my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets   » Vertigo (1958) (1996 restoration) (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Vertigo (1958) (1996 restoration) Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-10-2003 01:46 AM                        Title: .......VERTIGO (1996 Harris Restoration) Distrib: .....Paramount 35mm Print #: 03 Reels: .......7 Emulsion: ....Eastman LPP Base: ........Polyester Print Incept Date: ........n/a (no EK edge code, no edge date stamp) Release #: ...n/a Special: .....Marked "ARCHIVE PRINT - DO NOT SPLICE" Picture format: Spherical 1.85:1 (Hard Matted) Sound format: Analog: SR Digital: DTS / NO disks as of 1 Aug 03 Cues: Lab Physical Condition: Mint Scratches: Base - None Emulsion - None Color Fade/Shift: None Acidosis (VS): None Overall Condition: AA (WB rating) MPAA Rating Band: None Attached Trailers: None [ 06-19-2008, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]  |  IP: Logged Charles Everett Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: New Jersey Registered: May 2001 posted 08-10-2003 12:30 PM                     The 1996 restoration went out through Universal. R1 starts with the then-current Universal logo and theme, followed by the opening music over "A Paramount Release in VistaVision".  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-18-2003 09:17 PM                     Print #3 is no longer quite so good. We ran it on Saturday. Despite the marking "do not splice," leaders had been spliced. I didn't take reel-by-reel notes (I was trying to watch for enjoyment, not QC), but there were persistent thin black vertical lines throughout the print. As base-side scratches go, they were pretty mild, and they came and went at times. There was also a significant accumulation of dirt on some reels. The print is definitely no longer Mint/Excellent, and I'd rank it Fair instead of ranking it Good. Oh, this print apparently lives at George Eastman House. The beginnings of some reels have a funky fylfot-like marking in the upper-right corner of the image (near where the cue dots are), a few seconds in to the reel. Go figure. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Tao Yue Expert Film Handler Posts: 209 From: Princeton, NJ Registered: Apr 2001 posted 11-18-2003 09:56 PM                        jhawk, you seem to be making all sorts of weird assumptions lately. quote: Oh, this print apparently lives at George Eastman House. No, it came from Eastman House because they were the last theater to play it, in early November. They have a regular screening series. It lives circuited, and will probably wind up in Universal City when there's a big enough gap between bookings. Put it this way -- if you got a print from the Academy theater, would you assume it came from Academy archives? On another note: quote: The beginnings of some reels have a funky fylfot-like marking in the upper-right corner of the image (near where the cue dots are), a few seconds in to the reel. Go figure. These would be the VistaVision framing marks. If they were scratched into the o-neg, that'd be why they survived the 70mm restoration.  |  IP: Logged System Notices Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi Posts: 215 Registered: Apr 2004 posted 06-19-2008 08:28 AM                 It has been 1674 days since the last post.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-19-2008 08:28 AM                        Print #3 remains in pretty much the same condition as described above, although I did not see any vertical lines. Perhaps the print has been replaced? Anyway, it still doesn't have DTS disks, but the print itself is fine. There are no splices in it, though about 10-15 frames are missing from each head and tail (despite the "do not cut leaders" stickers). As repertory prints go, this one is pretty good. I saw another print (not sure on print number) in another venue recently that looked much grainier than this one. Subject header really should say "Vertigo (1958) (1996 restoration)"  |  IP: Logged System Notices Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi Posts: 215 Registered: Apr 2004 posted 04-18-2013 08:06 AM                 It has been 1763 days since the last post.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-18-2013 08:06 AM                        Print #6 (supposedly the best current print) is a 2007 re-print of the restored version from Foto-Kem. It is in good, used condition, is missing DTS disks, and generally looks and sounds good.  |  IP: Logged System Notices Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi Posts: 215 Registered: Apr 2004 posted 05-28-2014 01:01 AM                 It has been 404 days since the last post.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 05-28-2014 01:01 AM                        70mm print #4 ran by me this weekend (distributor = Universal). This one is now in quite rough shape, with vertical base scratches that come and go at some point during all the reels (though most of them are pretty thin and not that noticeable unless you're looking for them). It's very dirty for 10-20 feet at the starts and ends and has been "made up" numerous times. ID frames have been cut out, too. The DTS media we got was a set of two CDs of a 5.1 mix - factory-pressed ones, which played "live" from a 6D. We did have a brief DTS sound dropout on the changeover from 4 to 5, but suspect that this was an issue with our installation rather than the print or discs. As with the 35mm prints of the Harris restoration, this is hard matted to 1.85. If you don't have a 70mm 1.85 aperture plate, you are likely to see some visible sparkle and white flashes projected on the masking. I tested one reel with a 2.2:1 plate, and crud on the matted part of the frame was visible.  |  IP: Logged System Notices Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi Posts: 215 Registered: Apr 2004 posted 09-17-2016 02:35 PM                 It has been 843 days since the last post.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-17-2016 02:35 PM                     35mm Print #6 from Universal is still in decent shape. Leaders are marked "1998 Version" Lots of emulsion abrasions at heads/tails, but the interior of each reel is okay. Leaders/Changeovers: Academy leaders on all reels have been cut (for plattering/building) but each one has a reference frame, and the leaders themselves are intact. In other words, they are usable for changeovers, without needing "tape numbers." Flash frames on Reel-1 leader just before the Universal logo, so watch out for that. Some silly person decided they needed to scribe cues in addition to the original cues. Stupidity! Print has been previously "built" but, amazingly, all 24 frames after the changeover cues are there. Except for Reel-1 (it has 23 frames). Watch your timing! Several of the changeovers occur in the middle of a music cue. Confirmed examples: Reel-1 to Reel-2, R-2 to R-3, R-4 to R-5, R-5 to R-6... Maybe all of them..? Aspect Ratio: Image is tightly hard-matted to 1.85! I actually wonder if this should perhaps be 1.66. (It was VistaVision, after all, so that was certainly a valid option.) Sound: DTS timecode, but no discs with this print. Print containers are marked "Mono" but the soundtrack itself is labeled "SR" and the music certainly seems to be in stereo. As always, I recommend using dialogue for setting levels, but especially in this case. If you adjust playback levels in reaction to music (or the opening scene) the dialogue will end up way too low. Played at 7.0 volume setting here.  |  IP: Logged System Notices Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi Posts: 215 Registered: Apr 2004 posted 09-25-2017 08:19 AM                 It has been 372 days since the last post.  |  IP: Logged Robert Harris Film Handler Posts: 95 From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA Registered: May 2003 posted 09-25-2017 08:19 AM                     Per aspect ratio, Vertigo cannot run at 1.66. Like many VVLA productions, area reserved for track at top of frame, has an equal area at bottom, via which null area, ie. floor of stage, is exposed.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-29-2017 09:20 PM                     OK I misspoke (er.. typed) What I meant to say was if we used the 1.66 aperture plate (with the 1.85 lens) then we could enjoy the hard-matte top/bottom edges, and actually project all of the 1.85 area, whereas using the 1.85 plate would require the use of masking to clean up the soft edges of the plate shadow, cropping the projected image to something slightly wider than 1.85. With this approach, one still presents a 1.85 image, but masking is only used to cover unused screen area, and has no cropping function. This was an afterthought. I didn't actually try it out, so I can't say that it's definitely the way to go. BTW, all of this is "chit chat" and doesn't belong in this thread. Beyond this, we're going to need a dedicated thread in the Film Handler's Forum.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.