately we figured out that they belonged to Universal.” The Q2 report divulged that Universal and the Film Foundation have “begun film element research and scan tests” with an assessment report to follow, and then it’ll be off to the races. If all goes well (and it should) the One-Eyed Jacks Bluray will probably be released sometime next year. Ahn will work with Universal senior vp technical operations Michael Daruty. My understanding is that the original negative (pic was shot on Eastman 5248) has been sitting in a professionally-maintained Paramount vault ever since, and so a “restoration” is probably not going to be necessary. The work will mainly involve fine-tuning — digital cleanup, a telecine transfer, stabilization, color correction, etc. Before the work commences I want one thing clearly understood. The aspect ratio of the One-Eyed Jacks Bluray has to be 1.66:1 and not 1.85:1. Please, no monkeying around on this point. 8-perf VistaVision, which was more or less Paramount’s “house” process during the burgeoning widescreen days of the mid 1950s, delivered an in-camera aspect ratio of 1.5 but was mastered in 1.66:1 from the mid to late ’50s. One-Eyed Jacks was actually the last VistaVision film ever shot. If there’s too much pushback against 1.66, at least crop the film at 1.78. No 1.85! http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2015/07/authentic-return-one-eyed-jacks/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will have to watch the blu ray for 3 days until the right wave comes along.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like there won't be any additional footage added?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 14, 2016 - 9:34 AM
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
My understanding is that the original negative (pic was shot on Eastman 5248) has been sitting in a professionally-maintained Paramount vault ever since, and so a “restoration” is probably not going to be necessary. The work will mainly involve fine-tuning — digital cleanup, a telecine transfer, stabilization, color correction, etc. Hopefully NOT a telecine transfer!!! You don't get the best results for HD video now from a telecine transfer. Telecine transfers (and read this if you want to better understand things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_picture_film_scanner ) were fine in the early days (pre-2010s) of 1080p HD video when most everything was being scanned at only 2K for the new 2K HD TV displays, but we're now in the era of 4K Ultra HD TV displays, and most of the major studios are now scanning their most important and popular titles in 4K in what's called "intermittent pull-down" where each frame is individually scanned (again, read the above link). That's what we want for ONE-EYED JACKS, and why I hope that when it does come to Blu-ray that it's a Criterion release. I believe Criterion usually insists on the best possible transfer. They also have the best package of extras.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 14, 2016 - 10:23 AM
|
|
|
By: |
Rameau
(Member)
|
No it won't be a telecine transfer, & whoever releases the Blu-ray, the scan, grade & clean-up would have already been done by Universal. They have a crack restoration team, just look at Spartacus, & that was from negatives considered to faded to use at one time. I was a telecine operator/colourist from 1990 to around 2010, I was freelance & the work just sort of petered out, but then the last four years I've been working on & off at Deluxe London doing HD scans of old newsreels & other stuff on a Spirit telecine (well, datacine really, but no one calls it that), it looks like it's over now, I haven't heard from them in about four months, but it was very handy while it lasted (but I have two pensions coming in now, so I'm not too bothered). They have lots of pin register scanners (Arri I think), although for a print you might be better off using a Spirit, as it has a more powerful light source to punch through the darker areas of the picture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 14, 2016 - 10:56 AM
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
Hey, Rameau, you keep up that kind of technical knowledge on this board when we talk video transfers and such. It's valued by me at least, so don't be shy about it. Thank you, the trouble is that things are moving on so fast these days, when you're out of it, your knowledge quickly becomes out of date. As someone who used to work in film labs back in the days before everything went digital (Oh, how long ago the 20th century was now!), I very much know what you mean, but I still try to keep myself generally informed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 14, 2016 - 11:03 AM
|
|
|
By: |
Rameau
(Member)
|
Hey, Rameau, you keep up that kind of technical knowledge on this board when we talk video transfers and such. It's valued by me at least, so don't be shy about it. Thank you, the trouble is that things are moving on so fast these days, when you're out of it, your knowledge quickly becomes out of date. As someone who used to work in film labs back in the days before everything went digital (Oh, how long ago the 20th century was now!), I very much know what you mean, but I still try to keep myself generally informed. Ah, that's where I started, I worked in a movie film lab from 1967 to 1990. It was 16mm only up to the last couple of years I was there, mostly docs (TV & industrial). I was a colour grader/timer, god we used to have a laugh, the happiest working days of my life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 14, 2016 - 12:45 PM
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
Ah, that's where I started, I worked in a movie film lab from 1967 to 1990. It was 16mm only up to the last couple of years I was there, mostly docs (TV & industrial). I was a colour grader/timer, god we used to have a laugh, the happiest working days of my life. I only wish I could say that, but I worked in still photography working for professional photographers. I did everything from developing film by hand (of course processors, too), to customing printing -- B&W and color (and of course the joys of enlargers, precise focusing on every mm of huge prints, and dodging and burning by hand) --, to copy photography, and to ultimately sitting at a computer all day working in Adobe Photoshop -- and never for very great pay. And let me tell you, the pickiest bastards in the world are so-called professional photographers, who then take credit for everything themselves! I should have only worked in movie film labs, but my stupid younger self thought that would be boring! Oh, well, it's ancient history now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|