Horror of Dracula (Dracula 1958)

[oddbox83]

If you want it as it was originally cut for the US, this won't be it. The BFI restoration pre-Japanese bits is still a hybrid cut between the US and UK versions.

[babybreese]

Semantics.
BFI did the film straight. Only difference is the title card.

Hammer got the Japanese footage integrated into the BFI restoration in 2012.

The bad colors are pre baked in either way.

[CompleteCount]

Originally Posted by jimqk

Been on a big Hammer kick after watching WAC's Satanic Rites of Dracula several times since getting it.

Take heart: there is so much better to come!

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by babybreese

Semantics.
BFI did the film straight. Only difference is the title card.

Which is a difference. They didn't "do it straight" either. It's an amalgam of UK and US film material to create the (then) longest known version with the original UK title restored. Fact, not semantics. I don't even know why I have to be arguing this, how bizarre.

[brettsinclair1]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

Which is a difference. They didn't "do it straight" either. It's an amalgam of UK and US film material to create the (then) longest known version with the original UK title restored. Fact, not semantics. I don't even know why I have to be arguing this, how bizarre.

IIRC the title card was a reconstruction too wasn't it? They didn't actually find the footage.

Reported elsewhere that the cold colors match the UK prints while the warmer version matches US prints.
After 60 years it's anyones guess

[RICKBONDOO7]

I am Very Happy with my UK Dracula Bluray. I just watched it again last night. It looks Great ! It has that Blue look to it like it was supposed to have. Great commentary by Marcus Hearn and Johnathan Rigby. I wish they could do all the Hammer Film commentaries. I want the WB version because of the different title card Horror of Dracula, and it will have a different look too it compared to the UK Bluray. I'm sure WB will do a Good job. Can't wait to see it.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by babybreese

Semantics.
BFI did the film straight. Only difference is the title card.

Hammer got the Japanese footage integrated into the BFI restoration in 2012.

The bad colors are pre baked in either way.

The “bad colors” were baked into the awful MGM “Good, the Bad & the Ugly,” too, but I still managed to re-color it correctly on my home computer. It’s certainly possible to at least mostly correct if a company knows what they are doing. (Kino did not, which is why their attempt to re-color TGTBTU looks worst than the MGM.)

[sa5150]

I have the anolis and uk blu's is this going to have better pq ? Is says a 2018 restoration ,

[brettsinclair1]

Originally Posted by RICKBONDOO7

I am Very Happy with my UK Dracula Bluray. I just watched it again last night. It looks Great ! It has that Blue look to it like it was supposed to have. Great commentary by Marcus Hearn and Johnathan Rigby. I wish they could do all the Hammer Film commentaries. I want the WB version because of the different title card Horror of Dracula, and it will have a different look too it compared to the UK Bluray. I'm sure WB will do a Good job. Can't wait to see it.

I think the Warner Blu is going to retain the UK title card as the blurb on page one says "this is the UK version titled Dracula".

[Mr. Thomsen]

Originally Posted by Mystic

I like the style of the cover art.

That's from the old French poster, right?

[Partyslammer]

Originally Posted by RICKBONDOO7

I am Very Happy with my UK Dracula Bluray. I just watched it again last night. It looks Great ! It has that Blue look to it like it was supposed to have. Great commentary by Marcus Hearn and Johnathan Rigby. I wish they could do all the Hammer Film commentaries. I want the WB version because of the different title card Horror of Dracula, and it will have a different look too it compared to the UK Bluray. I'm sure WB will do a Good job. Can't wait to see it.

I love the UK Blu-ray for the extras. I think the unrestored Japanese reels of the last 3rd of the movie is fantastic. But I hate the revisionist color grading on the movie. It is absolutely *not* how the movie originally looked. Moreso, a lot of detail on certain scenes are too dark and crushed. Through the decades I've seen several different prints screened and none of them ever looked like the BFI color grading. I don't begrudge anyone for liking how it looks, but to say that is what the film originally looked like is simply not true.

[oddbox83]

I believe the experts who say the film looked quite different between US and UK release prints, with the US ones always having the warm look. IIRC they were done on different stocks, the US ones being Technicolor dye transfer which does give it's own look and what Warner are replicating for the US release.

Originally Posted by sa5150

I have the anolis and uk blu's is this going to have better pq ? Is says a 2018 restoration ,

All are be based on the same core 2007 restoration. What we know so far is that Warner are then going in a different direction with the grading and doing their own digital clean-up. We don't know yet what they are doing about the Japanese footage.

I personally would have preferred they didn't go with 1.66:1. If they are replicating US release prints I'd have liked 1.85:1. Warner aren't sticklers for exact AR though, they are usually quite loose, for example the other Hammer releases being opened up to 1.77:1 instead of 1.85:1. Which doesn't bother me, but may bother some.

[Robert Furmanek]

The intended AR during principle photography was 1.75:1.

Original 35mm release prints for both the UK and USA (I’ve handled both) were not timed with a blue bias. That’s revisionist nonsense.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Robert Furmanek

The intended AR during principle photography was 1.75:1.

Original 35mm release prints for both the UK and USA (I’ve handled both) were not timed with a blue bias. That’s revisionist nonsense.

Could you provide any evidence confirming that 1.75:1 was the IAR? I've seen plenty of evidence supporting that it was shown in 1.66:1, but never 1.75:1.

It's good to hear that the UK prints didn't have a blue bias as that's what I suspected. What I do suspect is that constraints may have led to an unfinished restoration. This wouldn't be the first time, I can think of other conpanies who have put out remasters that haven't been graded properly (resulting in uncorrected day-for-night shots, and yellow/green/blue casts). This isn't the colorist adding a "blanket tint", but rather not bringing the other colors out.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by babybreese

Semantics.
BFI did the film straight. Only difference is the title card.

Hammer got the Japanese footage integrated into the BFI restoration in 2012.

The bad colors are pre baked in either way.

Still posting the same nonsense?

You do realize what a negative looks like, right? You do realize that when a negative is converted into a positive that it's common for them to have a cast?

No "blanket tint" or any of this other crap, just basic grading knowledge.

[babybreese]

Yes, I am well aware.
You are not making a valid point though.

No blanket tint? When did I ever mention that phrase...never.

WTF are you babbling about.


The negative requires color timing, the BFI botched it.
The tech who worked on it explicitly said in an article that he decided to change the way it looked.

The botch is baked in and Warner's is using their master.

They know there is an issue here.
This is why they are 'attempting' to address it.

But the film requires a new scan, they are not doing one.

They are going to try and tweak the colors, and it will not fix the problem.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by babybreese

WTF are you babbling about.

LMAO, says the guy blatantly bullshitting and foolishly spreading lies and misinformation about a release that isn't even out yet.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

For the record, what the poster is saying about Dracula are recycled arguments of mine and a couple of other posters that applied to Kino's release of GBU.

The Dracula situation has absolutely nothing in common with the GBU situation. Anybody trying to draw similarities obviously has no clue about how color timing works.

[Partyslammer]

Originally Posted by babybreese

(snip)

The negative requires color timing, the BFI botched it.
The tech who worked on it explicitly said in an article that he decided to change the way it looked.

The botch is baked in and Warner's is using their master.

They know there is an issue here.
This is why they are 'attempting' to address it.

But the film requires a new scan, they are not doing one.

They are going to try and tweak the colors, and it will not fix the problem.

Here's the thing.

When the scan was done to get a new digital master in 2007, that was a scan of the film elements *before* any new color grading was done. It's likely the UK title card and tiny additional footage was re-integrated at this point (reportedly using a 16mm UK print source).

That digital scan was then digitally cleaned up and regraded at YCM. It's unfathomable to believe YCM wasn't handed a digital file *copy* of the scan to work with the original unmolested raw scan being archived somewhere (presumably Warner Bros US) for for protection and possible later further work. It just seems preposterous that Warner Bros would make one digital master of a archival scan with no back-up and allow color timing and clean-up work directly on that only file. Also, the fact that there's a non-BFI color timed version of the 2007 scan that includes the US "Horror Of Dracula" title card as it was shown on TMC in October indicates WAC has a original, superior (or simply unmolested) more accurate color timed scan/restoration to work with.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, the wording of this release was a bit confusing, especially when WAC says "BFI restoration and UK "Dracula" title card in the description. I suppose there's an infinitesimal chance WAC would attempt to regrade the 2007 color timed transfer or just put out the same "blue" color timed UK 2007 transfer which would indeed be disastrous. But WACs track record shows they're a *lot* smarter and more caring about what they put out and I'd think the odds are about .0001% this would happen. Add the fact the WAC rep on Facebook has assured to a small degree they are doing a new "restoration" and not using the BFI color timing is reason for optimism.

[Partyslammer]

This may be kind of thread crapping, but to sort out some apparent confusion as to the process of the BFI's 2007 restoration and later discovery and inclusion of the Japanese footage into the UK Blu-ray release, this is the short documentary on the subject:

Dracula B.F.I. 2007/2012 Restoration Feature - YouTube