You Only Live Once

[Craig-Rogers]

This made me happy.

Just found out that the restoration work I did on this film is now available on blu-ray.



This is a public domain film and the source elements I was working with left a LOT do be desired so the 4-start rating for video quality makes me darn happy.

From the review..." The results here are generally excellent, and in fact when watching the restoration comparison and seeing some of the damage the original elements displayed, some may term it as near miraculous. The original version has pretty anemic contrast and pretty recurrent damage in the form of scratches and dirt, along with warped frames and the like. Virtually all of these anomalies have been ameliorated if not outright eliminated in this restoration."

[The Great Owl]

This is a fantastic release! Dive in.

[BluPat]

I want to get all of these Classicflix Blu-ray releases!

[Areyakiddin]

How's the transfer on the newly released Imprint edition?

[Dr. Humbert]

Originally Posted by Areyakiddin

How's the transfer on the newly released Imprint edition?

Better!

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film6/blu-r...ce_blu-ray.htm

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Craig-Rogers

This made me happy.

Just found out that the restoration work I did on this film is now available on blu-ray.



This is a public domain film and the source elements I was working with left a LOT do be desired so the 4-start rating for video quality makes me darn happy.

Hiya!

Since you were involved in the restoration, can you give us your opinion of how the new Imprint BD compares to the Classic Flix one from a decade ago?

Thanks!

[MifuneFan]

Looks like the CF release is more zoomed in? I thought the CF release was stretched, or Imprint was squished initially but I believe it's just a tighter framing for CF than the Imprint. The Imprint looks nicer to me overall.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Looks like one is either stretched (CF) or the other squished (Imprint). The Imprint one looks better to me.

To me too, but I'd love to hear the opinion of someone closer to the restoration. I don't want to rush into buying the expensive new Aussie edition when I already have the first one.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

To me too, but I'd love to hear the opinion of someone closer to the restoration. I don't want to rush into buying the expensive new Aussie edition when I already have the first one.

I edited my post after looking the screenshots longer. Is it stretched/squishing we're seeing, or is it just that the CF release is zoomed in more? Or is it both things? lol

[Juan de Internet]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I edited my post after looking the screenshots longer. Is it stretched/squishing we're seeing, or is it just that the CF release is zoomed in more? Or is it both things? lol

Some shots are zoomed in more on the ClassicFlix release and some are not. Separately from that, like Gary Tooze says, the ClassicFlix is horizontally stretched on every comparison I looked at. It's slight and possibly a judgment call, but the shot that makes me most convinced the Imprint got the aspect ratio right is the first closeup of Sylvia Sidney in front of the Public Defender's office.

Source: I'm a Sylvia Sidney simp.

In all seriousness, perhaps the better comparison is the two shots of Henry Fonda above one another near the end of the Patreon section, one with him upright and one with him horizontal. If his face looks roughly the same proportions in both, they got the aspect ratio right. The angle is not quite the same and faces distort when lying down, but it looks close enough to me.

I find it funny that this movie would have this judgment call about aspect ratio since Henry Fonda has a freakishly thin face and Sylvia Sidney has freakishly wide-set eyes. It's like they picked the Golden Age actors hardest to judge aspect ratio on - but maybe together they are the perfect metric. Now we just need to compare to The Trail of the Lonesome Pine.

[Juan de Internet]

It also just occurred to me that the Imprint is 1.33:1 aspect ratio, but the ClassicFlix is 1.37:1. That looks to me about the difference in horizontal stretching.

I wonder if the restoration was supplied at 1.33:1 aspect ratio, and then ClassicFlix figured "all Hollywood movies made after 1932 were in Academy ratio (1.37:1), so this should be presented in 1.37:1." But instead of cropping to 1.37:1, they just horizontally stretched the image to reach Academy ratio.