- Post
- #1600859
- Topic
- Invasion of the Body Snatchers - Rare 16mm Open Matte Scan [Needs Funding]
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1600859/action/topic#1600859
- Time
Well, trying this again. Stepped away from this site because encodes given to donors were leaking. This was against the wishes of the print owners, especially when they spread past private trackers to public sites.
But, I’m an optimist and 35mm projects have been coming back to this site with success and security. So, with the hope that there are those here still interested in scans, this project now is…
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
For context, this is the ORIGINAL Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), which for my money: remains the best adaptation of the story and the best of the alien invasion movies of the 1950s. Behind the camera was really, ultra-talented director, Don Siegel AKA the man who made Dirty Harry (1971).
What’s the issue?
Bad, bad cropping and poor image quality.
Unfortunately, the movie - which was filmed for 1.85 or 1.33- depending on whom you ask was cropped to 2.00 against the filmmakers’ wishes after production was completed. This was not a smart idea, as it required duping the film elements, essentially adding generations to the film and unnecessarily degrading the image quality for the 2.00 master element.
All home video releases come from the 2.00 master element, leaving behind a dupey, soft AND grainy image. I had high hopes for the recent 4K but if you see here, it was not an improvement, a really pitiful “upgrade” that didn’t have additional detail in 4K.
I can’t make up how much lack of detail there is: you can see for yourself how much this pales compared to contemporary 1950s films.
UHD
More comparisons here: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=12600&d2=18829&s1=125464&s2=223053&i=0&l=0&a=0
BUT, WAIT: doesn’t the UHD have more image area and isn’t it finally presented at 1.85?
Well, yes and no: if you carefully compare the top and bottom images: the 1.85 image is stretched and cropped to meet the 1.85 ratio. In other words: they scanned the same old dupey 2.00 Superscope element, and then stretched and cropped the image to be 1.85. So yeah, if you cut off a little bit on the sides and stretch the image, it can be 1.85.
Additionally, the dupiness and low resolution of the image remain.
So, what’s special about scanning a 16mm print?
The 16mm prints floating around were struck from an open matte element BEFORE the heinous SuperScope conversion took place. Though, obviously 16mm is softer than 35mm, this print has the edge of being lower generation and not having to go through a crude 1956 SuperScope blow-up process.
This open matte element allegedly no longer survives, so the prints created from it (all 16mm, unfortunately) remain the only viable record of the open matte.
More information here: https://www.chicagofilmsociety.org/2012/07/02/invasion-of-the-aspect-ratios/
Can’t we just transfer a laserdisc or VHS at lower cost?
Unfortunately, those don’t exist. All home video stemmed from the SuperScope dupey, cropped element.
What would you release?
Restorationist Robert Harris says full frame was the intended ratio; other say 1.85. Regardless, it’s not the claustrophobic 2.0.
I hope we can get this one done, so that we can preserve Siegel’s original vision. There are multiple 16mm prints around.
$190/$570 - 33% Funded! - Need $380!
This endeavor would only cost $570. Please ensure you own a commercial copy, this is for academic interest and historical preservation. Comment below or PM me if interested in pledging.