The Sin of Nora Moran (1933) - July 8th, 2020 - Blu-Ray & DVD - Film Detective

[Gunsnroses092789]

Review is up:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-S...269870/#Review

Seems pretty positive. Looking forward to my copy arriving.

[All Darc]

The adveretisement as "Restored in 4K from original camera negative", sounded promising.
But the screen captures looks faded and with poor shadow details, poor density and somewhat soft for what someone would wait from a 4K scan of a camera negative even for a film of 1933. There are scans from original prints or early lavender masters from early 1930's, like Dracula 1931, that looks sharper and much with better contrast than this.

Compare this "kinescope look":






With this :

[Gunsnroses092789]

As the Blu-ray.com reviews states, the film is full of dissolves, and that degrades the sharpness of the picture quality, so it must be judged accordingly.

Also, this film was shot by a poverty row studio, versus Universal, so the budget was definitely lower, and probably less lighting was involved to expose the film, and therefor, less sharp of a picture.

[All Darc]

I understand that's better judge watching the film. But if Dracula it's cleary better even in screen captures, in all aspects, in motion it's reasonable to presume it's still far better.
We can't presume all screen captures was taken from disolves.

Poor budget do not means a film will look soft. Even camerra negative from cine news, from same age, looks better. This is a case of a problem of grading and mastering. Expensive film scan and digital restoration work, to a final poor grading and poor mastering. It's a somewhat a waste (not the noble restoration initiative) use top quality scan to be damaged by "poor final touches".

Restorations works, scans from camera negatives, are more than welcome and deserve our respet. But such final details damage things. It can lead some people presume restorations are limited, when they are not that in such cases.

Once again, the initiative it's more than welcome, bring old classics back, restored from the best sources. I just say the final touches should be up to quality of such noble investment.

Originally Posted by Gunsnroses092789

As the Blu-ray.com reviews states, the film is full of dissolves, and that degrades the sharpness of the picture quality, so it must be judged accordingly.

Also, this film was shot by a poverty row studio, versus Universal, so the budget was definitely lower, and probably less lighting was involved to expose the film, and therefor, less sharp of a picture.

[Gunsnroses092789]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I understand that's better judge watching the film. But if Dracula it's cleary better even in screen captures, in all aspects, in motion it's reasonable to presume it's still far better.
We can't presume all screen captures was taken from disolves.

Poor budget do not means a film will look soft. Even camerra negative from cine news, from same age, looks better. This is a case of a problem of grading and mastering. Expensive film scan and digital restoration work, to a final poor grading and poor mastering. It's a somewhat a waste (not the noble restoration initiative) use top quality scan to be damaged by "poor final touches".

Restorations works, scans from camera negatives, are more than welcome and deserve our respet. But such final details damage things. It can lead some people presume restorations are limited, when they are not that in such cases.

Once again, the initiative it's more than welcome, bring old classics back, restored from the best sources. I just say the final touches should be up to quality of such noble investment.

This is fair. But a film's budget can affect the picture quality of the negative, depending on the lenses, the amount of light and the film stock. Lenses can be expensive, and thus be a cut corner on some productions, as well as lots of lighting sources which can take lots of time to fashion, and thus creating a longer shooting schedule.

I'm not really sure about this particular film, nor this particular restoration. But I hardly would think a Poverty Row film that's been in the public domain for years and years, and whose restoration is a labor of love with probably very little financial return, could be judged on the same level as Universal monster movies that are bigger budget films based on famous source materials, and where the studio is willing to put a fair amount of money and effort to restore knowing that it will make the money back.

My copy of Nora Moran hasn't shipped yet, but judging by the screen captures, I think it's better than one for expect from a film of its history.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I understand that's better judge watching the film. But if Dracula it's cleary better even in screen captures, in all aspects, in motion it's reasonable to presume it's still far better.
We can't presume all screen captures was taken from disolves.

Poor budget do not means a film will look soft. Even camerra negative from cine news, from same age, looks better. This is a case of a problem of grading and mastering. Expensive film scan and digital restoration work, to a final poor grading and poor mastering. It's a somewhat a waste (not the noble restoration initiative) use top quality scan to be damaged by "poor final touches".

Restorations works, scans from camera negatives, are more than welcome and deserve our respet. But such final details damage things. It can lead some people presume restorations are limited, when they are not that in such cases.

Once again, the initiative it's more than welcome, bring old classics back, restored from the best sources. I just say the final touches should be up to quality of such noble investment.

Gee, could it be possible that Universal has more money to spend on their Blu releases than The Film Detective and that may account for some differences in quality? Your consistent nit picking over screen caps is exhausting.

EVERYTHING can look better than it does in your estimation, so why are you studying screen caps all day instead of producing your own perfect Blu-ray releases? I’m not excusing shoddy work, but your expectations seem way out of proportion with these kinds of independent releases that are more a labor of love than profit. It makes me wonder if you are too entitled, bored, trolling or all three. Regardless, be proud that you’ve just earned a coveted spot on my IGNORE list.

[All Darc]

Dear Professor Echo, I'm not a troll. The covid times make me post a liitle more, I confess.
But I understand that a 4K scan and restoration it's pricy. If a project was so nice to allow that, this should a least be respected with a correspondent quality blu ray mastering.

As I said the work it's valid, deserves respect, and without such initiatives many films would never get restored releases. I did some tests and the contrast appears to be easy to fix. The soft look it's probably due some digital filter abuse. The bases of the problems are probably silly, and not a matter of have a lot of extra money.

Enjoy the film. Hats off to the 4K restoration initiative. But if we gentle spot some of the problems, maybe future realeses get more attention.

[noirjunkie]

Originally Posted by All Darc

The adveretisement as "Restored in 4K from original camera negative", sounded promising.
But the screen captures looks faded and with poor shadow details, poor density and somewhat soft for what someone would wait from a 4K scan of a camera negative even for a film of 1933.

You can scan a camera negative at 4K, 8K, or 16K, but the resultant quality will always be largely dependent upon the condition of the original source material. This is a low-budget film from 1933, likely stored over the decades in conditions far less ideal than Universal's prized monster films. It's only going to look so good.

[Gunsnroses092789]

How do you know what condition the negative was in? And how do you know what the raw restoration looks like? You just seem a bit quick to judge these attributes with no real knowledge of what the materials look like, besides what you see via screen cap.

[All Darc]

Please don't take in the negative side. I don't desire any conflit neither damage the sales of some edition. It's just that probably some mistake can make great well intentioned initiative and investment, as a 4K project, get some problems in the final blu ray.

If a edition could look great, but due some mistake or bad decision, end up not so well, this can affect the public, the sort of public which taste it's between modern production and old production, the public that could be cativated buy a gret quality blu ray.

About the negative, I see no evidence of damage or deterioration that could affect the image quality making it look soft. Low budget production sometimes used cheaper film stock, that in general are faster films with coarser grain pattern, like many B films producers did in the 50's, but it would not make the image soft to this degree.
Camera lens it's a issue, but it would not affect the image so much. Even cameras from 1915 films from Chaplin shorts was able to render a sharp image in HD.
And the dynamic range, judging by the captures and by analyzing in photoshop, appear to be there (a good news).

But like I said, it's a great welcome initiative, 4K scan and restoration for such films, and deserves all our respect. I believe it's just a matter of make the right B&W gradding, to avoid the fadded look, and be carefull with setting for digital filters. Probably it would not affect the cost of the project and could have better sales.

And the 4K scan it's probably (almost 100% sure) there, archived in a non filtered version. So, despite the problems in blu ray edition, the effort and investment to preserve the film was not damaged.

[LordSummerIsle]

Leaving the restoration in the hands of The Film Detective was moronic. They've never had a stellar release. BD-25.... what a joke.

[AllAboutMatt]

Originally Posted by LordSummerIsle

Leaving the restoration in the hands of The Film Detective was moronic. They've never had a stellar release. BD-25.... what a joke.

At least it's not a BDR...that's all I can really say...

[noirjunkie]

Originally Posted by LordSummerIsle

Leaving the restoration in the hands of The Film Detective was moronic. They've never had a stellar release. BD-25.... what a joke.

It's a black and white film in Academy ratio that's 65 minutes long. It really doesn't need a BD-50.

[Gunsnroses092789]

Originally Posted by LordSummerIsle

Leaving the restoration in the hands of The Film Detective was moronic. They've never had a stellar release. BD-25.... what a joke.

Like noirjunkie said...

A 65 minute black and white 1.33:1 film can have a maxed out bitrate will only be about 20GB... Would be moronic and a waste to put it on a BD-50.


In other news, has anyone received a copy of this from any retailers other than Moviezyng?

[drat]

My pre-order from DeepDiscount hasn't shipped out yet.

[Gunsnroses092789]

Originally Posted by drat

My pre-order from DeepDiscount hasn't shipped out yet.

Thanks for the reply

Yeah, my Bullmoose order hasn't shipped yet. Seeing as Amazon and DD both list it as not in stock, I'm guessing that no retailer has actually received stock.

[LordSummerIsle]

Originally Posted by noirjunkie

It's a black and white film in Academy ratio that's 65 minutes long. It really doesn't need a BD-50.

I don't really need a Mercedes, but I have one.

[Gunsnroses092789]

Originally Posted by LordSummerIsle

I don't really need a Mercedes, but I have one.

Again, since you’re stubborn and ignorant on disc authoring and just seem to want to trash releases, a maxed out bitrate for a film of these specs would comfortably fit on a BD-25.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by LordSummerIsle

I don't really need a Mercedes, but I have one.

So it would be nice to know it was on BD-50, even though it likely wouldn't result in any meaningful improvements whatsoever, and would just cost the company more money to manufacture. Is that basically the gist of your argument?

[LordSummerIsle]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

So it would be nice to know it was on BD-50, even though it likely wouldn't result in any meaningful improvements whatsoever, and would just cost the company more money to manufacture. Is that basically the gist of your argument?

Yes.