Info: James Bond - Laserdisc Preservations: 1962-1971 — Page 31

Williarob said:

Captain Solo, you are going to want to see this… The007Dossier takes a look at a 50 year old 35mm IB Technicolor print of Dr No:

http://www.the007dossier.com/007dossier/post/2016/07/01/James-Bond-in-Glorious-Technicolor

I just literally fell out of my chair at work. Now if only I can find my jaw on the floor…

Amazing truly amazing to finally see IB material from the initial three. The fact that the Criterion looks so close to the raw scan already is in fitting with my general feeling and preference for those older transfers. BTW did you use the CAV or CLV? And also the MGM disc from the Connery Collection uses the same print source with slightly better PQ. (Not to mention more open like their FRWL and GF at an odd almost 1.55:1 ratio) Criterions seem a bit hazy and contrasty when compared to MGM and other later studio transfers on LD, who had access to better sources or equipment. I’ve seen this on 2001, N by NW and even Forbidden Planet. That said there is always something to be said for their more vintage color appearance even though it seems very slight at times.

The SE is cropped and like the others that jumped from thx LD is a direct port for better or worse. The crop is rather awkwardly done and only enhances the video noise that was furthered by the thx processing which by and large affected the color and presentation of the ones that had it. This is even true of TSWLM and MR and their audio mixes as well. But image wise it strikes a nice middle ground in color and detail.

The BD has the detail but these print grabs despite not being graded show just how wrong at times the UE process could be. To my eyes DN and TB have a problem with being cast in shades of blue that at times can even manifest itself into shades of purple. This was most apparent when I saw the Lowry DN printed onto 35mm. The result is usually visible in skin tones, particularly Sean’s. Why this happens or how it happens is beyond me.

I have no idea what the UE teams (as there were several) used for reference or if they used any on all 20. The results vary widely but never seem to hold up when compared across the board and particularly not against original materials.

So it seems to fall like this from what I’m seeing with DN here:
Tech IB is the most colorful and saturated. Representative of what audiences would likely have seen on first run.
Criterion is a video copy of similar material that introduces a slight haziness and higher level of contrast due to the equipment and crts of the era.
MGM does their own transfer which is slightly sharper and better but is brighter and has slightly less color saturation in addition to being less hazy. In other words a step closer to the thx SE look.
The SE is an attempt at balance but seemingly without much reference as is the case with the others at this time and simply reutilizes the precasting master as do the rest. Badly cropped like FRWL and GF at this time.
The BD is the best in detail but the color differences cause the focus in scenes to shift at times. I still cannot always quite place my finger on it but it appears that something went wrong in the process which is always more evident on the older films. It goes without saying that there have already been numerous iterations of the Lowry work itself not to mention some BDs reverting to older transfers (TB, GE).

Man that is stunning. That’s everything I hoped and thought an IB of DN would feel like. I’d go nuts if I could ever see the whole thing.

Color wise the most damning ones to have IB evidence of will be FRWL (criterion and MGM wildly different, Lowry never feels right), GF (Criterion wildly different, first MGM too cold, 1995 stunning, Lowry all over the place), TB (1989 very saturated, 1995 box same transfer with little saturation, UE completely different, BD reverts to older work of some kind) and of course YOLT to finally see if the IB leans more towards the yellow cast older transfers or the colder BD.

Also, was this a US or UK Tech? The respective labs are always reported as having different biases so this is just out of curiosity.

I’m totally and completely geeking out right now. This is incredible stuff.

And good find on that FYEO. I’m thinking ac3 on print would be from the Lowry era 35mm prints as it also appears to have DTS timecode. As far as I know no new prints were struck otherwise during the digital sound era.

A handful of more 007 musings:

-After studying those screenshots more it may be very likely at least for DN that an IB was used for the Criterion/MGM LD.

-I think TB should definitely end with the TB end title reprise as heard on the mono mix. It fits thematically, it fits with Barry’s scoring technique and also matches his end title for Goldfinger which actually segues into a similar short end title instrumental on the soundtrack. I think the film differences may have been due to Peter Hint’s editing choices and that his documented love of the JB theme led to his use of it much to Barry’s consternation. This happened on both YOLT and OHMSS. So I’m thinking that if it was authentically put there in 1965 it was likely for a multitrack 70mm release with alternate dialogue etc and it was this that was unearthed in 1995 and utilized for the ProLogic stereo remix.

-I wonder if the new 4K DCP material will ever make it to homes.

-The THX discs for TSWLM and MR sound inferior to the original LDs, I’m almost positive it’s due to noise reduction as they don’t seem to have the same impact in the highs and for some reason a bit of the sound panning in the score is centered in TSWLM.

-Is it a sign of insanity that I just think about this stuff at random intervals during the day? 😉

Discussions on the film tech forum:

“What prompted this question was a discussion about the intended correct aspect ratio for The Man With The Golden Gun. In the USA, that would have been 1.85, but the actual prints are full frame with sections that are hard matted to 1.66. As this is a British production, I was wondering if it was intended to be shown 1.66 in Europe. The general consensus is that it was intended to be shown 1.85 everywhere.”

Later in the thread it was suggested that the film may have been shown at 1.75 in Europe.

After further comparison, the THX disc for TSWLM centers the dialogue AND score. The 5.1 was done and I believe the stereo matrixed PCM is a downmix. Why or how this was done is unknown or whether it is more accurate. Honestly I don’t think it is. Bond '77 in the PTS clearly shows the score being centered, as the opening bass notes are firmly centered as are the cymbal crashes in the chase. These were all panned hard right in the older release. It sounds as if they went back to the elements and played with the mix configuration in the 5.1 format.
Direct comparison to the older WS LD reveals the former as having a much better stereo spread and despite having some distortion and noise it is preferable I think. The film was supposedly a matrixed stereo release without Dolby encoding. No details of 70mm blowups have ever arisen.
The THX remaster has far better color and detail. The source transfer is identical, right down to the frame wobble in Gogol’s office after the titles. The THX DVD is a port and the SE is as well, though it may suffer from some additional processing.

Edit: the dts hdma on the Bluray sounds better than the 5.1/2.0 remixed track. It still centers everything but has far better clarity and detail in addition to better stereo imaging. Which is correct centered or not is unknown. Also the 2.0 track is the same as the thx LD.
The hdma has the original film version of the song.

This makes 4 mixes:
Original WS LD surround
Thx remaster 5.1/2.0
UE remastered 5.1 in Dolby/DTS with soundtrack title song
BD dts hdma remastered 5.1 with original song reinstated.

No idea. My best reasoning would be this:
The rumored 4K work is the source of the new 4K DCPs that are slowly playing in theaters, of which GE is reputedly a new master. TSWLM is likely the first of these that has actually hit disc as I don’t see it being done otherwise since GE reverted to the old master.

The video sourced UEs are all over the place in terms of processing. TSWLM seems to be the lowest quality source they got to use, and they processed the living hell out of it-more than usual. Thus the worst transfer of the series became the best on the next go round.

Also of note, the old LD does seem to support the color of the BD. And when viewed on proper equipment it holds up better than remembered, that is aside from two sequences which have that lovely 80’s/90’s MGM video nasty look to them.

Those caps are interesting TAF. I can’t tell what the source of the hdtv airings are though my suspicions would be an uprezzed or tweaked variant of the SE. Here’s a cap of the SE I just did really quick, and sure enough that fleck is there and the framing fits.

16mm Goldfinger IB Tech (Reel 3 only):

http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5575033532&toolid=10001&campid=5337201588&customid=Goldfinger16mmR3&icep_item=162123102676&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg
If you can win it, I can get it scanned, and then you can resell it…

I found the DTS Goldeneye.
…
It’s now my choice for best overall.
It may not be as detailed as later transfers, but it does do the best job at color balance and brightness like its ac3 counterpart. The SE is too brightened, the BD is better but not perfect, the UE/HDTV is too dark and shifted in color. The LD really is a nice balance between the filmic look and mastering from IP for home video.
Additionally I think the DTS track is better than the “hot” LFE Dolby I’m so used to. The LFE is far more controlled and more effective despite not pounding you over the head like the other one.
The mix sounds like what you hear on the lossless BD HDMA…but direct comparison shows they may have futzed with it just a tiny bit. The LD track just seems better…and this is while utilizing my new tower speakers and modern HDMI receiver. It may be another case of untouched audio wins the day vs. higher bitrate but slightly tampered.

And…all the bonus material is in DTS…including the TEASER!!!
…
I may have played it five times in a row…or more…my neighbors must hate me…

If you have a player, the Goldeneye LD is a must. On a good calibrated CRT, you will be shocked. It’s really one of the top 5 discs out there probably and the DTS version nails the sound.
Now to find TND.

I tried TWINE for EX.

Let’s just say I quickly realized that the sound design simply is not as good or involving as GE or TND.

The audio does indeed come out the rear but in fits and spurts. I tried both EX and PLIIx which the latter is technically superior. No copy is flagged for EX, and the track seemed the same on SE, UE and BD. Finally I watched the whole BD and toggled between straight 5.1, EX and PLIIx.

What I found is that the decoded track seemed to pull too much into the rears and not be very detailed. The weird thing was the best sound came from straight 5.1 and then there were (few) distinct rear center effects! These came out of nowhere, and were perfectly centered in the rear despite not having any rear decoding on!

So what I gather is, judging from the interview with the mixer who gushed about EX saying: "I just left it on while working, it’s great."
They simply put some noises in the rear by mixing them between the two rear surrounds.
Admittedly I’m not too experienced with this in my setup yet, but I did run tests with AOTC in EX-finding that it does help effects, pans and whatever was already there-also that PLIIx is better than EX and works with anything.

Unless that rare Japanese LD really does have an aggressive EX track, then this is as good as it gets.

I ran DAD decoded tonight. I think I may be the only person who has wondered about these weird early 6.1 systems as much and their applications today in HTs and Blu-ray.

I also may be a bit nuts.

The SE is flagged for both EX and ES. No other copy is.
The SE has some very very slight color differences, but I chalk it up to an older more inferior transfer. Otherwise they’re identical, but the SE is riddled with edge enhancement and is noisy. This why the UE/BD appears softer but are more correct despite Lowry probably degraining too much of the master.

Audiowise, the extra rears are primarily throwing around some score and extra effects. The Dolby EX track is noticeably better than the DTS ES, with better highs, bass and details. The DTS is a muffled in comparison. The UE seems to have the exact same audio tracks, as the Dolby is better and at the same old lower bitrate (384 kbp/s) with the DTS seeming slightly muffled. As always the UE’s levels may have been tweaked slightly but I cannot tell for sure. I think for DAD they merely used the previous DVD’s audio.
The BD DTSHDMA is likely the best audio as it doesn’t have the muffled problem and is the most detailed courtesy of the lossless encoding.
However, it is not encoded for ES and I had to force PLIIx to engage the surround back channels. IIx is a better decoder for all of these formats and is unlimited but I’m beginning to wonder if the original decoded rear channel can be brought back on newer releases that aren’t designated EX or ES compatible. Technically once something is encoded it should remain there but I can see a clueless person years down the road pull the source 5.1 audio or merely force 5.1 in the authoring stage and thus mess with or negate the intended rear center. Many people leave PLIIx on for all 5.1 tracks as it “envelops” the listener more, but I think this isn’t a good practice. I have had a hard time trying to figure out if TWINE and DAD are actually coming across as intended with a matrixed center rear or if they are merely being played back in the technically correct but still faux 7.1 of today’s home theaters.
Note: I did run every track in standard direct 5.1, Dolby EX, DTS ES matrix and PLIIx.
And as I use an action sequence and the title song to examine the soundmixes, I hope my neighbors like the hovercraft chase and Madonna.

Long story short, BD for video despite the film needing a new scan. BD for audio, but I give the purist nod to the SE DVD Dolby EX decoded into either EX or PLIIx.

It’s certainly full of activity, but after doing these I can’t say that either it or TWINE are as well mixed as GE and TND.
The SE of DAD was one of my earliest DVD purchases, and I had to save up my pocket money to do so. I saw it twice theatrically and still remember the opening weekend show in the big flagship Carmike theater with having the manager running in during the title sequence because he thought the expensive amps and speakers had just blown up, only to realize it was the title song, leaving, and then being brought back by dozens who thought the movie was messed up.

Finally, finally, finally found NSNA on Blu-ray. I hope to go through it soon, but ironically watched the LD last night.

The DVDs seem to share the same source as the WS LD except for the Orion logo replacing the WB one. The 5.1 mix has phasing errors and seems to move the whole soundstage to the front while having all the deficiencies of the Dolby Stereo. I don’t know if it was sourced from 70mm elements but it was done for the DVD reissue and Blu-ray in 2009.
Godawful mix, best in Dolby Stereo. Mushy, indistinct, seemingly rushed and practically glorified mono. The entire film is mono except for extraneous sounds like the missiles and when the score kicks up. In fact when the score goes off its in bursts and sounds like proper Dolby Stereo.

This one will be the easiest to fix: Simply add the LD PCM to the BD.

I also found out there are apparently numerous cuts and the producer planned a deluxe LD reissue that went nowhere.
I hate, hate hate hate this picture when I think about it. I swear I will never watch it again, but I do each year. You can see they had the ability to make a great picture but squandered it. I think if it weren’t for Connery and Kersh it would have never have been finished. This is truly the uneducated and studio idea of what a Bond film is. I will never nitpick the later Moore entries for anything ever again, as they always could have been on NSNA’s level.

Thanks to the fine folks at the 007 Dossier, we finally have some evidence as to how Thunderball appears from vintage IB material.
http://the007dossier.com/007dossier/post/2017/02/09/Thunderball-16mm-IB-Technicolor-print

Despite it being a 16mm segment, the saturation levels are unlike anything we’ve seen or had access to. I ran it against every copy I have and came up with this:

The closest in overall look is the 1989 laserdisc but is a tad too heavy in the reds particularly in skin tones. The 1995 master/SE DVD fixes this but is less saturated. The UE is completely washed out in color and far too bright. The BD is remarkably similar to the print sample, but it appears this was either the source scan for Lowry or a new one done where the team then tried to replicate the color via digital means. Thus it comes very close to the source but things such as Fiona’s dress are far too teal when they should be less so.

Also, the day for night shooting is noticeably off in the sample and all the video transfers have it pretty much intact. I think the original video source for 1989/1995 was a IP or protection element made sometime after the 60’s and thus it is in very good shape but lacks the Technicolor bold printing-just like the rest of the Bonds do. The only ones that seem as if they may be Tech are the Criterions and the first letterboxed MGM Dr. No (as it shares the same print source as the Criterion. I have not yet seen all the earlier pan and scan copies, but seeing as TLD’s pan n scan has vibrant color that looks like the BD palette some could be interesting.

That being said here’s my new comparison of Dr. No editions, including the P/S 1993 LD.

This pan n scan disc, though claiming to be remastered, is obviously older and perhaps a reissue of the older CBS/Fox laserdiscs. The color is different to any release, it has increased contrast throughout and loses much of the black level. The 1.33 crop loses much of the sides, more so on the right. The opening titles are mostly letterboxed, but then jump around between 1.33 and letterboxed. Sound is analog only and has low hum and print noise. I can’t tell if it’s MGM’s source print or not, but I doubt this as accurate in its transfer.

1992 remastered VHS: better 1.33 crop, color looks like the MGM letterboxed LD but very contrasty which reminds me of the way many films looked on tape when I watched them growing up. Titles are fully letterboxed, and the image zooms in on the three blind mice.

2000 VHS: same as above, but less contrasty and better image fidelity. Image cuts to 1.33 on third shot of the three blind mice.

1995 letterboxed VHS: Same as 2000 tape in regards to contrast, maintains 1.66 frame so this is a perfect copy of the Connery Collection LD.

Likewise, but I still wish there were screenshots or video samples to back it all up. I’d be more than happy to host them on The007Dossier.com. In fact, if you can capture some samples I’d love to make some comparison videos.