AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Hammer restored classics coming to bluray
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hammer restored classics coming to bluray - Page 4

post #91 of 150
8/9/12 at 3:05pm
Is it safe to buy Dracula- Prince of Darkness from Amazon Uk?
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #92 of 150
8/9/12 at 6:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanboyz View Post

Is it safe to buy Dracula- Prince of Darkness from Amazon Uk?

Yes. Amazon UK has only had the corrected version in stock for some time now. In fact, before the corrected copy was available, they had pulled all the initial versions.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 150
8/9/12 at 9:45pm
nice.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 150
9/27/12 at 9:32pm
The Devil Rides Out has some redone special effects (with no option to see the originals). Hammer admits it on their Facebook page but disavows any comparisons to George Lucas because, uh, they say so.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 150
9/27/12 at 10:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Average View Post

The Devil Rides Out has some redone special effects (with no option to see the originals). Hammer admits it on their Facebook page but disavows any comparisons to George Lucas because, uh, they say so.

They are really dropping the ball on some of their key releases. The Dracula Prince Of Darkness DNR/audio sync debacle was bad but this is arguably worse. Every Hammer fan knows the effects for the scene in question are terrible but I don't think anyone would have complained if they simply had an option via seamless branching to watch either the (poorly) digitally corrected chapter or the original version. What are they thinking?

I am now more worried about how Curse of Frankenstein and Horror of Dracula are going to turn out.
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 150
10/1/12 at 10:08am
BTW, here's an article that explains the "new" effects and includes some screen grab comparisons between the old dvd and new Blu-ray releases.

http://m.sfx.co.uk/2012/09/28/blog-enhanced-effects-restoration-or-desecration/

This is Hammer's reply to one persons' (not me) question about the re-do:

"Hammer Films - Hi Rick, in reply, it's about one film in particular, not multiple films. The reasoning behind the work is that key creatives who made the actual film were never happy with the finished result. The work we've done is about showing the film in the best possible way: fully restored and with some of the VFX shots enhanced. Nothing was re-shot and nothing was painted-out, which is why we use the word "enhanced" (not "replaced" or "re-created"). An early review compared the work with that of George Lucas on Star Wars and that comparison appears to have prompted very strong reactions from some fans. All we can do is repeat what we've always said: please watch the restored/enhanced version and make up your own mind. P.S. Enticing new audiences was definitely not our intent, though if the restoration brings a new audience to the film. surely that's a good thing?"
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 150
10/1/12 at 11:34am
It would have been nice to include the original version, but I am not going to scream at Hammer for attempting to improve those horrible FX shots that were bad even when the movie was first released. The changes don't look that bad, simply going off the screenshots at the link above. This is one of my favorite Hammer movies and I am grateful it got released to Blu-ray at all.
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 150
10/1/12 at 11:59am
"All we can do is repeat what we've always said: please watch the restored/enhanced version and make up your own mind."
They want us too buy it 1st, just too see how badd it is?!?!
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 150
10/1/12 at 7:29pm
"The reasoning behind the work is that key creatives who made the actual film are dead, so we can mess with it as much as we like."
I do not know how accurate the m.sfx.co.uk screenshots are, but first of all the 'new' caps are blasting bright. As for the 'fixes', the skull one is a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

BTW, here's an article that explains the "new" effects and includes some screen grab comparisons between the old dvd and new Blu-ray releases.
http://m.sfx.co.uk/2012/09/28/blog-enhanced-effects-restoration-or-desecration/
This is Hammer's reply to one persons' (not me) question about the re-do:
"Hammer Films - Hi Rick, in reply, it's about one film in particular, not multiple films. The reasoning behind the work is that key creatives who made the actual film were never happy with the finished result. The work we've done is about showing the film in the best possible way: fully restored and with some of the VFX shots enhanced. Nothing was re-shot and nothing was painted-out, which is why we use the word "enhanced" (not "replaced" or "re-created"). An early review compared the work with that of George Lucas on Star Wars and that comparison appears to have prompted very strong reactions from some fans. All we can do is repeat what we've always said: please watch the restored/enhanced version and make up your own mind. P.S. Enticing new audiences was definitely not our intent, though if the restoration brings a new audience to the film. surely that's a good thing?"

Were is this Hammer reply? Their website has nothing on this.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 150
10/15/12 at 12:42pm
On one of the Hammer Film's mailing lists, some very critical comments are starting to filter in about the quality of the just released UK "Curse Of Frankenstein" Blu-ray. Mostly about framing issues and mediocre image and washed out color leading some to say the older dvd version is actually superior.

Big debate here on Hammer's official blog:

http://blog.hammerfilms.com/?p=166#comments
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 150
10/15/12 at 4:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

On one of the Hammer Film's mailing lists, some very critical comments are starting to filter in about the quality of the just released UK "Curse Of Frankenstein" Blu-ray. Mostly about framing issues and mediocre image and washed out color leading some to say the older dvd version is actually superior.
Big debate here on Hammer's official blog:
http://blog.hammerfilms.com/?p=166#comments

Mediocre image? You are not referring to the images in the matting examples are you? I doubt they represent what the BD looks like.
Myself, I am ok with 1:37 or 1:66 but not 1:77.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 150
10/15/12 at 5:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Mediocre image? You are not referring to the images in the matting examples are you? I doubt they represent what the BD looks like.
Myself, I am ok with 1:37 or 1:66 but not 1:77.

The 1:37 and 1:66 screen caps are from the just-released Blu-ray as noted in the article.

Having not seen the disc myself yet, I reserve judgement. Especially considering some of the comments seem ill-informed especially about supposed or preferred aspect ratios for this film. However, the print quality of those screen caps even if drastically compressed do not look encouraging.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 150
10/15/12 at 7:40pm
Curse has long been cursed with a less-than-stellar presentation, going back to 16mm rental prints in the sixties. It's probably due to the Eastman Color, and there probably isn't much to be done about it frown.gif
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 150
10/16/12 at 3:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

The 1:37 and 1:66 screen caps are from the just-released Blu-ray as noted in the article.
Having not seen the disc myself yet, I reserve judgement. Especially considering some of the comments seem ill-informed especially about supposed or preferred aspect ratios for this film. However, the print quality of those screen caps even if drastically compressed do not look encouraging.

The images in that article are far short of 1080p and not worth speculating on them as representing what the BD looks like, also I could not find any noting in the article that they are from the BD. The article also has images from other films not on BD.
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 150
10/16/12 at 7:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

The images in that article are far short of 1080p and not worth speculating on them as representing what the BD looks like, also I could not find any noting in the article that they are from the BD. The article also has images from other films not on BD.

Where the CoF opening title cards are compared:

"Above can be seen the same main titles HOD (Heads Of Department) card at 1.37:1, 1.66:1 (both taken from our new Double Play release) and at 1.77:1 (taken from the WB DVD release)."

The "Double Play" release is the new Blu-ray/DVD set.
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 150
10/17/12 at 6:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

Where the CoF opening title cards are compared:
"Above can be seen the same main titles HOD (Heads Of Department) card at 1.37:1, 1.66:1 (both taken from our new Double Play release) and at 1.77:1 (taken from the WB DVD release)."
The "Double Play" release is the new Blu-ray/DVD set.

Yeah, but we're the screenshots taken from the BD or the DVD of that Double Play release?
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 150
10/19/12 at 12:13pm
Hammer goes on the defensive regarding complaints about their Curse Of Frankenstein release.

http://blog.hammerfilms.com/?p=321#comments
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 150
10/19/12 at 12:36pm
They can go on the defensive all they like - it didn't have to be like this. And yes, Mr. Wuther, it is substandard with washed-out color and little detail. Other than that, I suppose it's fine. And it didn't have to be like this.
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 150
10/19/12 at 8:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

They can go on the defensive all they like - it didn't have to be like this. And yes, Mr. Wuther, it is substandard with washed-out color and little detail. Other than that, I suppose it's fine. And it didn't have to be like this.

It could look precisely as it did in 1957. Whomever is representing Hammer in their blog seems to be receiving incorrect information.

RAH
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 150
10/19/12 at 9:07pm
Well, if anyone there had a brain in their head they would talk to Mr. Harris and figure this thing out. What we don't need is a washed-out soft faded version of The Curse of Frankenstein, a gloriously garish color movie.
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 150
10/19/12 at 11:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

It could look precisely as it did in 1957. Whomever is representing Hammer in their blog seems to be receiving incorrect information.
RAH

Please elaborate.

One on hand, I can appreciate Hammer's attempts to do what they "think" is right by their catalog of films and their relative openness especially when it comes to criticism. However, it's almost like due to a combination of inexperienced people in charge of the "restorations,' the obvious technical issues with damaged or poor condition film archives and just bad luck, they are suffering a constant chain of mishaps that is quickly tarnishing expectations for current and future product..
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 150
10/20/12 at 9:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

Please elaborate.
One on hand, I can appreciate Hammer's attempts to do what they "think" is right by their catalog of films and their relative openness especially when it comes to criticism. However, it's almost like due to a combination of inexperienced people in charge of the "restorations,' the obvious technical issues with damaged or poor condition film archives and just bad luck, they are suffering a constant chain of mishaps that is quickly tarnishing expectations for current and future product..

There are two ways to approach a problem: Listen and learn from those who know what they are talking about and who know about elements, or be obstinate and act like you know what you're talking about when you clearly don't (rather like the Internet in certain ways). Hammer has chosen the latter when they really need to choose the former and people deserve Curse to be redone and to get the transfer that not only we deserve, but that the makers of Curse deserve.
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 150
10/20/12 at 10:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

There are two ways to approach a problem: Listen and learn from those who know what they are talking about and who know about elements, or be obstinate and act like you know what you're talking about when you clearly don't (rather like the Internet in certain ways). Hammer has chosen the latter when they really need to choose the former and people deserve Curse to be redone and to get the transfer that not only we deserve, but that the makers of Curse deserve.

I guess that would lead to what seems to be the basic question - what if the best film elements they have (for this film for example) are pretty mediocre? I think it's a safe guess that those currently fronting Hammer don't have a ton of money to spend doing a high end digital restoration and it's not like you can blame the current owners for the conditions of archived prints considering Hammer has switched owners numerous times since they went through bankruptcy in the late 70's, not to mention the studio suffered a fire during that time as well.

I'm not defending Hammer as I think they've made some avoidable mistakes on several previous Blu-ray releases. My biggest complaint is they should be offering (honest and accurate) explanations for questionable transfers *before* they street, not after when people start complaining.
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 150
10/20/12 at 12:31pm
The problem for Hammer is they should have tackled some lesser titles out the gate to get their feet wet. They didn't. And the results have been disastrous.
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 150
10/20/12 at 12:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

I guess that would lead to what seems to be the basic question - what if the best film elements they have (for this film for example) are pretty mediocre? I think it's a safe guess that those currently fronting Hammer don't have a ton of money to spend doing a high end digital restoration and it's not like you can blame the current owners for the conditions of archived prints considering Hammer has switched owners numerous times since they went through bankruptcy in the late 70's, not to mention the studio suffered a fire during that time as well.
I'm not defending Hammer as I think they've made some avoidable mistakes on several previous Blu-ray releases. My biggest complaint is they should be offering (honest and accurate) explanations for questionable transfers *before* they street, not after when people start complaining.

What does "high-end" digital restoration mean anyway? They spent money for a modern scan and digital color correction and cleanup. Is there something more high-end that I'm unaware of?

It's pretty obvious the problems with this BD aren't the result of funds but rather specific choices made in the mastering process. If Mr Harris says it can look exactly as it did in 1957, I believe him.
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 150
10/20/12 at 1:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

What does "high-end" digital restoration mean anyway? They spent money for a modern scan and digital color correction and cleanup. Is there something more high-end that I'm unaware of?
It's pretty obvious the problems with this BD aren't the result of funds but rather specific choices made in the mastering process. If Mr Harris says it can look exactly as it did in 1957, I believe him.

And you should believe him. And Hammer has stated quite blatantly they did NO color correction. They used a transfer made from a faded IP - they didn't have to, but they did. It's shoddy and silly and fans of the film (save for those who are drinking the Hammer Kool-Aid) suffer.
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 150
10/20/12 at 4:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

What does "high-end" digital restoration mean anyway? They spent money for a modern scan and digital color correction and cleanup. Is there something more high-end that I'm unaware of? (snip)

Well, I'm using the term loosely, but I would consider (well done) so-called high end restorations for Blu-ray release films such as The Wizard Of Oz, Jaws and Ben Hur. A *lot* of time and money by the respective studios were spent tracking down the best sources and meticulously going through virtually frame-by-frame to clean up or correct flaws for those films. I am a bit surprised and I do applaud the fact Hammer did a 4K scan but perhaps that cost and effort was wasted on a mediocre source print. And from their own account the didn't do any "clean-up" and apparently no color correction. This would be great if the source they used was pristine but it clearly wasn't. I really support the *attitude* behind Hammer's efforts but the results have been wildly inconsistent.
Reply
Reply
post #118 of 150
10/20/12 at 4:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

Well, I'm using the term loosely, but I would consider (well done) so-called high end restorations for Blu-ray release films such as The Wizard Of Oz, Jaws and Ben Hur. A *lot* of time and money by the respective studios were spent tracking down the best sources and meticulously going through virtually frame-by-frame to clean up or correct flaws for those films. I am a bit surprised and I do applaud the fact Hammer did a 4K scan but perhaps that cost and effort was wasted on a mediocre source print. And from their own account the didn't do any "clean-up" and apparently no color correction. This would be great if the source they used was pristine but it clearly wasn't. I really support the *attitude* behind Hammer's efforts but the results have been wildly inconsistent.

That 4K scan may be of little value. They were scanning an Interpostive made from the B & W protection masters. When you take into account MTF, you can have as much as a 40% loss in resolution or more depending on the condition of the protection masters.
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 150
10/20/12 at 6:00pm
The problem I believe is that the Hammer fanbase hasn't been very demanding of these releases. The BDs are largely immune to criticism because they will sell regardless of what is discussed here or elsewhere. I'm so desperate to see them all released on Blu-ray I will buy Curse no matter what the problem. The older Hammer DVDs are really showing their age by now.
Reply
Reply
post #120 of 150
10/23/12 at 5:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

Well, I'm using the term loosely, but I would consider (well done) so-called high end restorations for Blu-ray release films such as The Wizard Of Oz, Jaws and Ben Hur. A *lot* of time and money by the respective studios were spent tracking down the best sources and meticulously going through virtually frame-by-frame to clean up or correct flaws for those films. I am a bit surprised and I do applaud the fact Hammer did a 4K scan but perhaps that cost and effort was wasted on a mediocre source print. And from their own account the didn't do any "clean-up" and apparently no color correction. This would be great if the source they used was pristine but it clearly wasn't. I really support the *attitude* behind Hammer's efforts but the results have been wildly inconsistent.

Hand-by-hand is rare though. Plus I doubt anything Universal does counts as high-end.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Hammer restored classics coming to bluray