Criterion release of 'The Magnificent Ambersons'

[CineCraft]

In layman's terms, how close would this be in quality to the original camera negative? CineCraft, what is it that you see in the screencaps that tells you that the source was an interpositive? I know a scan from the OCN is always the highest goal when possible, but how much of a drop-off in quality is there by scanning from an IP? I will add that the screencaps look pretty terrific to me and am just curious how they could theoretically look better.

In terms of quality, if the camera negative isn't available, then what you want is something struck from the camera negative, which is where this source comes from. And since it's a fine grain, that would suggest it's a master interpositive, which is what would've been used to make dupe negatives and answer prints. It's intended to be used for copying so the camera negative suffers less wear and tear, and hence is very high quality in terms of picture quality.

And because Ambersons did not perform well as the box office, it did not see as much circulation, and hence this master seems to have been in very good condition. Compared to a popular film like The Godfather, whose negative and masters were in bad shape from frequent printing.

IN terms of picture quality, it's hard for me to describe, since I've seen and handled films long enough from shooting myself that one just gets a sense for when one is seeing an original source image, or something that is a copy. In this case what i saw was very, very good, but just lacking a touch of that dynamic range that you'd get with a camera negative. Of course, Ambersons is a very contrasty film by design so this is less noticeable.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the quality of the presentation will vary from shot to shot, as this film was at times fairly effects heavy with mattes and optical printing work. The opening sequence, for example, is rather soft compared to the rest of the film, because of the vignetting that was inserted in post, which would mean that a new dupe negative would be produced, and hence that material is several copies away from the original, which takes away detail and enhances graininess. But again, it works in context since it's supposed to be a bit hazy and dreamlike.

[edmoney]

In layman's terms, how close would this be in quality to the original camera negative? CineCraft, what is it that you see in the screencaps that tells you that the source was an interpositive? I know a scan from the OCN is always the highest goal when possible, but how much of a drop-off in quality is there by scanning from an IP? I will add that the screencaps look pretty terrific to me and am just curious how they could theoretically look better.

In terms of quality, if the camera negative isn't available, then what you want is something struck from the camera negative, which is where this source comes from. And since it's a fine grain, that would suggest it's a master interpositive, which is what would've been used to make dupe negatives and answer prints. It's intended to be used for copying so the camera negative suffers less wear and tear, and hence is very high quality in terms of picture quality.

And because Ambersons did not perform well as the box office, it did not see as much circulation, and hence this master seems to have been in very good condition. Compared to a popular film like The Godfather, whose negative and masters were in bad shape from frequent printing.

IN terms of picture quality, it's hard for me to describe, since I've seen and handled films long enough from shooting myself that one just gets a sense for when one is seeing an original source image, or something that is a copy. In this case what i saw was very, very good, but just lacking a touch of that dynamic range that you'd get with a camera negative. Of course, Ambersons is a very contrasty film by design so this is less noticeable.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the quality of the presentation will vary from shot to shot, as this film was at times fairly effects heavy with mattes and optical printing work. The opening sequence, for example, is rather soft compared to the rest of the film, because of the vignetting that was inserted in post, which would mean that a new dupe negative would be produced, and hence that material is several copies away from the original, which takes away detail and enhances graininess. But again, it works in context since it's supposed to be a bit hazy and dreamlike.

Thanks for the explanation. Very informative and interesting stuff.

Yes, I had also heard about the existence of the OCN and, if true, wonder why that wasn't used instead of a master interpositive (although it sounds like this is the next best thing). Is it conceivable that given the availability of both, the master IP was preferable because it was in better shape than the OCN? Or would a properly restored OCN (provided that it's not in advanced stages of decomposing) always yield better results than an IP?

[CineCraft]

Thanks for the explanation. Very informative and interesting stuff.

Yes, I had also heard about the existence of the OCN and, if true, wonder why that wasn't used instead of a master interpositive (although it sounds like this is the next best thing). Is it conceivable that given the availability of both, the master IP was preferable because it was in better shape than the OCN? Or would a properly restored OCN (provided that it's not in advanced stages of decomposing) always yield better results than an IP?

It all depends on the condition of the camera negative. There is much that can be done to recover a good image. Just look at what Criterion did with the Apu Trilogy, whose negatives were severely damaged in a fire in the 1990s.

But IF the negative exists, then a most plausible scenario for why it might not have been used, is if there was sufficient decay as to warrant using the next best thing, which would be a contemporaneous element made from the negative before the decay occurred. This is actually quite common, where sections of a negative that might be too damaged, are replaced in the restoration by elements from a master positive, which can paradoxically be better than the original, IF it was made before whatever damage that happened to the negative had occurred.

[Roger Ryan]

If Criterion's liner notes are to be trusted (and why not?), the 1952 European cut of Othello was transferred from a "fine grain master" whereas the 1955 U.S. version was scanned from the original negative. As we've discovered, that 1952 version definitely has more detail and looks better that the 1955 version, so while using the original negative should be the ultimate goal, it may not always deliver the best results.

Keep in mind, of course, that no one viewed Ambersons in 1942 from a direct transfer of the original negative. Digital technology has now allowed transfers to be made directly from original film negatives (when they have survived), giving us greater clarity than audiences would have experienced in the cinemas upon first release.

[atcolomb]

From Blu-ray.com:

Criterion: The Magnificent Ambersons and True Stories Delayed.
The Criterion Collection has informed us that two upcoming titles have been delayed: The Magnificent Ambersons has been moved from 11/20/18 to 11/27/18, while True Stories has been moved from 11/20/18 to 11/27/18.

[Roger Ryan]

From Blu-ray.com:

Criterion: The Magnificent Ambersons and True Stories Delayed.
The Criterion Collection has informed us that two upcoming titles have been delayed: The Magnificent Ambersons has been moved from 11/20/18 to 11/27/18, while True Stories has been moved from 11/20/18 to 11/27/18.

What I've been reading on the web is that numerous Blu-rays (not just those from Criterion) have had their releases delayed because the one manufacturing plant that actually makes the discs is overwhelmed! Apparently, physical media is considered so passé that only one company can make a profit producing it.

[DexyMan]

When I saw the delay I got excited that they may have been adding a bonus feature Othello style but obviously that wouldn't be the cause of a one week delay. Oh well, still can't wait to get this and do a double feature with the Kane blu ray.

[atcolomb]

So far only one review of the Blu-ray and that came from DVDBEAVER. Hope more to come soon as we get closer to the release date.

[Wellesnet]

While Amazon and Barnes & Noble still lists THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS blu-ray as a November 27 release, Criterion Collection's online store has marked the title as being on backorder until December 14.

[atcolomb]

Received a email a few days ago from Amazon saying the arrival date will be December 4th to 7th.

[Wellesnet]

'Magnificent Ambersons' gets white-glove treatment (review)

For much of Wellesnet's history, two topics have dominated conversation here: The completion of The Other Side of the Wind and the desire to see a superb DVD (later Blu-ray) release of The Magnificent Ambersons.
This month, Welles fans finally got both.

Full review at http://www.wellesnet.com/magnificent-ambersons-criterion-review/

[tonyw]

My review copy arrived today and I'm looking forward to writing on it.

[Wellesnet]

Sean Axmaker on Facebook:

The magnificence of 'The Magnificent Amberson' comes home in the first fifteen minutes, as Orson Welles sketches a vivid portrait of life (idealized) in the late 19th century in a brilliant montage that tells the story of characters through the images while the narration runs down the changes in fashion, culture, and the pace of life about to be undergo the upheaval of progress in the 20th century, and then effortlessly segues into the "now" of the story in the transition from silent movie-like compositions and imagery to rapid-fire montage and radio drama narrative dialogue to the achingly beautiful long takes that sweep us into the Amberson Mansion, a place frozen in the past of those opening scenes, where social convention and grandeur are upheld for no reason other than tradition. It is beautiful, a portrait of wealth and culture out of touch with the world outside, and unconcerned with it. At its peril.

The new Criterion Blu-ray is magnificent in its own right. It's the best version I've ever viewed. I've seen it on TV, VHS, 16mm, and perhaps an archival 35mm print, but I saw things I've never noticed before, from details in the sets and compositions and lighting to the soft focus ring around those early images leading up to the Amberson Mansion long takes, which enhance the visual connection to early photography and pre-feature film silent film. The very first shot always struck me as a kind of Currier and Ives print in motion in the past. This time, it evoked a Lumiere actuality as I could really see the movement of the characters disembarking to trolley to get it back on the tracks.

Beautiful review of the film itself by Molly Haskell for Criterion:
https://www.criterion.com/current/posts ... -have-been

[I=Eye]

I am glad some of the Amberson essays from the blu-ray are online at criterion.com.
I know it is my aging eyes, but I found the booklet hard to read.

[smartone]

Excited to see this new 4k version of The Magnificent Ambersons
I am married to a Brazilian and have gone to Brazil many times in the past 25 years - I am absolutely convinced that somewhere in Brazil is the Magnificant Amberson rough cut . I have poked around a few places myself but obviously no luck
But here is the things
No Brazilians who work in film industry or film criticism know about Amberson lost print missing in Brazil. They have never heard the story. it just isn't known down there.

Also I think when someone says Orson Welle's film most assume Welles is an ACTOR in the film like Citizen Kane . the fact that he isn't in the film also would potentially cause someone to overlook Amberson's if they found it .

Lastly Brazil is an amazing country with wonderful people but it is also a completely mess = institutions and business are just dysfunctional .. Every time I visit the country I come away wondering how in the world things get done there because everything there is a mess .. so it would not surprise me if in some Cinema library ( there are many in the country) or production house in a corner or closet somewhere the cans of Ambersons are there collecting dust.