The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) now with 2025 Hammer Editions

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Killer Meteor

I got a better picture out of Curse with my TV controls - increase the contrast, decrease the brightness, bump up the blue.


Sadly, there are three different aspect ratios on DVD - the 1.85:1 Warner release, and the 1.331 and 1.661 transfers on the UK BD. All of them are wrongly framed! Even the open matte 1.33:1 looks weirly zoomed it in the cemetery scene just after

[Show spoiler]Frankenstein kills the professor.

. i wonder if they zoomed into it to hide some possible empty space on the matte painting of the crypt, with the eagle on top.

I’m afraid you’re wrong.

Someone dug out and scanned a print. It is clear the full area was used it’s also clear that both widescreen crops are central, and the titles, and other shots, show a central crop is the only way to keep everything in.

[Killer Meteor]

Originally Posted by Pecker

I’m afraid you’re wrong.

Someone dug out and scanned a print. It is clear the full area was used it’s also clear that both widescreen crops are central, and the titles, and other shots, show a central crop is the only way to keep everything in.

I'm fairly sure that's not true, but please prove me wrong.

As in, where's the link?

[oddbox83]

A lot of this is educated guesswork, but:

I believe the 1.66 crop is correct for that ratio, even it it looks a bit odd because of the tighter matting at the top and loose at the bottom. This is likely because wider ratios should crop just the bottom, and keep the top the same as the 1.66 version. This is evidenced by a "common top" projection indicator someone dug up around the time of the BD. So it was shot "common top".

A lot of people, myself included, at first believed this common top should mean the 1.66:1 matting should have been higher too, but we were wrong. 1.66:1 - central matte. Anything wider crop, the bottom. Hammer themselves got themselves all convoluted over it themselves, they went for 1.37:1 as some sort of holy grail. Sure, if there's merit in an open matte transfer by all means let people see it, but it isn't the original ratio.

The common top style of shooting probably fell out of regular use precisely because of the lop-sided look this gave at some taller ratios. Just a guess, but central mattes became the accepted norm until a sort of common top shooting came back into use with the multiple-ratio friendly Super35 to allow for taller 4:3 TV extractions and the like rather than just cropping the sides or opening it all out in the traditional "open matte" sense. Example - extra boobies at the bottom of the frame in the 4:3 version of T3.

The 1.78 Warner DVD wasn't accurate to any sort of theatrical matte as it changed matting area a lot.

[paulboland]

Tadlow Music
Dracula/The Curse of Frankenstein
CD | Price: £ 14.95 | TADLOW032

Release Date October 25th 2019
World Premiere Recordings of the Complete Scores from Two Classic Hammer Films of the 1950s

Performed by the Acclaimed and Award-Winning City of Prague Philharmonic Orchestra Conducted by Nic Raine

DRACULA_COVER-2.jpg FRANKENSTEIN_COVER.jpg

http://www.tadlowmusic.com/2019/09/d...james-bernard/

[Eidolon]

It was proven ages ago, not long after this bd came out, that 1.66:1 is the correct ratio. Someone from Hammer restoration teAm was still insisting that it was oar 4:3, and was proven wrong when a 'veteran professional' jumped into the discussion with an actual exhibitors theatrical matte guide card for the film that they still had. What ot showed was that the film wasn't matted equally with the same amount cropped at the bottom and top as is usually assumed. The matte was slighly higher up than centre, with more information discaded on the bottom of the screen. I tried to simulate it as much as possible using the 4:3 version and my tv's options to move the image up and down, but the shape difference between 1.66:1 and the tv meant it just didn't work. Unfortunately i dont have a bookmark of the thrad or site where it was posted, and cant recall the name of the person in question. But it was a big thing at the time and proved conclusively that 1.66:1 is its correct matte, and exactly how it should be matted. No presentation currently available is correct, so therefore it's just a case of choosing whichever one suits you best in the situation. Personally after watching and testing my friend's bd, i didn't tbink it warranted the high expense of buying and I just stuck with the dvd, which framing aside has better pq. An upgrade needs to be just that, not forking out a lot of money just to swap one problem for another.

[oddbox83]

That was a misunderstanding because "common top" which is what the matte card indicated is a largely forgotten matting method before widescreen ratio standardisation. Basically, whatever ratio you crop to, you keep the top of the frame the same and crop the bottom of the 1.66:1 frame, probably all the way to from 1.75:1 though 1.85:1. To clarify, you crop centrally to 1.66:1, any wider extraction just crops further off the bottom and not the top.

[bigbadwoppet]

Originally Posted by Banned User

But if you can have both its great IMO. Better resolution and interesting to watch to boot.

Plus according to Hammer

The comments on the subject at their site is very interesting to read through
http://blog.hammerfilms.com/?p=135#comments

I do like that they will be releasing both versions. Especially since originally it was going to be academy only.

The comments from Hammer are not based on evidence but on opinion. The thing is all matted films look sort of fine opened up to 1.37:1, as more information is included, but that doesn't mean they were composed for that ratio.

[ptb2010]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

That was a misunderstanding because "common top" which is what the matte card indicated is a largely forgotten matting method before widescreen ratio standardisation. Basically, whatever ratio you crop to, you keep the top of the frame the same and crop the bottom of the 1.66:1 frame, probably all the way to from 1.75:1 though 1.85:1. To clarify, you crop centrally to 1.66:1, any wider extraction just crops further off the bottom and not the top.

By 1957 virtually every cinema in the world had converted to show Cinemascope, so non Scope movies were shown with 1.85:1 masking in place.

[Eibon]

I don’t have this blu ray but I know it restores the eyeball shot originally cut. I have the Warner DVD and the shot dissolves from the procurement scene to a shot of Cushing viewing the eyeball through the magnifying glass. I’m presuming there’s just a Cushing POV shot restored now? In the trailer (also on Warner disc), the scene has Cushing raise the magnifying glass to his own eye so it plays better. Is that exclusive to the trailer? I don’t suppose the raising of the magnifying glass is part of the restored footage?

[RICKBONDOO7]

Keeping my fingers crossed for a December 2019 Bluray release from WBArchive ! A Restored Revenge of Frankenstein is coming November 18 from Indicator UK Region Free. So Curse is Very Over Due.

[RICKBONDOO7]

Originally Posted by paulboland

Tadlow Music
Dracula/The Curse of Frankenstein
CD | Price: £ 14.95 | TADLOW032

Release Date October 25th 2019
World Premiere Recordings of the Complete Scores from Two Classic Hammer Films of the 1950s

Performed by the Acclaimed and Award-Winning City of Prague Philharmonic Orchestra Conducted by Nic Raine

Attachment 227632 Attachment 227633

http://www.tadlowmusic.com/2019/09/d...james-bernard/

This sounds Fantastic ! I have listened to it 4 times already.

[babybreese]

Originally Posted by Eibon

I don’t have this blu ray but I know it restores the eyeball shot originally cut. I have the Warner DVD and the shot dissolves from the procurement scene to a shot of Cushing viewing the eyeball through the magnifying glass. I’m presuming there’s just a Cushing POV shot restored now? In the trailer (also on Warner disc), the scene has Cushing raise the magnifying glass to his own eye so it plays better. Is that exclusive to the trailer? I don’t suppose the raising of the magnifying glass is part of the restored footage?

This vid answers your questions
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2yhpvg

[Mikezilla3k]

Is this Spanish release any good?

[oddbox83]

Boot.

[Vault of Horror]

Leg.

Be wary of Spanish releases. Many of them are dodgy.

[RICKBONDOO7]

Where is the New Restored, Remastered Bluray already ?????????

[nastyyouth]

Originally Posted by Vault of Horror

Leg.

Be wary of Spanish releases. Many of them are dodgy.

Yes, this Spanish release is both bootleg and BD-R.

[WaverBoy]

Ya know, I watched this Blu the other day and I really don’t hate it. It’s actually not that bad; I don’t think it’s nearly as bad as people seemed to claim. And it’s lovely to have the open-matte option, which for this one is my preferred viewing ratio (yes, I know, shhhhhhh, don’t tell Mr. Furmanek ). It’ll do me just fine until a better restoration and remaster comes about (which I will certainly be buying unless it’s missing any footage that’s in the UK version).

[Killer Meteor]

The open-matte is currently the best option, as both widescreen transfers (the Warner DVD and the Lionsgate BD) are not matted correctly.

[oddbox83]

Actually, the more I know about this common top thing and how it works, the more I realise it is matted correctly for 1.66:1. However, the dead space at the bottom is suggestive it was primarily composed for a wider ratio. (1.66:1 uses the middle of the frame, wider extractions use the 1.66:1 top and crop more off the bottom.)