Horror of Dracula (Dracula 1958)

[bigbadwoppet]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

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.

I'd like to see some actual documentation myself. So far, I've only seen statements by all sorts of people claiming that it should be 1.75:1 and not 1.66:1 but I'm afraid that's not enough for me.

Regardless, if done properly, a 1.66:1 transfer should include all information contained in the 1.75:1 frame and a little more and it would still qualify as a theatrical matted ratio. Horror of Dracula is partially hard matted and it allows for framing at 1.66:1. I'd rather have a little more head room (as long as it's not open matte) than the awful 1.78:1 framing from the old DVD.

The colour timing issue is ridiculous. Jack Asher's cinematography is known for its saturated colours. Experiments in desaturated colours from the period are few and far between (Moby Dick in '56, The Deadly Affair a decade later). If that had been the intended look on HoD, we'd have heard about it way before the UK BD had been released.

[The Batman Professor]

Originally Posted by bigbadwoppet

I'd like to see some actual documentation myself. So far, I've only seen statements by all sorts of people claiming that it should be 1.75:1 and not 1.66:1 but I'm afraid that's not enough for me.

Bob Furmanek’s word is good enough for me. Jack Warner could crawl out of the ground and tell me differently, and I still take Furmanek’s word over his. This constant kvetching over AR is so tedious.

Did anyone hear that this will be a BD-R? Terence Fisher told me via Oujia.

[Scope55]

I have to say, some of you blokes are unbelievable

All anybody knows about this is what is written in the first post, ie: Warner Archive’s new release restores the original color palette of the film, using dye-transfer Technicolor prints as reference, and that it is the UK version titled Dracula

So far, I am very interested, and I am completely nonplussed about the idiotic comments some have posted here.

How could any of you possibly know what this will look like?
How do you know it is a replicate of the already available Lionsgate blu?
Did you not read or understand the original post ?

And yes, I know that it says "Warner Archive's NEW RELEASE" rather than new restoration - but it also says that it "restores the original color palette" That's all we know at present, and that all sounds positive, doesn't it?

No, apparently not. There has been a lot of talk about baked in color - whatever that is. In the digital age, nothing is "baked in" - using a keyboard and a mouse everything can be adjusted, up and down, back and forth, letterbox or smilebox, bluer or oranger........

The film clip above very interesting - someone actually admits that the color grading has been "adjusted" Astute viewers should note that even though the raw Japanese footage is dirty scratched and broken, the colour is still vibrant. And check out the clip at approx 16.00 - when Dracula is kissing Mina before he bites, and the footage changes from Japanese to restored - and the colour is sucked right out of the image, as if - why just as if Dracula himself had stuck his fangs into the negative !

I had never seen any of these classic Hammer films until the VHS era, as here in Australia almost all horror films were banned (we finally got a new censorship system in 1971). When I was 13 years old in 1971, I read Carlos Clarens Illustrated Survey - in discussing these early Hammers he mentions vibrant hues and lushly colored sets. And it was in this book, that I first read about Hammer preparing different versions for different markets, "and a considerably stronger one for Japan" (pp 209). I was astounded to find out that it was actually true !

I love the Lionsgate blu - and when I watch it I try to imagine the effect it had on viewers when it was released, trying to think back to 1958. I am disappointed that the colour is so muted, but as the longest available version with the legendary Japanese footage reinserted it is probably one of the blus I will grab when my home catches fire !

I am very excited for the WAC release, and let's talk about it AFTER we have seen it, then if there is something to whinge about...............

Steve in Australia

[Mystic]

This thread is going to be entertaining.

[captainsolo]

I think the best proof over the blue timing issue is had by looking at proper transfers or prints of any other Jack Asher shot Hammer in the early period of horrors with many of the same key cast/crew-none of them resemble that regrading just as no other version I've ever seen does.

As for the ratio, 1.75 is perfectly feasible and it is likely that there are official documents indicating such, as per Mr. Furmanek's usual detailed researches. That said, I do think 1.66 is the way to go on these personally but would be really happy to have multiple ratios since that sort of thing sets off my super comparison nerdiness.


Unfortunately this will likely be pretty barebones. I'm figuring a 1.66 retimed high bitrate version of the source material likely with the UK title card only. The original work must have been done by MPI or approved by them much like the source for the UK COF Blu-ray was a MPI scan of their best element from years past. If anything of the lost footage is included I'll be ecstatic.

If the film is properly timed then I'm over the moon. Anything else to sweeten the deal is phenomenal.

But I truly hope HoD is on the titles somewhere.

[captainsolo]

Here's the faded 16mm version from this week:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Horror-of-D...-/113375098603

And here's a 16mm IB Tech from a listing:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/16-mm-funci...-/173183000917

Note these are photos of projected images and thus not correct. They are merely to give people an idea of what one looks like when projected.
You will have to click view original listing to see the photos.

[SMOOT]

Originally Posted by brasil

It's an awesome film and childhood favorite, re-run many times in the States when I was growing up.

For it's time the "special effects" are great. I was too young to see it in theaters (only on TV) but I bet it caused quite a theater stir in the final scene when Dracula is "killed." Wish I could go back in time and view when it was released in theaters. I did see Empire Strikes Back opening day, and recall when Darth Vader told Luke he was is father, the whole theater gasped!

Wouldn't be surprised if Dracula 1958 got reactions like that in theater in it's day.

Yes, it did get those kind of reactions. We even jumped for joy when we saw the effect of Peter Cushing's cross on the forehead of the Aunt Lucy character.
It was a step up in color and thrills for those of us who were pre-teen at the time.

[Richard--W]

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.

Agreed. Bob Furmanek knows whereof he speaks.

I've seen Horror of Dracula projected in 35mm over a hundred times since
1967 (sometimes with Curse of Frankenstein) and there is no blue-bias in
those original prints. It's a favorite movie experience of mine. The first time
I saw Horror of Dracula it was missing the opening titles. The film started
with a jump straight to Jonathan Harker's journal being opened. But it looked
beautiful. Let's hope Warner Archive studies the actual 35mm IB tech prints
projected and not just their scan. These are special films, deserving meticulous
care and special edition treatment.

This double-feature remained popular throughout the 1960s and 1970s and played
throughout the USA every Halloween season, usually in weekend matinees. The
DVD is a more recent thing.

[DrCushing]

A frame from my 35mm IB Technicolor print in my archive. I have a very beautiful 16mm print as well. This compressed scan is from a flatbed Epson...looks much bolder when projected.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by DrCushing

A frame from my 35mm IB Technicolor print in my archive. I have a very beautiful 16mm print as well. This compressed scan is from a flatbed Epson...looks much bolder when projected.

Wonderful!

Dr. Cushing, please scan more frames for us. Many more frames.

Please!?

[DrCushing]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Wonderful!

Dr. Cushing, please scan more frames for us. Many more frames.

Please!?

[Deciazulado]

Bob has the UK widescreen transition documented in the 3-D Film Archive site.


Relevant:
1.75 UK Standard, Feb 10, 1955
July common 1.65 top for 1.65/1.66/1.75/1.85 recommendation. With dimensions.
etc. "The Cameraman is required to keep all the essential action above a line representing the bottom line of the 1.85 to 1 picture"

Lots of more info.

The old 1.78 DVD is zoomboxed, cropping the height and the width.

The colorful "cap" the other day is 1.75 and nobody said anything.

No "Deci you butcher!"

1.85 US Standard, 1956

1,75dratec.jpg

[CinemaScope]

Yeah, the Warner DVD set had the tops of heads cut off, but the picture looked very nice & colourful (maybe just a tad light). I do think a more carefully worded description from Warner would have been helpful & cleared things up, but then this thread wouldn't have been so much fun.

A comparison between the Warner DVD & the BFI Blu-ray:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=22...13&i=0&l=0&a=1

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by brasil

It's an awesome film and childhood favorite, re-run many times in the States when I was growing up.

For it's time the "special effects" are great. I was too young to see it in theaters (only on TV) but I bet it caused quite a theater stir in the final scene when Dracula is "killed." Wish I could go back in time and view when it was released in theaters. I did see Empire Strikes Back opening day, and recall when Darth Vader told Luke he was is father, the whole theater gasped!

Wouldn't be surprised if Dracula 1958 got reactions like that in theater in it's day.

I did see it in the theater and I can tell you it was mesmerizing. The ending was a mixture of thrills

[Show spoiler]Van Helsing's dash across the table to the curtains

and horror

[Show spoiler]the disintegration of Dracula.

I came out of the theater more than just a little bit shaken and didn't sleep well for a few days.

[captainsolo]

I’m so glad there is much discussion ongoing here. I was starting to think this would never be released on disc here or ever fixed!
Those print captures look fantastic DrCushing!! It’s long been a dream of mine to see any Hammer in IB tech.

As for the old dvd I think its main issue is that it was likely prepared for a final widescreen letterboxed Laserdisc release but was shelved due to WB handing off their division to Image and the format ending. CoF barely made it out in a letterboxed reissue in limited quantities and a friend told me their copy seems to be identical to the DVD. (The disc is quite rare and expensive so I’ve never found one.) This would seem to be why that disc is similarly light in picture and was an early dvd release. Perhaps The Mummy was due for similar treatment but for some reason that film has always looked better on all formats than either CoF or HoD.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by 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.

LOL, just from this post, it’s obvious you’ve never actually graded a film, or even understand how digital grading works.

Doesn’t need a new scan at all, and yes, as someone who’s graded several films, it can be “tweaked” 100% with no issues.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

With all due respect to Mr. Furmanek, multiple parties have uncovered and reviewed the most direct evidence in existence and have insisted that 1.66:1 is the ratio it should be projected at and was ideally projected at.

Primary source documentation while very useful has been proven to be unreliable at times (not just when it comes to film) and as always there are exceptions to any "rule". For example while Night of the Living Dead may have been shown in 1.85:1 theatrically, it was definitely composed and intended to be shown in Academy, despite how shoddy the framing may look at times, which can look amateur in any ratio (although that is said to be intentional).

In other words, I am definitely not going to dispute the corroborated claims of Warner and Hammer, along with unpublished evidence I've been privy to, unless a better case is made for 1.75:1. If there's direct evidence suggesting 1.75:1 is the correct ratio then it should be made available to the public.

[oddbox83]

I don't think there is any proof this is supposed to be 1.66:1. I'd love it if you could share some? I'm sure Mr Furmanek would be equally as interested since you seem so sure.

BTW, for those unsure what a "common top" is, it's a way to compose safely for different projection ratios while preserving the integrity of the top of the framing*. The top of the 1.65/1.66 frame is the top on all extractions, it's just the bottom that is cropped. The hard mattes on Dracula also shouldn't be taken as gospel for the ratio - they are looser than the projection ratio again for safety reasons so the soft edged hard matte didn't slip into shot and become a distraction upon projection.

*I initially called this outdated, then remember it was used much more recently with Super35 shooting even if it was called something different, allowing lots of flexibility for 2.35:1, 1.85:1 and 1.33:1 extractions. Obviously 1.33:1 extractions are outdated. Extra boobs at the bottom of the 4:3 Terminator 3 for example when they were still making 4:3 versions for TV.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

I don't think there is any proof this is supposed to be 1.66:1. I'd love it if you could share some? I'm sure Mr Furmanek would be equally as interested since you seem so sure.

BTW, for those unsure what a "common top" is, it's a way to compose safely for different projection ratios while preserving the integrity of the top of the framing*. The top of the 1.65/1.66 frame is the top on all extractions, it's just the bottom that is cropped. The hard mattes on Dracula also shouldn't be taken as gospel for the ratio - they are looser than the projection ratio again for safety reasons so the soft edged hard matte didn't slip into shot and become a distraction upon projection.

*I initially called this outdated, then remember it was used much more recently with Super35 shooting even if it was called something different, allowing lots of flexibility for 2.35:1, 1.85:1 and 1.33:1 extractions. Obviously 1.33:1 extractions are outdated. Extra boobs at the bottom of the 4:3 Terminator 3 for example when they were still making 4:3 versions for TV.

If you want to go down this route, then can you show me anything that suggests that the film specifically should be shown in 1.75:1? It's been generally accepted for the past few decades that 1.66:1 was how it was intended to be shown. The onus of proof is on those who insist it was shown in another ratio or doubt that 1.66:1 is incorrect.

Hammer stated that they shot the film for 1.66:1, Warner reviewed direct specs, which holds a lot more weight than primary source documentation, and determined that 1.66:1 was the original ratio, BFI came to the same conclusion too. People in the know have shown me prints where it states on the canisters themselves that it should be shown in 1.66:1, I have seen evidence in person.

Please note that Furmanek states that 1.75:1 was the "intended" aspect ratio during production. This doesn't mean that it was projected in 1.75:1, or was requested to be shown in that ratio. One would only know this information if they had access to original specifications, storyboards and the like. It may very well have been the "intended" ratio, but I'm not going to blindly believe it without any evidence.

If people want to moan about Warner presenting it in the wrong aspect ratio, then first they need to prove that it's the wrong ratio. If Furmanek has proof then he should have revealed it to Warner at least and if there was weight to it then they would have corrected the ratio (they are not like MGM), if the best evidence is non-specific aspect ratio production records, then Warner, Hammer and various film preservation libraries have evidence that greatly outrank that and they made the best and most rational decision by adhering to that.

[SMOOT]

Originally Posted by captainsolo

Perhaps The Mummy was due for similar treatment but for some reason that film has always looked better on all formats than either CoF or HoD.

Might want to look at that old Warner DVD of 1959 Hammer Film "The Mummy" -- Soft as mush and brown in colors. Worse that the DVD of Horror of Dracula, but, yes, The Curse of Frankenstein has been really poor for decades. I do have hopes that something of its original glory can and will be restored.

I've already pre-ordered two copies of Horror of Dracula. Call me excited.