Thank God restorers exist. I always thought that Holliwood did take care of its masterpieces. Or even the director himself would take care of the original negatives, ensuring they are properly stored. To my dismal that was not the case.
Thank God for cinephiles. Had VHS, DVD and Blu Ray not exist, those film companies would never pay to have film negatives scanned and restored at 4K. Now for higher-bit restorations...
The director typically has no access to or control over film materials once the film is finished. The original materials are typically under the control of the production company and/or the company which financed the film. Companies go out of business, are taken over, can't afford restoration etc, etc over time and the people who ran them die and then often with small companies it becomes unclear who even owns the right over a film.
In many cases the film will fade to magenta over time, even under ideal storage conditions. Particularly late 1950s to early 1960s film stocks. So in many cases it is not the fault of the studio or the director. If anyone is to blame, it would be the companies that made the film stock itself because it was not chemically stable.
I'm 66 years old and while I have been a fan of Scorsese for decades, I find I love him now more as a historian and film restoration advocate but less so for his movies of the past couple of decades. .
What a wealth of information is Martin Scorsese I could listening an watch him talk about Film for hours its like a personal Film school. One of the many champions on film preservation an the importance on keeping Film history preserved for all generations.
That is incredible. The colour corrected version, the reds are insane. Beautiful work and Professor Scorsese's explanation was riveting. Criterion, you make life worth living.
A brilliant film. Olivier x Shakespeare is a combination sent to us mere mortals by the divine. Scorsese could discuss the inner workings of a vacuum cleaner and I would listen with the most intense concentration.
Claire Bloom was SO beautiful back in the day. Especially in THE HAUNTING where she had the groundbreaking role of one of of the first modern lesbians on film.
Although transfer to digital is great, it's not the do-all end-all for true film preservation. The reason? Digital storage formats are constantly changing. Remember 5 1/4 floppys? Or the old Zip drives? Also, the method of digital encoding of data has changed. The best development for the PHYSICAL preservation of film is a polyester based film stock. I've read that, under proper conditions of storage, it should last at least 700 years.
You're absolutely right that tech and digital standards are constantly evolving. Restorers absolutely shouldn't get complacent and should endeavour to future proof films as best they can during the restoration process. That said, nowadays most films shot on 35mm are being restored digitally in 4K, which is generally agreed by scientists to be the digital standard that matches 35mm the best as far as image quality is concerned. The amount of information you're able to capture by shooting in 4K is about the same as you're able to capture by shooting on 35mm. Going above 5K is considered excessive for restoring a film shot on 35mm.
I wonder why the extended cut of Once Upon a Time in America doesn't look this good. Scorsese oversaw its restoration. But looking at the image quality of the restored scenes, it just seems like the restoration was never finished. It's almost as if they didn't get enough funding. I really wish someone would re-release a proper 4k restoration.
Just got the Blu-ray and I am astonished at how good it looks! Having been used to the VHS tape then a very poor DVD version, you can now see the VistaVision clarity in all it's glory.
loved richard the third my late fathers fave play ever!! I have a great love for this movie! and to learn from a master class of acting is something else! I know word for word! and william walton music is for it epic!!
I watched Richard III on the Critierion streaming service. While the restoration is amazing and the film is a classic, the way in which the production was filmed back in 1955 makes the cuts and effects stick out alot. The studio and location switches for the battle sequence are glaringly obvious...also some of the matte paintings are questionably done.
After seeing this I look forward to finally seeing the movie. As with Welles' Chimes at Midnight, which I hadn't seen until recently, I've waited a long time to see it. Walton's music for this is one of the best film scores ever.
By concerning the Resolution (Chenically and Physically) an 35mm Kodak / Fuji Film Frame (up to 18Mp) just imagine the REAL resolution of an 70mm Film Frame (36/40 Mp)
This is my most favourite film have seen it sooooo many times, I know the entire film off by heart. Am puzzled though that one scene is still missing. It is where the Duke of Buckingham has been captured , following his betrayal of Richard to join up with Henry Tudor’s forces. Buckingham is sitting by a well, bemoaning his fate - he is to be executed mediately. By it was cut I’ll never understand, why it has never been reinstated ditto that sentiment Does anyone have any update, info. on this. Posted 30/5/2021
6:33 the color correction looks super natural BUT many many details got lost due the high contrasting, look at the face its all black and at the horse face the details are gone around the eyes. also the details are not anymore visable in the armor on the shoulders and in the bottom part.
@@spookylemon4947 so for every frame that was asked right? come on to much stuff got lost, that is not correct and good. if you darken some parts to make it a more dramatic ok, but clearly to much got lost.
@@DiegottlosenCharmeure I feel the same way when I saw it. I kept turning up and down the brightness on my TV, Definitely something Criterion doesn't usually do.
When digital technology is used as it should be to restore films to their past glory, not to destroy these classics with gratuities and idiotic changes.
Hope one day they find and restore director; Joseph L Mankiewicz's 1963 Cleopatra original 6 hour version like this! They say they're still searching for it, and that it'll be found and restored and re-released one day. I sure hope Hollywood inform us all when this'll happen. Its one of those movies where the story demands, it be seen finally in the director's intended vision. 2 hours cut from a 4 hour movie?! Sure hope time is on my side, and one day i live long enough to see the eventual 6 hour cut of Cleopatra!
That movie was filmed in 70mm film, meaning that one day we may be able to see it in full 8K as it was meant to be seen. I, like you, hope I live to see it.
Wonders why it take them so long to restore all the movies? it's easy nowadays no? Even to colorise black&white movies has been done and its perfect . I'm still waiting to have a DVD or Bluray colorised version from The Longest Day but purists doesnt allow it, strange our TV's has an option to put movies on Black&White guess they're lazy or? lol
Restorations are expensive, and it's not easy to get funding for a restoration, which is a big part of why it takes so long (and why only select titles are restored). But also, the actual work is still painstaking--even though computers make it possible to fix many kinds of problems, there are still usually thousands and thousands of problems that need fixing, and you have to go through them one at a time, and in such a way as to get the film to match the director's original intent. E.G. a single small scratch on a single frame that needs fixing might take hours, or all day, or days, to fix, since you'd (probably) have to manually paint out the scratch with tools similar to the cloning tool in photoshop. Even something simple like dirt being on the film poses that kind of work. The lengthy time it takes to do the work comes from the desire to get it perfect, so it looks like nothing was ever wrong with the film print to begin with.
Since we now have the tech it's relatively inexpensive to clean and scan the film before it deteriorates completely. Expensive restoration can be done later. Same with video and audio tape.
I can't believe he called Hamlet a film noir. Olivier confessed to Mel Bragg in an interview that the reason he did not do that in color was because he had a dispute with the film company. Not for any artistic reason. Further, in another interview. he said that he learned a lot from Citizen Kane.
0:01Have to disagree with Mr Scorsese here, Orson Welles' version of Macbeth (1948) Othello (1952) and Chimes at Midnight (1965) are way more important cinematically then any thing Olivier ever did with Shakespeare' text in Films.
4:59 I feel like they should’ve done something different to restore the lost frames. Certainly there must be other prints of the scene shown, and they could’ve implemented that frame from another source. As it is after the restoration, it still looks like a jump cut.
