Laura (1944) - February 05, 2013

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Then why is it when Universal releases Time Bandits complete with negative dust, reel change marks and gate weave, all the bluray fans get up in arms about it?

I'm talking about old black and white movies from the 40's or 50's - people have never experienced these films in any other way than from scratchy, damaged source elements. Laura is very nearly 70 years old now, there would be few people, if anyone, alive who can remember it projected without flaws in picture quality. Hence it seems unnatural when we get a rock steady, flawless Blu-ray of a classic title...it's nothing short of miraculous seeing films that old as if they were projected for the first time.

Time Bandits is a colour movie from the '80s, I think there is a reasonable and justified expectation that a Blu-ray of it should be pretty much pristine. So the answer to your question is that they should be up and arms about it, given advances in technology, resources and knowledge of film preservation.

[dsman71]

I thought the films transfer was fine...I enjoy the movie, it really is a matter of taste..I like a good noir with a good cast and this one clicks with me

[42041]

Originally Posted by Zetmoon

To me the image is too bright and to perfect.

No scratches etc. and the image is steady as a rock which is
unatural to me, especially for such an old film.

I'm sure it didn't look like that in a cinema in 1944!

That's the problem with old(er) movies on Blu-ray in general,
they "restore" it way too much and the movie loses al its classic
atmosphere.

The DVD of Laura has some damage, is not rocksteady, has some contrast fluctuations but is so much more atmospheric to watch.

Of all the things to complain about... Not enough scratches for you? Seriously?
The camera holds the film rock steady. The wobble is an artifact of projection/telecine.

[dsman71]

If i want crummy PQ of a movie I would collect nothing but Alpha DVDs..
Anything that looks remastered, cleaned up makes the movie watching experience better for me

[Blu-Velvet]

Originally Posted by Zetmoon

They can look good but when projected from film there's
always scratches and a slight movement.
Modern, digitally made films don't have that.
And old(er) films that have been restored too much....

The only time that movies projected from film have scratches and slight movement visible is when prints have been damaged, poorly copied, and/or run on improperly maintained equipment. Back in 1944, a brand new print of a 1944 film made from the camera negative, shown in a first-run theatre by a professional projectionist on properly adjusted projectors, would quite likely look as good if not substantially better than a 2013 film print of a 2013 movie struck off a dupe negative on high-speed printers and run through a poorly maintained projector threaded on a faulty platter in some mall multiplex by an untrained popcorn stand attendant. (This is another reason studios are forcing theatres to switch to digital projection, not merely the expense of making film prints.)

If all you see is beat up prints of old movies shown on run-down projectors, that's what you expect them to look like. And if the only way you see old movies is from beat-up 16mm prints transferred to VHS or DVD, then seeing a new archival 35mm print in a good revival theatre or seeing a proper HD transfer from well-preserved/restored original 35mm film elements on a Blu-ray is like suddenly wiping the Vaseline off your glasses. If a new print is being projected, any unsteadiness of the image visible on the theatre screen means that the projector needs servicing or that the print is defective (not all that uncommon with modern high-speed printers), and unsteadiness on a video transfer means the print they used was so old it had become shrunken or warped, or that their transfer equipment was not set up right.

You might be interested to know that a sizeable majority of the movie theatres that have still been running 35mm film, are using projectors that were originally built back in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, but have been regularly serviced to keep them running like new. As multiplexes cut staff costs and then switch to digital, there is probably be less maintenance going on for those projectors that are left, and no new replacement parts being manufactured for when they do need service. I still try to give first priority to patronizing new movies that are projected on film, as long as they're available for theatres.

[yellowcakeuf6]

Originally Posted by lemonski

I can see what he is saying though - we're all so accustomed to seeing flicker, wavering contrast and print damage on old black and white movies on TV and other video formats, that BD looks "unnatural". I think there is a sense of atmosphere that is being lost, it's a bit like the pops and scratches on vinyl records that disappeared with CD. But I think its wrong to say that Laura wouldn't have looked clean in 1944, it would be closer to the Blu-ray of today; its only the wear and tear and damage over the years that have accumulated into what we are "accustomed to" on TV and home video.

Pops and scratches on vinyl records? Who misses that? It wasn't on the reel to reel master. If you see a film early in its run it will look better than a second run print and look even better off the negative which I think would be the goal.

[Rory]

Wow! I really can't believe some of what I've been reading in the last few pages of this thread. Some people are unhappy when a vintage film looks too perfect on Blu-ray?!!!!! A rock steady image with virtually no scratches or specks is a bad thing?!!!! LAURA on BD looks too bright? You are aware that you can make brightness and contrast adjustments to your monitor, aren't you? Excuse me if I'm sounding rude, but I just don't understand this mentality. Why are you people buying vintage films on BD at all?

As for the critics of LAURA in general; I think there's a lot of misunderstanding on display in this thread. Some of you seem to look at this movie as simply a film noir, something to be taken as a serious melodrama. Actually, I think this movie is one of the best black comedies the old studio system ever produced. It's high camp at its very best, and I really pity the people who can't appreciate it. Also, this movie is less about Gene Tierney's character and much more about Clifton Webb's. It's really his story, or rather the story of his downfall, and it's a wonderfully cynical and very funny satire.

Finally, someone here complained about Clifton Webb and Vincent Price not being manly enough in their roles. You do know that in real life both Webb and Price were gay, so if they come across as a little fey in this movie, well, not only is it unavoidable, it was also intended, so just go with it.

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by yellowcakeuf6

Pops and scratches on vinyl records? Who misses that? It wasn't on the reel to reel master.

Sure, no-one now - but when CD's first came out the lack of background noises and the cleanness of the sound might have been strange, if you'd been listening to records for 20 years.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by lemonski

I'm talking about old black and white movies from the 40's or 50's - people have never experienced these films in any other way than from scratchy, damaged source elements.

Uh... They were new once you know. On first run there wasn't any damage at all. And I saw Time Bandits in the theater when it came out and it looked like the bluray... Negative dust, reel change marks and all.

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Uh... They were new once you know. On first run there wasn't any damage at all.

That's exactly my point. Go back to post #195, I said

But I think its wrong to say that Laura wouldn't have looked clean in 1944, it would be closer to the Blu-ray of today; its only the wear and tear and damage over the years that have accumulated into what we are "accustomed to" on TV and home video.

[joie]

There may be at least one shot that is "too bright."

[Show spoiler]At about 53:00 minutes, Laura has called Shelby and he heads for her country house. The detective follows him. They both depart in cars, at night, in the rain. There is little, if any, black in those shots. There is a large dark area with no detail, so it might as well have been black. Perhaps the film wasn't exposed/developed properly.

If you're unhappy with the "brightness," you might use that part of the movie to adjust your TV.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by lemonski

But I think its wrong to say that Laura wouldn't have looked clean in 1944, it would be closer to the Blu-ray of today; its only the wear and tear and damage over the years that have accumulated into what we are "accustomed to" on TV and home video.

You may be accustomed to it, but I go see classic movies in the theater on occasion and want it to look like that, not like a beat up 16mm TV syndication print.

[Akijama]

Originally Posted by Rory

Wow! I really can't believe some of what I've been reading in the last few pages of this thread. Some people are unhappy when a vintage film looks too perfect on Blu-ray?!!!!!

+ a gazillion. We're living in a mad, mad, mad world.

[grrrarg]

Originally Posted by joie

There may be at least one shot that is "too bright."

Agreed, it runs from the opening shot and lasts about 88 minutes.

[Badas]

I've had this sitting on my shelf to be watched since it's release date. With all the fuss over it being too bright I guess I better put it on my short list to watch.

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by bigshot

You may be accustomed to it, but I go see classic movies in the theater on occasion and want it to look like that, not like a beat up 16mm TV syndication print.

I'm not saying I want it with all the wear and tear. I'm saying I can understand why people might find the pristine look of classic films unnatural if all they're used to is 16 mm TV syndication prints. Is that so hard to follow?

And in my experience classic movies in the theatre are nothing to write home about either, unless its a presentation of a restored print. The ones I've seen (and I see classic movies theatrically reasonably regularly) have been generally awful - there's so much damage and wear on the print you'd be better off watching a DVD. The only drawcard is seeing it on the big screen.

[yellowcakeuf6]

Originally Posted by lemonski

I'm not saying I want it with all the wear and tear. I'm saying I can understand why people might find the pristine look of classic films unnatural if all they're used to is 16 mm TV syndication prints. Is that so hard to follow?

And in my experience classic movies in the theatre are nothing to write home about either, unless its a presentation of a restored print. The ones I've seen (and I see classic movies theatrically reasonably regularly) have been generally awful - there's so much damage and wear on the print you'd be better off watching a DVD. The only drawcard is seeing it on the big screen.

I'm following you. I saw a 70mm print of 2001: A Space Odyssey at AFI's Silver Theater and it was awful. Seizure inducing flicker, 2 feet wide blotches, scrapes and countless specks but it did not inspire nostalgia. Then again I do enjoy watching old episodes of Twilight Zone and Get Smart etc. on my 19 inch tube TV.

[bigshot]

But that's the way we're USED to seeing 2001!

[yellowcakeuf6]

Bad print or not, the star child finale on the big screen is awe inspiring.