Looking forward to these Fox TODD-AO films on Blu-ray

[Clark Kent]

I assume negatives for most of these movies exist in some form. What would be prohibitive for the studios is getting any significant return on the investment that would need to be made on the restorations. Older movies sell to a very limited audience, no matter how good or classic they are deemed to be. It would still be nice to see a studio do a couple of these with full restorations.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

I assume negatives for most of these movies exist in some form. What would be prohibitive for the studios is getting any significant return on the investment that would need to be made on the restorations. Older movies sell to a very limited audience, no matter how good or classic they are deemed to be. It would still be nice to see a studio do a couple of these with full restorations.

I agree that that's the way they may be thinking, but it isn't so easy to measure "return on investment," since some of it is indirect, and some is delayed. In some cases, the most recent couple of generations of film buffs, college students, etc. have barely heard of some of these titles, but, if given pristine restored versions on Blu-ray, the word might spread, and they might eventually buy them in great numbers. I have been able to impress several of my young friends with 80 Days(particularly with the sound and rollicking music), but they and I know that there is no way to blow up the DVD to simulate the nearly hypnotic Todd-AO experience. With a restoration transferred to Blu-ray, it might be possible.

At least the Disney people make an effort to make sure their old and little known films --- short and long -- are periodically available in pretty good transfers to new generations. By the way, according to Diane Disney Miller, Pinocchio didn't make back its cost on its first release, but look how many people have a copy now.

Little attention was paid to Citizen Kane (after the controversy died down) in the 40s and 50s. It was when college students began to seek it out in art houses after Sight and Sound began to praise it in about 1961, that it became popular. The word spread, it made top ten lists all over the world, often as number 1, and now virtually every film buff has a copy on DVD, and when they finally make a Blu-ray that approaches the quality of the 35mm prints we saw back then, many buffs will buy it again. A side effect was that people began to seek out most of the other films of Wells, Greg Toland, etc., which had a tertiary effect of selling several Wyler films photographed by Toland. Speaking of Wells, I heard that the short sightedness of the Iranian investors who wanted full amortization, right away, that was an important factor in The Other Side of the Wind not being finished. Had it been, many of us would have bought a copy, right?

If people buy the bad transfers like EL Cid, and Patton, how many more would buy them if the transfers were "reference" or "demo" quality (which the original versions certainly were).

There is a lot of discussion of 2001 on this forum, and a lot of us own the Blu-ray. What percentage of forum members are old enough (as I am) to have seen it in 70mm in '68? But when it was presented in not-too-bad, lightly restored, quality on VHS, then DVD, and finally in excellent quality on Blue-ray, people who weren't around back then bought it, sometimes repeatedly, with each quality improvement. The same goes for the anticipation around the Blu-ray of Ben-Hur.

Lastly, preserving and transmitting our heritige is the right thing to do. Film companies need the vision thing.

[BillieCassin]

Cleopara looks stunning upconverted on DVD, I can't wait to see it on Blu. I keep hoping someone will find the original cut somewhere pristine in a warehouse, but I'll take any cut I can get in HD. The loss of the original cut if that film, as well as A Star Is Born, are two of the biggest tragidies of that era.

[Dubstar]

'Around the World in Eighty Days' is up on Netflix and in Hidef - and when it looks great it's astounding - the colors noticeably. However, there are several instances where minor debris, imperfections that could have been digitally erased aren't (the second part of the movie seems very inconsistent noticeably during the train/American Indian fight sequence - the image also at times seems overly bright, but I'm guessing that is from it was originally shot. I have no idea what Warner's plans are on releasing this on bluray are, mass release or via it's Archive Collections (or UHD ) but given what and how it looks on Netflix - it's going to impress!

conclusively, this seems like what I viewed on HDNet's airing of 'Winged Migration' that had a lot of print imperfections, yet when the bluray arrived, those anomalies disappeared. Likewise, 'Pink Floyd - The Wall' in hidef left much to be improved - I couldn't see that being released in that state without some folk complaining ... who knows maybe Warner's did some re-tweaking / cleaning up [fingers crossed]

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

'Around the World in Eighty Days' is up on Netflix and in Hidef - and when it looks great it's astounding - the colors noticeably. However, there are several instances where minor debris, imperfections that could have been digitally erased aren't (the second part of the movie seems very inconsistent noticeably during the train/American Indian fight sequence - the image also at times seems overly bright, but I'm guessing that is from it was originally shot. I have no idea what Warner's plans are on releasing this on bluray are, mass release or via it's Archive Collections (or UHD ) but given what and how it looks on Netflix - it's going to impress!

I wonder where Netflix got a HiDef source for 80 Days.

The DVD is O.K., but not nearly as high definition as Blu-rays of 70 mm films within a few years of 80 Days(1956). An example of a fairly high def Blu-ray of a movie of 6 years later is Lawrence of Arabia(1962). For Lawrence Robert A Harris found that he had to go to 8K to capture all of the resolution. I'm told that, thanks to the Nyquist principle, that would mean the original may have been about 4K.

I saw 80 days three times in 70 mm when I was a kid. The 70 mm print was plenty bright, but not too bright, and did not look overexposed. But it was unusual, compared to other movies I'd seen, in that it seemed to be as bright as real daylight (of course it wasn't). They were using carbon arc lamps in the Todd-AO projectors (Phillips, I think). I was just starting a photography hobby then, and took my Weston Master II light meter to the theater when I saw it for the second time. I don't remember the reading in foot candles, but I do remember that the daylight scene I measured (scooping snow off a mountain peak from the balloon) was about two stops brighter than daylight scenes in the later movies my Weston accompanied me to. Most of those were 35 mm. I was a nerd before the word.