"A Star Is Born" coming out on Blu-Ray. New restoration.

[DAME]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 10:33pm

They have restored the restoration and added more ( no new footage.. but read next posts link). This is also the opening night film for the new Turner Classics Film festival in Los Angeles next month. I am pre-ordering this.

A Star Is Born

Updated On: 4/5/10 at 10:33 PM

[DAME]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 10:38pm

Maybe Best will explain what this all means.
More info

[nealb1]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 11:12pm

Saw it a few years back at The Egyptian in Hollywood. It was very enjoyable. But, it was too long - I can see why it was cut. Not that I'm agreeing with the cutting of the film, just saying that it's a long movie.
Updated On: 4/5/10 at 11:12 PM

[DAME]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 11:18pm

I don't like the use of stills. But I really appreciate the stuff that was cut out.

Updated On: 4/5/10 at 11:18 PM

[nealb1]

Posted: 4/5/10 at 11:27pm

Oh I completely appreciated the missing footage that was restored to the film. The stills are a little distracting, but just the fact that the actual soundtrack was restored, with the stills added, is something. Back then no one thought to save cut footage.

Now, it's the norm.

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/6/10 at 8:47am

"A Star Is Born" is all over the map as far as quality goes. The early sequence at the Shrine Auditorium benefit was shot "live" during a huge event, and much of that footage is out of focus, overexposed, and grainy. I'm not sure how much any restoration will improve it. The issue is in the source material. Much of the soundstage stuff will look great, but any outdoor scenes or processed shots will still have issues.

I'm not really sure how much a 6K scan will benefit any movie, let alone this one. It's kind of like the Spinal Tap gang saying their audio button "goes to 11."

Most films are scanned in at 2K now, which is slightly above the 1920x1080 pixels (aka 1080p) that we have on our HDTVs. With older problematic films, I've seen recent titles like Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind being scanned at 4K. It helps smooth out gradients and lines, and adds a bit of pixel depth to the image when it's reduced to normal HD or DVD sizes. 4K is also good if you are going to transfer the digital files back to film stock for showing in a movie theatre. But 6K?

That's like scanning a photograph in at 600 dpi that you will ultimately reduce to 72dpi for displaying on a website. Do you really gain that much over a 300 dpi scan that is also reduced to 72?

Not much, if any.

I appreciate the effort, and I'm sure this remaster will look better than any previous efforts ... but remember, the source material is very uneven to begin with. You will still have a terrible looking opening sequence at the Shrine, where closeups look great and long shots are blurry, grainy, dark, or perhaps all three. No 6K scan can improve that.

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/6/10 at 9:32am

Here's a pretty good explanation of 2K and 4K on Wikipedia. And you can see how things have progressed rather rapidly. Just when nearly all theatre chains adopted 2K projection (98 percent), AMC Theatres announced that it would partner with Sony to replace all its 2K projectors with 4K.

Keep in mind that if the movie is mastered in 2K, which most are, it won't make much of a difference.

Still, they're trying to keep up with the "digital Joneses" as well as trump the home entertainment systems currently on the market. They've got to justify charging $15-20 a pop to go to the movies.

I doubt most movie goers know or can tell the difference.

LINK

Updated On: 4/6/10 at 09:32 AM

[DAME]

Posted: 4/6/10 at 1:18pm

I am still getting it. Funny.. that opening sequence has never bothered me. I think the musical numbers will be splendid to watch.

[nealb1]

Posted: 4/6/10 at 1:40pm

Absolutely - seeing all the musical numbers, will be wonderful.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 4/6/10 at 1:43pm

Will all the musical numbers still sound as if they were recorded in somebody's bathroom?

[artscallion]

Posted: 4/6/10 at 1:51pm

"...The early sequence at the Shrine Auditorium benefit was shot "live" during a huge event..."

I could be misremembering this. But I think I remember reading that it was footage of the premier of the original Janet Gaynor "A Star is Born"

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/6/10 at 3:51pm

JB2---that's hilarious! And I agree with you. I never understood why the "ultra-stereo" mix in this movie comes off that way. With a very wide, tinny, echo.

Artscallion---It was actually a big event staged specifically for this film in 1954. It took six days to complete, with about 800 extras, a big band, various acts, etc.

It definitely wasn't archival footage from the 1937 original with Gaynor and March, a very early Technicolor feature shot in 1.37:1 ratio. This new sequence was shot in ultra-wide, 2.55:1, Cinemascope and Technicolor at great expense.

And it looks kinda lousy, except for the closeups. I'm not sure why, actually. Maybe the night shoot and the inside of the Shrine were too difficult to light? As I said, its grainy, out of focus (occasionally), and dark. I'm sure they're doing the best they can to fix it now. But it was shot that way.

If you can get past the first 20 minutes of the movie, then you'll enjoy this restoration, I'm sure. But you have to get through the big benefit, and it's not brief.