Hell’s Angels 4K UHD (1930)

[Doomhunter]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Don’t fully trust this site. Someone when making the page just hit an aspect ratio. It doesn’t mean it’s official. Checking the page for this on the Criterion site is a better idea.

Oh I don’t, I was merely providing info sources as there was conflicting ratios. Earlier in the thread, I thought it odd that the blu was 1:37 while this site was saying 1.2:1

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by Doomhunter

Oh I don’t, I was merely providing info sources as there was conflicting ratios. Earlier in the thread, I thought it odd that the blu was 1:37 while this site was saying 1.2:1

I submitted an edit. But until people have the disc in hand. Criterion’s website is the more reliable source.

[Juan de Internet]

Originally Posted by Doomhunter

So I am seeing it here, not saying it’s wrong or right, just that someone must have entered it that way for a reason

Attachment 318697

My guess is they just copied IMDb, which lists 1.2:1. My understanding is both sites get their data from user submissions, so I wouldn’t take either as definitive.

My guess is 1.2:1 comes from, like sherlockjr speculated, prints/screenings done with Movietone. Google AI states there were screenings using Movietone, but I couldn’t find any sources.

My guess is 1.54 refers to the Magnascope sequences.

And 1.37 may be from an early or later print. At least one source I found states that Hughes ordered the sound system upgraded for the Northwest premiere, which hints at the in-flux state of theatrical sound systems in the early sound era (and Great Depression). Sunrise, the first Movietone movie, was released in both Movietone and silent ratios, as evidenced by the Blu-ray I own with both aspect ratios.

Hell’s Angel’s own credits on videos I’ve watched state that it used Western Electric’s sound system, but I’m not sure that pegs it as sound-on-disk or sound-on-film - or sound-on-another-film.

At any rate, the negative would have been 1.33 (spherical 35mm) and it depends on what the source materials were and what the artistic intent was (and whether the artists involved were actually good at making movies, which is not a given just based on this movie) what aspect ratio would be the best compromise for this transfer. Given the troubled production and patchwork of technologies used, I’m not expecting 100% original camera negative.

[sherlockjr]

Originally Posted by Doomhunter

Oh I don’t, I was merely providing info sources as there was conflicting ratios. Earlier in the thread, I thought it odd that the blu was 1:37 while this site was saying 1.2:1

Since the disk won't be released for another three months, I don't think anyone outside of Criterion and whoever's doing the mastering--if it's even been mastered yet--can be certain of the final aspect ratio.

Under normal circumstances I'd think the 1.37 might have just been boilerplate the marketing department would automatically stick on any 1930s movie. But the very non-standard 1.54:1--probably for the Magnascope sections--makes me think the 1.37:1 is likely correct. More likely than what's posted on an unaffiliated website for a disk that nobody has in their hands yet.

[ReVision]

Looks very tempting, never seen the film so this would be a blind buy for me.

[Juan de Internet]

Originally Posted by ReVision

Looks very tempting, never seen the film so this would be a blind buy for me.

I rate the movie a 5/10, but this Criterion is nevertheless going on my wishlist. I see it as a historical curiosity first, an aeronautic spectacle second, with Jean Harlow's, umm, charms third. Not one competently-made-but-mediocre film so much as three films - one exciting, one modestly Pre-Code, and one mediocre hokum - glued together with hubris, tears, and a misspent fortune.

If you're into WWI aviation, Howard Hughes, or Jean Harlow, it's a no-brainer. Wings it is not, though.

[Doomhunter]

9 of 10 for me as a classic action / adventure aviation film. I like Wings as well

[MartinScorsesefan]

Co directed by James Whale(Frankenstein, Bride of, The Old Dark House).

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by MartinScorsesefan

Co directed by James Whale(Frankenstein, Bride of, The Old Dark House).

Specifically dialogue director. He was hired by studios to help the transition from silents to talkies for a couple films. The Love Doctor (1929) being another.

[MifuneFan]

Here's artist Sam Hadley's painting/illustration without any text/branding on it

https://www.instagram.com/p/DNgVA5_M...en&img_index=5

High-res:

[Show spoiler]

[Deciazulado]

Hell's Angels 4K Blu-ray

The mini "trailer" is ~1.54 and in Flash-color

[Juan de Internet]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Here's artist Sam Hadley's painting/illustration without any text/branding on it

https://www.instagram.com/p/DNgVA5_M...en&img_index=5




High-res:

[Show spoiler]

I don’t normally care about covers, but this cover makes me want to buy this disc more than I would otherwise. Not only is it graphically striking but it’s also appropriate for a movie that launched Harlow to stardom out of the flaming wreckage of this production.

[All Darc]

Good to hear about a 4K restoration, but at same time it's a bit sad to see the first indications of the quality.

The technicolor was somehow destroyed by WaxyLand noise reduction and overly cold color palette:



Wasn't Criterion the one who loved grain and sharpness and disliked waxy blured look???

And the material that survived, like most Howard Hughes movies, are not camera negative or safety fine grain shot from it, but prints or lavenders, do notnot have great quality in fine details for somone expect great things in 4K disc:



It feels like the negatives and master was destroyed and only his home movie collection survived for most films.
Did the archive with his negatives got destroyed in some fire???

[sherlockjr]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Good to hear about a 4K restoration, but at same time it's a bit sad to see the first indications of the quality.

The technicolor was somehow destroyed by WaxyLand noise reduction and overly cold color palette:

It's two-color Technicolor. Almost no two-color Technicolor negative survives since it was obsolete and could no longer be printed by 1936 or so. So almost all two-color Technicolor footage now comes from surviving prints.

However: 1) two-color Technicolor can have very different colors than later 3-strip Technicolor, especially if the only surviving versions were optical copies to <shudder> Eastmancolor., 2) Dye transfer Technicolor can have far less film grain than conventional film prints, since they can skip over at least a couple of analog film generations that add grain to the final print.

And the material that survived, like most Howard Hughes movies, are not camera negative or safety fine grain shot from it, but prints or lavenders, do notnot have great quality in fine details for somone expect great things in 4K disc:

It feels like the negatives and master was destroyed and only his home movie collection survived for most films.
Did the archive with his negatives got destroyed in some fire???

Howard Hughes didn't give a rat's ass about film preservation and archiving, as can be seen by both his earlier independent film productions and the later practices at RKO when he owned that studio. Like many film producers and studios of the time he was primarily interested in the next new release, not older films that they pretty much all felt were economically worthless after they were played out from their initial theatrical release. Plus no one 80 years ago really know anything about proper environmental conditions for long term film storage and preservation.

I don't know the origination of the film elements used for the restoration of HELL'S ANGELS. However, my understanding of Hughes' own film collection is far from "home movies". Like David O. Selznick much of what he kept personally was on 35mm. Though I doubt he kept any negative, it would have been useless for him at home.

[All Darc]

See for yourself :














:-)


Of course the color is too yellowed, as the projector have cold light and prints have some intented yellowed. This print have much yellow cast even considering that, but it was probably a lab problem. Even though the Criterion color balance looks ridiculous, ultra cold

Grain was quite often in 2 color technicolor system.

Hughes was a multi millionaire. His homes movies was professional 35mm. That was what I intented to point.

Originally Posted by sherlockjr

It's two-color Technicolor. Almost no two-color Technicolor negative survives since it was obsolete and could no longer be printed by 1936 or so. So almost all two-color Technicolor footage now comes from surviving prints.

However: 1) two-color Technicolor can have very different colors than later 3-strip Technicolor, especially if the only surviving versions were optical copies to <shudder> Eastmancolor., 2) Dye transfer Technicolor can have far less film grain than conventional film prints, since they can skip over at least a couple of analog film generations that add grain to the final print.




Howard Hughes didn't give a rat's ass about film preservation and archiving, as can be seen by both his earlier independent film productions and the later practices at RKO when he owned that studio. Like many film producers and studios of the time he was primarily interested in the next new release, not older films that they pretty much all felt were economically worthless after they were played out from their initial theatrical release. Plus no one 80 years ago really know anything about proper environmental conditions for long term film storage and preservation.

I don't know the origination of the film elements used for the restoration of HELL'S ANGELS. However, my understanding of Hughes' own film collection is far from "home movies". Like David O. Selznick much of what he kept personally was on 35mm. Though I doubt he kept any negative, it would have been useless for him at home.

[Juan de Internet]

Originally Posted by All Darc

It feels like the negatives and master was destroyed and only his home movie collection survived for most films.
Did the archive with his negatives got destroyed in some fire???

Originally Posted by sherlockjr

Like David O. Selznick much of what he kept personally was on 35mm. Though I doubt he kept any negative, it would have been useless for him at home.

According to this article, they shot 2.27 million feet for Hell's Angels. That's 2,270 reels. Stored in a single row, that row would be well over a football field long - including the end zones.

I doubt anyone in 1930, even if they cared about preserving what was largely silent film in the sound era, was storing 2.27 million feet of negative longer than was needed to cut the final film - if even that long.

[Nepenthe]

Originally Posted by Doomhunter

So I am seeing it here, not saying it’s wrong or right, just that someone must have entered it that way for a reason

Why on earth would you think that?

[All Darc]

Wait a second, nobody here talked about preserve all reels shoot and developed. Even today this do not happen.
There is only one old movie I know which all shot reels was preserved, and Robert Gitt restored it.

We talk about preserve the final film, with the versions they created (silent and talk), and some outakes.

Originally Posted by Juan de Internet

According to this article, they shot 2.27 million feet for Hell's Angels. That's 2,270 reels. Stored in a single row, that row would be well over a football field long - including the end zones.

I doubt anyone in 1930, even if they cared about preserving what was largely silent film in the sound era, was storing 2.27 million feet of negative longer than was needed to cut the final film - if even that long.

[Deciazulado]

[All Darc]

Hey, look at that :

Hell's Angels (1930) outtakes with commentary by David Stenn - YouTube