logo Sign In

Idea: Original dark version of Batman '89?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It’s well known that Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman was brightened for home video releases as many cinema viewers found the original prints to be “too dark”. As someone who still remembers the experience of seeing the original none-more-black Batman in the theatre as a kid, I wondered if anybody here with the necessary skills and software would be interested in creating a restoration with darker levels to resemble the original theatrical version.

Now, as far as I’m aware, there are no reference 35mm prints available to the community. But some indication of how dark the movie was originally can be glimpsed from old trailer footage and 35mm stills on ebay. While it may be impossible to recreate the theatrical look 100% faithfully with the materials available, surely any effort to take down the black levels would bring the movie closer to its original look than what we have now.

I’m just throwing the idea out there in case there is any interest.

George creates Star Wars.
Star Wars creates fans.
George destroys Star Wars.
Fans destroy George.
Fans create Star Wars.

Author
Time

After rising the black level of AVP:R, I don't see the problem to lower Batman's one... (^^,)

Can you post here some BD, DVD and trailer screenshots of the same frame(s)? Just to test if final result could be good enough...

Sadly my projects are lost due to an HDD crash… 😦 | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com

Author
Time

Somewhere around here is a thread with screencaps of Batman Returns showing the darker vs. lighter look of Keaton in the cowl.  It's a pretty dramatic difference with the light around just his eyes vs. a fully lit mask.

Author
Time

Yes, I remember that, but I'd like to find more frames if possible...

Sadly my projects are lost due to an HDD crash… 😦 | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com

Author
Time

It's perfect, just the way i have always envisioned it! LOL

Author
Time

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any consistency in the brightness changes when comparing various original trailer footage with the BD. Some scenes from the BD actually seem darker than the trailer whereas some look as if they've been lightened significantly. It looks as if no blanket darkening process over the whole movie would do the job well enough and therefore a reference print would be necessary.

George creates Star Wars.
Star Wars creates fans.
George destroys Star Wars.
Fans destroy George.
Fans create Star Wars.

Author
Time

There was a 35mm of the movie up on eBay a few months back, but nobody seemed interested in donating, and then the seller ended the auction early without anybody having bid (which makes me assume that he got a better offer from someone outside of eBay).

I haven't seen a print surface since then. If poita ever gets an offer for Batman, would any of you be willing to donate (providing you can afford to at that time)?

Author
Time

borisanddoris said:

http://youtu.be/EyozzozRsCk

like this?

 

Exactly. This is clearly close to the original 35mm source as many of the clips are covered with film dirt. Unfortunately it's a very low-quality transfer so is of very little value as a reference. For interest's sake though:

This scene actually appears as dark, if not darker on the BD:

Trailer


BD


Whereas the shadows in this scene appear to have been lightened for the BD, even accounting for the overall dimness of the trailer source:

Trailer


BD


Then there are shots like these. In this one, it's been speculated that you shouldn't be able to see Jack's face clearly until he steps out of the shadows for the Joker reveal. Though I don't think it was intended to be completely black, I agree that it was probably darker originally:

And in this one where the Batmobile is supposed to be driverless, you can clearly see a driver's hand on the wheel. It's surprising that this goof was missed in post-production so perhaps the original scene was dark enough that the hand wasn't visible:


And then there's just the general sense when watching the BD that many scenes just have a 'greyness' to them and lack of depth due to lightened shadows. Oddly this is not nearly as apparent on my PC monitor as it is on my (calibrated) TV.

George creates Star Wars.
Star Wars creates fans.
George destroys Star Wars.
Fans destroy George.
Fans create Star Wars.

Author
Time

Ok so, as an experiment, I just fired up the BD on my XBMC setup and used the per-movie settings to turn the brightness down from the default 50% to 46% and it really makes the difference! Blacks are deep and black again instead of grey and murky, some of the visual effects that previously looked extremely dated now look seamless and the 'suiting-up' scene where Batman slowly raises his head is far more impressive as his eyes emerge from darkness rather than just getting a little brighter.

I can't say with any certainty at all that this simple change has returned the film to how it originally looked but it definitely looks far better and reminds me more of how I remember feeling while watching the movie as a kid. I'd love to know how dark the original print actually was and whether only certain scenes were lightened for home video, but until we have a good source then this will do just fine. :)

George creates Star Wars.
Star Wars creates fans.
George destroys Star Wars.
Fans destroy George.
Fans create Star Wars.

Author
Time

I tried the same XBMC brightness reduction on Returns as well. It doesn't make it quite as dark as the above mock-up shot, which is good because I think a little too much detail is lost there. But it does make that shot of Batman look a whole lot more ominous and threatening. In the brightened shot he just looks sort of bored. Lol.

George creates Star Wars.
Star Wars creates fans.
George destroys Star Wars.
Fans destroy George.
Fans create Star Wars.

Author
Time

I think they raised the dark levels on the original VHS release because of the medium itself offering a lower quality experience.  However we don't know how the transfers were done with the Laserdisc (widescreen release) or DVD/BluRays.  What print they used and what levels?  Maybe someone can dig up some of Warner Bros publicity sheets on the movies about that or someone who projected the film may know (they have a few projectionists on Home Theater Forum).

That 1st trailer always looked very dark due to having been put together so quickly during production.  I don't think it can be an accurate depiction of what the final print looked like.

Author
Time

The gamma levels were probably raised on LD too. It was common practice to boost gamma in video transfers in the 80s/90s so that they would "read" on CRT displays - Batman may have received particular complaint for the theatrical prints looking too dark, but the home release would have been boosted regardless so that the image would resolve on TV sets.

Author
Time

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.

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader

Author
Time

captainsolo said:


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.

 This is in fact exactly what the release print looked like - you could just about see the face, but it wasn't possible to make out the makeup until he stepped into the light. At the time I was wondering if the transformation had simply left him 'messed up', and then the makeup would be subsequently applied to disguise the fact (an idea that Nolan's Joker would employ nearly 20 years later).

Author
Time

Are you sure the VHS isn't open matte? I did an A/B with the LD the first time Batman was shown on broadcast tv, and there was more picture information top and bottom.

Also worth mentioning Batman was one of the first movies to hit video only a few months after it was in theaters, (and priced to sell) so they might have rushed the video transfer to crank out enough cassettes in time to meet holiday demand. The LD didn't come out until well into 1990, IIRC. I recall being frustrated it wasn't out by Christmas '89, as the VHS was being sold everywhere you looked. It even came out on Betamax.

Not the first time a studio made us poor Laserdisc fans wait longer for a blockbuster movie. ;)

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

For those of you living in the Washington DC metro area (Northern Virginia/Southern Maryland, USA). The American Film Institute in Silver Spring is going to running a 35mm copy of Batman for its 25 Anniversary:

http://www.afi.com/silver/films/2014/p67/totallyawesome80s.aspx

I asked to see if it is a vintage print. Might be a good place to how dark it really is.

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

Are you sure the VHS isn't open matte? I did an A/B with the LD the first time Batman was shown on broadcast tv, and there was more picture information top and bottom.

Also worth mentioning Batman was one of the first movies to hit video only a few months after it was in theaters, (and priced to sell) so they might have rushed the video transfer to crank out enough cassettes in time to meet holiday demand. The LD didn't come out until well into 1990, IIRC. I recall being frustrated it wasn't out by Christmas '89, as the VHS was being sold everywhere you looked. It even came out on Betamax.

Not the first time a studio made us poor Laserdisc fans wait longer for a blockbuster movie. ;)

Crap-you're right! Just checked the LD against the VHS, you gain a bit of room on top and bottom and lose a ton on the sides. For example in the shot of Joker staring at Vicki's picture, in the open VHS you can see the table with photograph pieces and a lot of empty headroom. In the matted  LD the frame is balanced with the missing side information and framed headroom.

The VHS is really brightened. Even with my custom dark Batman settings, it's night and day with the LD.

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I saw a 35mm film print of this film a couple of years ago and I have to say that there were no significant differences between it and the Blu-ray release. For example, you could still see Joker's face when he was in the shadows. The Blu-ray transfer was proved by the Director of Photography, Roger Pratt. Also, those screen captures from the teaser trailer are not fair to judge from, due to it's aging and damage. There's supposed to be another edition coming out later this year, so we'll see if Warners is willing to give this another go, but the Blu-ray will be as good as it gets.

Author
Time

slightly off topic but still on the same subject matter

I remember the VHS version of Nightmare on Elm Street 2 being a lot darker than the DVD and BD versions to the point where you could never really see Freddy's face properly. certainly gave it a more sinister atmosphere

also the music during the credits were different. I don't think the song that was used the DVD/BD version was originally licensed for the first home video versions so it was replaced with a suite from Christopher Young's score

 

Join the dark side… and get a free cookie!

Author
Time

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.

Author
Time

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.

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader