The presentation was flawless. NO dirt (outside of what looked for sure to be on the original source material), NO lines (except for a few on the credits that said "restored by Robert Harris...." -- on purpose?), NO "extra" splices, interesting CO cues (differred in style throughout), and this theater runs large-reel change-overs. No problems with the COs. The focus was right on. And the sound was very good as well, albeit in mono.

I was thrilled that I could not detect even a hint of hair lines. FilmGuard? And I was equally amazed that even the original source material grain was reproduced so well by the IB process.

The Wexner Center is an excellent venue, with Kinoton 16/35/70 projectors and a first-rate projectionist, Bruce Bartoo. The screen size is a little weird due to the weird shapes in the building.

 |  IP: Logged

Given the wear and poor condition of the original materials they had to work with, Bob Harris and Jim Katz have outdone themselves! The dye transfer print was gorgeous (and so was Grace Kelly )! The richness and detail that Hitch put into the shadows really was enhanced by the dye transfer print. And the reds (the "21" waiter's jacket and Raymond Burr's glowing cigar) jumped from the screen.

If you get a chance to see it on a big screen, as it should be seen, don't miss it!

We got 7 people for our first show. We did get about 45 people for each show after that. We held on to it for a 3rd week with one show a day. We thought the seniors would flock to this film. I love it when I get the question, "What's Rear Window about?"

Rear Window did $1,700.00 last week in its second week playing two shows a day.

Incorrect, it was shown in 1.66:1!

>>"The presentation was flawless. NO dirt (outside of what looked for sure to be on the original source material), NO lines (except for a few on the credits that said "restored by Robert Harris...." -- on purpose?), NO "extra" splices, interesting CO cues (differred in style throughout), and this theater runs large-reel change-overs."<<

Just what print were you looking at? I had to replace the first reel after the first day it was so bad but the remaining reels were the "previously enjoyed" varitey and they were filthy and scratched from day one. I guess Hitch's film was so good you payed attention to the story rather than the print (don't blame you if you did, I have always liked REAR WINDOW). The reels we run are semi-large, 4500' reels so only one splice per reel.

">> No problems with the COs. The focus was right on. And the sound was very good as well, albeit in mono."<<

Natch...and Thank you (even if I wasn't the operator that day, Saturdays are mine).

>>"I was thrilled that I could not detect even a hint of hair lines. FilmGuard?"<<

Nope, no Film-Guard, damn it.

>>" And I was equally amazed that even the original source material grain was reproduced so well by the IB process.
I can't say that this was the best platform for showing off the new IB process results, but it was none-the-less a fun experience. And from what I've heard, it wasn't being shown on many screens across the country."<<

All I can say after my viewing was Harris and Katz musta have had a really rotten negative to work with to call this a restoration, it was extremely grainy and feeling more like a video dupe on the big screen. But I trust the Harris/Katz crew to deliver the very best available. I have a feeling the restoration would have looked cleaner on a smaller screen though the experience was probably enhanced by the large Uptown screen.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

There was a note with the print to please play the film with a ratio of 1.66:1 for optimal performance. For your reference, the Uptown is equipped to play 1.37 as well (witness the Wizard of Oz as a recent example).

As Scott pointed out, Mr Harris specifically wanted the film to play in 1.66:1. As most know, Mr. Harris is a stickler for proper presentation!

Steve

There was a note with the print to please play the film with a ratio of 1.66:1 for optimal performance. For your reference, the Uptown is equipped to play 1.37 as well (witness the Wizard of Oz as a recent example).

As Scott pointed out, Mr Harris specifically wanted the film to play in 1.66:1. As most know, Mr. Harris is a stickler for proper presentation!

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

As far as I know, this is the first IB-Tech print that I've experienced, and I enjoyed myself tremendously. Obviously, a great deal of care went into making this print. It was rock-steady on the screen and the contrast, sharpness, detail and color saturation were unbelievable! The print was also in printine condition which all contributed to a totally immersive experience. It was also shown in 1.66:1 and the light on the screen was abundant, so everything was perfect. When it all comes together like this, it's overwhelming. 'Film done right' indeed!

Hats off to everyone that was involved in this restoration.

I have a question about 'The Kiss' sequence that was mentioned in the restoration credits. Kodak cinesite was mentioned in association with this - can anyone tell me what was done with this sequence?

Thanks for allowing me to wax lyrical, but that was a magical experience!

I saw the reissue also, and thought that the kiss scene had a completely different look. The rest of the film has extremely sharp, visible grain, but that particular scene had a soft, grain-free dream-like quality -- a very different look. Not bad, but different. Actually, I thought it was a nice effect.