Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

OHMSS by Lowry Digital


31 replies to this topic

#1 FlemingBond

FlemingBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 610 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Az U.S.

Posted 01 August 2010 - 11:07 PM

I've got the 2000 dvd version of OHMSS. I think it looks great. I've seen the version by Lowry digital on tv a couple of times on different channels. To me it looks really washed out, and the music too low. I get the impression they scrubbed too hard while they cleaned it up. Anyone else notice this?

#2 Bond Maniac

Bond Maniac

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 136 posts

Posted 13 August 2010 - 05:26 PM

I've got the 2000 dvd version of OHMSS. I think it looks great. I've seen the version by Lowry digital on tv a couple of times on different channels. To me it looks really washed out, and the music too low. I get the impression they scrubbed too hard while they cleaned it up. Anyone else notice this?


I don´t agree man, i have the Ultimate DVD and for me the image is perfect. I have never seen this movie as good as it is on this DVD. There must be something wrong on your TV, i don´t know, the movie is actually darker than the Sean Connery ones. Even on the snow scenes.

#3 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 13 August 2010 - 06:28 PM

You could be loosing something from the TV broadcasts. Are you sure it is the Lowry version they are airing?

#4 Aris007

Aris007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3037 posts
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 13 August 2010 - 07:12 PM

I also own the 2000 version and I think that the Ultimate version is much better especially if we're talikg about the sound.

#5 Mr. Somerset

Mr. Somerset

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1760 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 13 August 2010 - 09:43 PM

Having seen a crisp print of the film on the big screen last year, I'll have to say the 2000 SE dvd is a bit more accurate in the color timing, especially the PTS, which has a bluish look in the UE. I think I prefer the SE, but the UE certainly has nice sound.

#6 Bucky

Bucky

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 14 August 2010 - 01:42 AM

Having seen a crisp print of the film on the big screen last year, I'll have to say the 2000 SE dvd is a bit more accurate in the color timing, especially the PTS, which has a bluish look in the UE. I think I prefer the SE, but the UE certainly has nice sound.


i feel this is a more accurate assessment of the two transfers. the ultimate edition is sharper but there are some issues with the coloring, especially in the pts as you mentioned. i dont feel the ue is overly soft but it is not perfect. i hope that these issues are corrected for the eventual bluray release of the film.

Edited by Bucky, 14 August 2010 - 01:56 AM.


#7 Bond Maniac

Bond Maniac

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 136 posts

Posted 16 August 2010 - 02:37 PM


Having seen a crisp print of the film on the big screen last year, I'll have to say the 2000 SE dvd is a bit more accurate in the color timing, especially the PTS, which has a bluish look in the UE. I think I prefer the SE, but the UE certainly has nice sound.


i feel this is a more accurate assessment of the two transfers. the ultimate edition is sharper but there are some issues with the coloring, especially in the pts as you mentioned. i dont feel the ue is overly soft but it is not perfect. i hope that these issues are corrected for the eventual bluray release of the film.


Really? I must be crazy because i really didn´t noticed this blue tint mentioned. I guess this is because i last saw this movie in VHS and the copy was very bad.

#8 sthgilyadgnivileht

sthgilyadgnivileht

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1854 posts

Posted 16 August 2010 - 05:16 PM

This youtube vid shows how pronounced the blue tint is from the original.

#9 Bond Maniac

Bond Maniac

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 136 posts

Posted 16 August 2010 - 05:34 PM

This youtube vid shows how pronounced the blue tint is from the original.


Wow..amazing. The things is completely different. Is there any explanation for this ? Error on the restoration or something?

#10 sthgilyadgnivileht

sthgilyadgnivileht

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1854 posts

Posted 16 August 2010 - 07:38 PM


This youtube vid shows how pronounced the blue tint is from the original.


Wow..amazing. The things is completely different. Is there any explanation for this ? Error on the restoration or something?

Who knows. It may be the blue was how it was meant to look when they scanned the original neg, but I doubt it. Given it's well documented that cinematographer Michael Reed had difficulties getting the early morning look right, I always presumed it was irresistible for Lowry to restore it the way they did and make the studio and location shots look more seemless.

#11 Jaws0178

Jaws0178

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1612 posts
  • Location:Sioux Falls, Station SD

Posted 16 August 2010 - 09:55 PM



This youtube vid shows how pronounced the blue tint is from the original.


Wow..amazing. The things is completely different. Is there any explanation for this ? Error on the restoration or something?

Who knows. It may be the blue was how it was meant to look when they scanned the original neg, but I doubt it. Given it's well documented that cinematographer Michael Reed had difficulties getting the early morning look right, I always presumed it was irresistible for Lowry to restore it the way they did and make the studio and location shots look more seemless.


That wouldn't make sense though, because in The Man with the Golden Gun, they left in the "mirror incident" as documented in the Dr. No special feature "Licence to Restore" they said that all decisions like whether or not to remove evidence of the "mirror incident" should be left up to MGM, so I doubt that they would not change something in one movie, and make a drastic change in another. It is completely different though, and I had never noticed it. Good catch, FlemingBond.

#12 sthgilyadgnivileht

sthgilyadgnivileht

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1854 posts

Posted 16 August 2010 - 10:25 PM

Yeah but equally they altered the lighting in MWTGG on the ferry scene. From that documentary they do say it's their aim to properly match exterior and studio shots, which is surely the only justification they could use for adding the blue effect if it was not on the original print. Maybe it was something that just never got corrected. There was a similar colour problem for the location shot just after the titles in YOLT on the region 2 UE, but that was changed on the region one release. Roll on OHMSS blu-ray!

#13 Joe Bond

Joe Bond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 672 posts
  • Location:St. Louis, MO

Posted 16 August 2010 - 10:42 PM

I would agree that the UE is not a faithful repesentation of the film due to the colors that are a tad washed out then they are supposed to look. However, it seems Lowry had a second crack at the restoration of the Bonds they made mistakes. The iTunes HD version I bought removes the blue filtering on the PTS and other scenes in the movie and has much more saturated colors that really pop. Its also been used for some of the recent TV airings on G4 and Encore. Live and Let Die had color issues with the main title sequence which was fixed for the Blu-ray. Thunderball's UE DVD has washed out colors like the UE DVD of OHMSS and the Blu-ray of TB has more saturated colors that are night and day in comparison to the DVD. You Only Live Twice again was washed out on the UE DVD and in certain scenes had blue filters and its worse off than the UE DVD's of TB and OHMSS but the iTunes HD version I own is the exact opposite since the colors seem more saturated and natural. The only problem is when will MGM release OHMSS and the other unreleased Bond films on Blu-ray since this is where this problem ends. Here are some caps of my iTunes HD version of OHMSS:

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

#14 sthgilyadgnivileht

sthgilyadgnivileht

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1854 posts

Posted 16 August 2010 - 10:52 PM

The PTS captures here look very dawn like, especially the one in the middle.

#15 Bucky

Bucky

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 17 August 2010 - 01:27 AM

thanks for the screenshots joe, looks much more true to how i believe the film should look.

#16 Bond Maniac

Bond Maniac

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 136 posts

Posted 17 August 2010 - 03:43 PM

These captured scenes look beautiful. I will buy it.

#17 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 17 August 2010 - 06:53 PM

Oh, how I wish I had a Blu-Ray player.

#18 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 18 August 2010 - 02:55 AM

looks much more true to how i believe the film should look.

It does look improved, but I think the PTS is brighter still in the Special Edition. That's the closest to how the film should look, right? Shouldn't we be looking for an identical saturation level as that, but cleaner?

#19 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 26 August 2010 - 05:15 PM

The heavy blue tint is correct. Film stock of that era started degrading almost as soon as it came out of the processor, and the first thing to fade from it was the blue tint. OMHSS as seen on the big screen in 1969 had that heavy blue tint. One might not agree with the original choice to tint so heavily, but the UE restoration is 100% accurate.

#20 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 03:44 AM

When it comes to blue, you're the man - so I'll take your word for it.

#21 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 05:58 AM

Fading film stock is a bigger problem than just Bond, westerns shot in color back then tended to suffer the most, hardly any blue in them there desert vistas to begin with, even a re-release in '66 of a film made in say '64 would see a huge shift towards those warmer - even hotter - red tones. And by the time such a film was broadcast on TV, sheesh, if you never saw it first-run you just got trained to see a whole lot of not-meant-to-be-there red, cuz the blue done got faded away. No incentive for studios to protect processed film stocks back then like they do now (HD TV, DVD and Blu-Ray and streaming sales, etc.), shame that so many films will likely never again be seen in their original release state. :(

#22 sthgilyadgnivileht

sthgilyadgnivileht

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1854 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 02:29 PM

Fading film stock is a bigger problem than just Bond, westerns shot in color back then tended to suffer the most, hardly any blue in them there desert vistas to begin with, even a re-release in '66 of a film made in say '64 would see a huge shift towards those warmer - even hotter - red tones. And by the time such a film was broadcast on TV, sheesh, if you never saw it first-run you just got trained to see a whole lot of not-meant-to-be-there red, cuz the blue done got faded away. No incentive for studios to protect processed film stocks back then like they do now (HD TV, DVD and Blu-Ray and streaming sales, etc.), shame that so many films will likely never again be seen in their original release state. :(

This is all very interesting. Do you have any links where I can read more about this?

#23 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 06:39 PM


Fading film stock is a bigger problem than just Bond, westerns shot in color back then tended to suffer the most, hardly any blue in them there desert vistas to begin with, even a re-release in '66 of a film made in say '64 would see a huge shift towards those warmer - even hotter - red tones. And by the time such a film was broadcast on TV, sheesh, if you never saw it first-run you just got trained to see a whole lot of not-meant-to-be-there red, cuz the blue done got faded away. No incentive for studios to protect processed film stocks back then like they do now (HD TV, DVD and Blu-Ray and streaming sales, etc.), shame that so many films will likely never again be seen in their original release state. :(

This is all very interesting. Do you have any links where I can read more about this?

Uh, well I just now googled film stock fade, found this. I'm sure there's more info readily available, Wiki is useful too.

Also to consider, all those first-run 60s Bond prints that got used and abused and scratched up and taped together while run through projectors umpteen million times weren't ever tossed, but held onto for re-releases. No point striking new prints when crappy old ones will still sell tickets. Call it the curse of Bond in the first couple decades of EON's films, or for any popular film: just saw "Aliens" at a revival house, worst print of a film ever, scratched at reel ends/beginnings and missing chunks here and there, also color fade, but it's what was sent to the theatre to show. *shrug*

#24 oatesy

oatesy

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 223 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 27 August 2010 - 10:16 PM

Bond movies in the sixties and early to mid seventies were printed using the Technicolor dye-matrix process which has non-fading dyes, and will be showing correct colour even today. As blueman points out though, the prints originally struck in 1969 to the exact colour timing specification of Peter Hunt and Michael Reed will be damaged and unusable. The original camera negative will have faded somewhat, and in any case is untimed, so unless the original timing specifications have been preserved does not give a good indication of what the correct colour should be.

The special edition DVD would have been struck from a more recent print, printed on Eastman colour stock and therefore potentially faded, and also struck by a technician unsupervised by the director and DoP and therefore the colour timing may well be out.

The only source still in existence with the correct colour would be an archival dye-matrix print printed in 1969 and approved by Hunt and Reed. Such a print does exist as EON retains perfect copies of all the films in their archive. However it is evident that when Lowry restored the films little effort was made to time the pictures according to these prints (or existing scratched original release prints - which athough too damged to be used as a source, can still be used as a colour reference) or to seek guidance from the surviving directors and DoPs, as the timing on TB, YOLT and LALD was clearly out, and in the case of TB and LALD subsequently corrected for the blu-ray release.

Given that Reed is on record saying the pre-credits were shot to look like dawn the heavy blue cast present in the UE would appear to be an error, however there is little hope of confirming this today without reviewing EON's own print. Other contemporary sources (such as the original trailer on the UE disc) would also be dye-matrix printed and showing correct colour, but would likely have been stuck prior to the final edit and timing of the picture and therefore may not be 100% accurate, however the brief clips of the pre-credit sequence in the trailer suggest the SE timing is more accurate.

#25 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 28 August 2010 - 01:17 AM

This mini masterclass on this subject has been very enlightening. I appreciate the insights as I had no idea how much we aren't seeing as possibly intended. It's been the most interesting topic I've seen here in quite a while.

#26 sthgilyadgnivileht

sthgilyadgnivileht

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1854 posts

Posted 28 August 2010 - 04:10 PM

This mini masterclass on this subject has been very enlightening. I appreciate the insights as I had no idea how much we aren't seeing as possibly intended. It's been the most interesting topic I've seen here in quite a while.

Yes ditto, I like threads on CBn where I learn about the film making process. I need to read the posts and links again to make full sense of it, but the whole thing has been an interesting eye opener. I also wish the 'licence to restore' doc on the Dr No DVD was much longer and detailed. I would enjoy knowing much more about how each film was restored and originally shot. I think Ted Moore photographed the early Bonds to look American and the difference in developing as mentioned here between UK and US is something I never realised or considered.

#27 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 28 August 2010 - 06:34 PM

I also wish the 'licence to restore' doc on the Dr No DVD was much longer and detailed. I would enjoy knowing much more about how each film was restored and originally shot. I think Ted Moore photographed the early Bonds to look American and the difference in developing as mentioned here between UK and US is something I never realised or considered.

I enjoyed that documentary a lot and also wish it was longer. Unfortunately, it's aimed at a general audience and I'll bet 80 percent or more of the people who have the Dr. No DVD or Blu-ray watched it once and forgot about it or never bothered to watch it. The recent Godfather trilogy had a similar feature on its restoration.

Similarly, I am interested in the restoration and additions of the Bond soundtracks.

I didn't really know that about Ted Moore, which adds yet another layer I'd like to know more about. It's the sort of thing I'd like to see covered in a publication such as 007 if somebody had enough resources to track down interviews with Moore or those who worked with him, which can't be easy as many of those on the early Bond crews are sadly not with us anymore.

Either way, for me personally it beats yet another thread on who's your favorite Bond girl or what movie do you feel like watching. Not that there's anything wrong with those threads. Just they don't seem to add much to my enjoyment of the series by this point.

#28 sthgilyadgnivileht

sthgilyadgnivileht

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1854 posts

Posted 28 August 2010 - 09:40 PM

I totally agree with the above points.

Furthermore I'm sure the Licence to restore doc could have at least explained the limitations involved with scanning an original camera negative. The impression I got was this was almost the be all and end all to film restoration when, as I understand from this thread, original negatives can fail to preserve the original colours and look of the films.

#29 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 29 August 2010 - 07:23 AM

Bond movies in the sixties and early to mid seventies were printed using the Technicolor dye-matrix process which has non-fading dyes, and will be showing correct colour even today. As blueman points out though, the prints originally struck in 1969 to the exact colour timing specification of Peter Hunt and Michael Reed will be damaged and unusable. The original camera negative will have faded somewhat, and in any case is untimed, so unless the original timing specifications have been preserved does not give a good indication of what the correct colour should be.

The special edition DVD would have been struck from a more recent print, printed on Eastman colour stock and therefore potentially faded, and also struck by a technician unsupervised by the director and DoP and therefore the colour timing may well be out.

The only source still in existence with the correct colour would be an archival dye-matrix print printed in 1969 and approved by Hunt and Reed. Such a print does exist as EON retains perfect copies of all the films in their archive. However it is evident that when Lowry restored the films little effort was made to time the pictures according to these prints (or existing scratched original release prints - which athough too damged to be used as a source, can still be used as a colour reference) or to seek guidance from the surviving directors and DoPs, as the timing on TB, YOLT and LALD was clearly out, and in the case of TB and LALD subsequently corrected for the blu-ray release.

Given that Reed is on record saying the pre-credits were shot to look like dawn the heavy blue cast present in the UE would appear to be an error, however there is little hope of confirming this today without reviewing EON's own print. Other contemporary sources (such as the original trailer on the UE disc) would also be dye-matrix printed and showing correct colour, but would likely have been stuck prior to the final edit and timing of the picture and therefore may not be 100% accurate, however the brief clips of the pre-credit sequence in the trailer suggest the SE timing is more accurate.

The brief interview with Reed in Heffenstein's wonderful book mentions a 2-day shoot with 43 different camera set-ups, underexposing some shots, difficulty with varying light, etc. Nothing one way or the other about blue tinting, but can't help but think that would help tie all those different exposures together ala the night ski chase with its lots of obvious day-for-night (also heavily tinted) shots.

Never saw OHMSS in the theatre in '69, but saw the ABC TV version in the mid-late 70s (that sucker was very blue!), also saw it in re-release in the theatre about that time and remember being surprised at how washed out all the colors looked - saw all the Bonds (well, DN-TMWTGG, lol) on the big screen then, and yeah those 60s Bond prints looked like crap, kinda what got me interested in all this. For me, looking at the lighting palette for OHMSS, the blue tint in the pre-credits (and elsewhere) makes sense not just as a practical consideration but as obvious aesthetic choices for the era (I mean how about that wild purple antiseptic!). It's a very unique film in that sense, straddling some very saturated "wild 60s" colors with many scenes filmed with an almost documentary feel to them IMO, very natural without a lot of push to them. I like that about it, a fearlessness that matches the visual to the material in a particular scene the way a lot of films in that era did, just not quite as well as Reed and Hunt did in OHMSS. ANyway, 2 cents and a lot of foggy memory.

#30 sthgilyadgnivileht

sthgilyadgnivileht

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1854 posts

Posted 29 August 2010 - 09:38 PM

The brief interview with Reed in Heffenstein's wonderful book mentions a 2-day shoot with 43 different camera set-ups, underexposing some shots, difficulty with varying light, etc. Nothing one way or the other about blue tinting, but can't help but think that would help tie all those different exposures together ala the night ski chase with its lots of obvious day-for-night (also heavily tinted) shots.

Yes I agree. If its the case that the original blue tint was lost pretty quick from the original neg a good case could be made that the film makers added it for the original release. As you say It would follow what they did for the ski shots as the PTS composed of studio shots as well location filming. Hunt wanted realism and not a studio look for OHMSS and so avoided using back projection where he could - hence scenes like the helicopter trip to Piz Gloria featured the actual actors in the thing and no back projection was used. I would bet one of the reasons the escape from Piz Gloria by Bond was done at night was to minimise the obviousness of rear projection and increase the reality.