Yesterday, the Academy Museum ran an original print of The Little Mermaid (1989). A very rare treat. I think the last time it ran in 35mm in Los Angeles was about 20 years ago at LACMA.
A few things struck me. It is VERY grainy and much of the movie has a haze over it, sometimes quite strong. Even the end credits—the blue lettering bloomed into the black.
Most surprising to me was that Ariel’s hair is red-orange, not red. It had been so long since I last saw the movie that I had come to think it was red.
There’s a nice comparison here, comparing the new UHD to the previous BD. In every instance, the UHD color is too saturated and seriously goosed. The BD more closely looks like the print I just saw. The colors were vibrant for the time, but duller than we’re used to seeing nowadays.
Flicker Alley’s presentation of Mother (1926) is a bit of a throwback to when silents were released on home video with whatever print the distributor happened to own. Nowadays, with so many movies getting processed to death, it’s jarring to see a major silent presented as-is from a well-worn print. Still, the transfer is nice. Natural grain, no major compression issues, and most importantly, no restoration artifacts.
Clipped directly from the BD.
As you can see, it’s rough, but it’s nicely encoded. I suppose it could be processed with new grading and stabilization, but it’s so easy to be heavy-handed, that I think I’d prefer this. Besides, it’s clearly not first-generation material, so what’s the point?
The End of St. Petersburg (1927), also well-worn, derives from Mosfilm’s 1969 restoration. It runs at a variable frame rate, primarily 24fps (most of the time) and 18fps, step-printed in 1969. I wonder about the accuracy of this. 18fps makes sense for slower scenes in the first half, but the dips in speed are drastic and inconsistently applied as the action and editing get faster in the climax.
FA’s transfer has further stretching that results in random single frames being duplicated, mostly in the second half. Many of these are easy to miss amid the frantic action. However, it’s another nice encode.
Clipped directly from the BD.
When Mosfilm step-printed in 1969, they introduced a lot of debris. You can see this when frames get repeated; you end up with the same image getting completely different layers of dirt and different exposures. They also introduced gate weaving and occasional out-of-focus frames (at splices). By undoing their step-printing, we can get non-destructive repair:
Left: 1969 step-printing. Right: Step-printing removed and corrected to 60fps.
The difference is slight, but the right side is a little cleaner and gate weave is more natural and less…slippery. It may not be noticeable in this short clip, but over the course of the movie, and on a big screen, the 1969 step-printing defects are visible.
I am very curious what original material actually exists and its condition. Alas, Ukraine. Oh, well…
Mother is transferred at 20fps and encoded at 24fps. The End of St. Petersburg is transferred with a variable frame rate, 8-24fps, and encoded at 24fps.
Overall, very nice picture quality. Good grain, looks natural.
Clipped directly from the BD.
However, the 2.0 LPCM sound decodes as surround, not mono. It’s easy to fix, but something that should’ve been caught before the disc was released.
The restoration was also pretty good. I wasn’t noticing any obvious processing artifacts, until, at 1h24m:
Clipped directly from the BD.
Sloppy, 3-frame, quick-reversed, misaligned changeover cue removal (but only one of them). I don’t get the hatred for changeover cues. You’d see them if you went to a screening of a print. They are authentic and accurate. If all that exists has cues, then that’s okay. Leave them alone, especially when the retouching isn’t flawless and invisible.
This was the only restoration artifact I noticed. I’m sure there were more, but they didn’t stick out like this one.
The improper surround sound, though, was a serious error.
As part of the celebration of the reopening of the Egyptian Theatre here in Hollywood, the American Cinematheque ran a 70mm print of the 2002 restoration of Playtime (1967). Since Criterion released it twice on BD, each with radically different color timing, I took note of the color. A simple test: does it look gray, like metal, or brown?
Criterion’s first BD is close to the color you’d see if you went to a 70mm screening:
Notice how gray everything is. That’s the point. Paris’ colorful life obliterated by cold, drab, and homogenous modernism.
The 2002 version does have some computer repairs that I’d probably complain about if I got a chance to look closely, but I have yet to notice them during a screening, and I go nearly every time it plays in Los Angeles.
The 2013 version:
It now has L’Immagine Ritrovata’s characteristic urine-soaked color timing.
While the new version is sharper, less grainy, more stable, it’s ruined by the ugly color. Additionally, it’s riddled with interpolation that also freezes grain. It fakes frames that are intact in the previous version.
I first saw Playtime when the 70mm prints were still new, at least as late as 2004. It was stunning. Even with 20 years of wear, the print I just saw was still beautiful. All they needed to do was scan this negative, nothing more, and the BD would have looked wonderful.
After finishing Ashkan, the Charmed Ring and Other Stories, I popped in the disc of A Holy Place (Sveto mesto, 1990), and, by damn, it has the same frame rate problem!
Clipped directly from the BD.
Just like with Ashkan, it drops a frame every second. What a waste of a beautiful transfer of a lightly-worn print.
