Wrong cinematography info in review of "The Good The Bad and The Ugly"

[discking]

Greg Maltz's review of "The Good The Bad and The Ugly" errs in stating that the film was shot in Technicolor. It was not. It was shot in Techniscope, a format using regular color film and introduced by Technicolor Italia in 1963. Technicolor is a three strip color process. Techniscope was a wide screen format introduced to compete with CinemaScope. It used regular spherical lenses and "wide" frame 2:33 aspect ratio framed 2 perf pulldown 35mm, instead of anamorphic lenses with a 4 perf pulldown on 35mm film.

[GenPion]

If this is true, I guess someone should fix this. Good attention to detail!

[Sussudio]

discking - Best think to do is PM Gremal (Greg) so he can look into it

[Gremal]

Technicolor changed to Techniscope. The back of the packaging specifies both.

[discking]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Technicolor changed to Techniscope. The back of the packaging specifies both.

The packaging may say this or may say that, but TechniColor has always been and still is Technicolor, and Techniscope was just a wide screen format they were pushing at the time that used regular color film -- not the Technicolor process. They are completely different things.

Several European films in the sixties used it, as an economy measure. But due to it using only half as much film area per frame the quality difference between Techniscope and CinemaScope was substantial.

I am frequently surprised by the serious lack of understanding shown by the some of the Blu-Ray.Com reviewers of the history of cinematography, and especially the ever changing materials and techniques over the years that impact how well an older film transfers digitally.

Film stocks, studio and location lighting techniques, film processing and contrast management techniques all went through a lot of changes and fashions in the 1960-80s. Those changes created many of the visual sins of that era such as poor optical effects, pre and post exposure flashing of film stock for contrast control, diffusion filters, grainy release stocks, contrast reduction filters, and so forth. All of which make films from that era especially difficult to get good looking transfers from. However, that doesn't mean that a film looks "bad" because it's "old". It means the need to get a transfer right from the negative or first inter positive is even greater for these film.

In any case, you can get a Cliff's Notes education on Techniscope at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techniscope

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by discking

The packaging may say this or may say that, but TechniColor has always been and still is Technicolor, and Techniscope was just a wide screen format they were pushing at the time that used regular color film -- not the Technicolor process. They are completely different things.

Yes, you caught a typo. Thanks for pointing it out. The names are similar, the mistake was made, acknowledged and fixed. If you see any other typos, we appreciate you letting us know.

[discking]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Yes, you caught a typo. Thanks for pointing it out. The names are similar, the mistake was made, acknowledged and fixed. If you see any other typos, we appreciate you letting us know.

Thanks. I do hope that the powers that be at Blu-Ray.Com may have a sit down with al the reviewers and see if they can perhaps upgrade the cinematographic knowledge and historical perspective of the reviewers. I see all kinds of flaws and faults in transfers mis-attributed in Blu-Ray.Com reviews to all kinds of things in "old" films. Frequently, these assumptions are just wrong, sometimes hearsay, sometimes received wisdom, sometimes right.

Film criticism geared toward assessing the value of a Blu-Ray disc, that embodies the quality of a transfer, should also include an accurate and knowledgeable perspective on how the original film was made, and duplicated, so sharpening the knowledge base in this area would be a good thing for the reviewing staff.

It might also be helpful for reviewers to state if they are watching a film on LCD or plasma, if they are watching in 24p mode and, VERY IMPPORTABTLY, if they are using Deep Color gamut enhancement, all of which may skew impressions and reports of "good transfer", "mediocre transfer", etc.

[Gremal]

Coming from an audio background and as a prior reviewer for Positive Feedback, I am very sensitive to source material as it relates to a finished product on high resolution digital. For example, the inclusion of Louis Armstrong's late '20s recordings that are included on his SACD of "Satch Plays Fats" were transferred from the original acetate. While they didn't sound as good as the Plays Fats session itself, which was recorded in the '50s, the material was a revelation to me. I believe the picture quality of GBU is a similar revelation and I say so in the review. When information is available to me about the details of the film stock and camera setting details used, I do not mind including it in the review, but the majority of our readers care more about picture quality of the Blu-ray in an absolute sense. They aren't as interested in the distinction between a great transfer made from problematic source material versus a mediocre transfer made from a pristine source. I do try to make that distinction but most of the denizens just want to know how the BD picture looks.

[discking]

Originally Posted by Gremal

... the majority of our readers care more about picture quality of the Blu-ray in an absolute sense. They aren't as interested in the distinction between a great transfer made from problematic source material versus a mediocre transfer made from a pristine source. I do try to make that distinction but most of the denizens just want to know how the BD picture looks.

A CD/SACD reviewer might say the same thing about the quality of a recording in the "absolute sense". But in your audio analogy you cited a number of examples, in the audio realm, of the sort that I am talking about the same way in the motion picture realm. People who know movies, and how they're made, may be more interested in these details than you think, even though you may not be that well versed in that particular level of discernment for that art form.

You are, obviously, very sensitive to audio related issues. But what if a guy who said he was "mostly a film guy..." was reviewing audio recordings, and made a number of dubious statements about the origins of or methods used for the recordings being reviewed? In the case of the GB&U it was just a minor point of who did what and how. But I have seen quite a few misstatements in Blu-Ray reviews that related to the video quality being affected by the film being an "old film". Some reviewers betray their youth by referring to films from the 80s as "old films" and also seem to assume that all "old films" were done the same way with the same materials.

There seems to be a woeful ignorance, especially of the various ways film was manipulated for aesthetic or compensatory reasons in the 60-80s, which produced films which were sometimes interesting and pleasing in theater projection at the time, but that now amount to them being "damaged" in terms related to getting good looking transfers.

In any case, it never hurts to know the details of your references when you're expressing critical views of an art form...

[abintra]

discking.. Are there any reference sites you can recommend for one that is interested in learning more?

If not, I would be interested if you care to post some more of your knowledge in the future.

[Ken Brown]

Hey Discking. I also think it would be helpful if you (and other helpful folks like you) sent a PM to the appropriate reviewer anytime you noticed an inaccuracy in a particular review. I'm not suggesting other people should do our work for us, but readers also shouldn't feel that they have to sit idly by, frustrated by an error or inaccurate statement. We really value all of the input readers like yourself provide to reviewers -- just don't feel as if you have to keep it to yourself or that the only way to be heard is a generalized feedback post. We appreciate being informed of errors (especially specific ones) and, so long as we can verify the information being provided, we're quick to update our reviews and apply any gained knowledge to future analysis.

Thanks as always for posting! Your civility and expertise is a welcome addition to our boards.