logo Sign In

Post #1010644

Author
captainsolo
Parent topic
Idea: Original dark version of Batman '89?
Link to post in topic
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1010644/action/topic#1010644
Date created
18-Nov-2016, 1:57 AM

suFami said:

captainsolo said:

I have thought about this topic for ages!

The VHS and LD look to use the same master. The LD was brightened by the operator for CRTs. (From Widescreen review articles on both films) I have both VHS and LD and have compared the two. The VHS has an even brighter look due to the pan and scan done and an even greater contrast boosting.

Returns has the same video history. The initial DVDs for all four films used the previous video masters and maintain the video-ized look. With the higher resolution, the video nasties are easier to spot. When properly calibrated on a CRT it is possible to get something more akin to the theatrical darkness.

The SE masters stuck are more correct in resolution but maintain a level of video brightness not in prints. The Blu-rays (SEs in 1080p) are closer to the accurate look but still seem a bit off in terms of color depth and darkness.

I viewed Batman for the 25th Anniversary and set my monitor down levels to try and find a balanced look more in line with the print reports. After doing this I toggled between the LD and BD and found that in terms of basic color they are pretty near one another, but the former has that inherent softness indicative of a 80’s/90’s video transfer. My two cents: However despite being technically darker and sharper the BD does not feel as natural as the LD. Once darkened quite a bit, the LD feels like almost 16mm. It’s one of my favorite discs.

The new 5.1 track allows for a bit more breathing room and allows for one to hear the high end more clearly than on the LD PCM. That said, I still like the PCM. I assume the 5.1 is derived from the 4 track master (LCR, filtered out low bass for LFE, mono surround split) despite having a tiny bit of stereo separation in the surrounds. (The 70mm release was a Dolby 4 track with mono surround).

Joker’s reveal is a great example of how to do this. No matter what I put my levels at, no transfer can have the face in complete darkness. There is an outline where you can make out a face just barely, and if you are looking closely enough you can make out a faint ghostly visage. That’s about what I think the print would have resembled. It also feels like something Burton would do-almost Grissom’s A Christmas Carol for a brief second.

The big thing is not necessarily the darkness but the color depth and black levels that have been fubared. I have not seen a Batman print, but the Returns studio archive print from last year that made the rounds revealed that the video transfers on the sequel were severely lacking in depth and blacks thus making the effects and sets stick out like a sore thumb.

I made a self calibration shot using that cowl close up in Returns to try and describe what the print was like. It’s the color depth and black levels that are dense and intricate. I actually think Returns has a deeper palette due to Burton having full reins and being shot in the LA studio under refrigerated conditions. The first film was on the Pinewood set and has always had a grainier and hazy look to it.

I have a feeling if the BD could be addressed, the first film would not be so difficult. Returns would take a helluva lot of work to match the archive print. (That print was so dark and so dense that I felt it resembled paintings. Of course it was Technicolor.) And poor Forever looks pretty bad on BD.

And for all three I really prefer the Dolby Stereo matrix. They may not be as cleaned up or fully discrete, but they honestly perform better. You could probably do a better 70mm recreation for the first film with the 2.0 PCM than the 5.1. And only a handful (11 theaters worldwide) even heard the Returns 5.1 theatrically. That track was done as an afterthought.

http://i62.tinypic.com/f9ftw.png

I got to see a 35mm print of Batman Returns at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood back in summer 2014, right around when this post was written. After reading this passionate post I expected the 35mm print of Batman Returns to have a very dark atmosphere to it. Thoughts of The Godfather levels of darkness ran through my head. Unfortunately, the movie wasn’t that dark. I’d say the Blu-Ray is pretty accurate actually. I specifically paid attention to the shot above which had been posted earlier in this thread. Folks have said the following image is way too light and that Batman’s face should be hidden in the darkness, etc.
However, in the 35mm print I saw his face was just as bright and easily seen as in the image. The Egyptian theater routinely projects everything from 16mm to 70mm and every time I went the projection was top notch, so I don’t think the projectors are to blame. I think this just might be another case of people remembering a movie a certain way when it never was actually like that (like Luke missing the first throw).

The Egyptian were having a Batman themed week, so I also got to see beautiful 35mm prints of Mask of the Phantasm (how I much I would pay for a 35mm print of that!), and Batman '66. Oddly, Batman '89 was digital.

Hmm…that is strange. I don’t doubt you, particularly since the Egyptian is one of the best theaters in the world for presentation. I will say that I wrote that immediately after the screening and was not mistaken as to how dark the print was. I verified with the head facilities manager whom I’m friendly with that the Returns print was on Fuji stock and did not have the Dolby ac3 track. It had the 92 era logos and appropriate wear around reel changes, all indications that it was an original release print.

Did the one you saw have much damage? Any idea if the sound was Stereo SR or 5.1? If it was 5.1 it could have been one of the very, very few made for the small handful of theaters that had playback capability.