Who dragged Touch of Evil across the floor?

[Terry]

Anyone else compared the Masters of Cinema and Universal Blu-Rays of TOE? The Universal is significantly scratched for significant portions of the movie, while the Masters of Cinema release isn't. How the hell is this? Different transfers? Different prints? Different digital restorations?

Masters of Cinema Blu-ray:



Universal Blu-Ray:

[Le Chiffre]

We've had debates here about which aspect ratio is more appropriate for TOE, but no real consensus. Rick Schmidlin was the main defender of the 1.85, but he hasn't posted here in at least ten years. I like both versions myself, but given the choice I prefer full frame. I like seeing more of what Welles shot.

[Terry]

As to aspect ratios, each has their advantages and disadvantages, with the framing of individual shots looking better in one or the other in my opinion, but I was posting to demonstrate the scratches on the Universal release which aren't on the prior Masters of Cinema release. Perhaps screencaps don't do the issue any justice, though it's sure noticeable when I watch them.

[Roger Ryan]

The scratches only appear in the footage that was taken from the "preview" cut to create the "reconstructed" version. It's definitely noticeable on the Universal Blu-ray and I assumed this was because this particular footage was sourced from a print and not the original camera negative. I don't have the Masters of Cinema version, but it's possible there was some additional digital repair work done to clean-up the scratches for that release.

[Terry]

That's what I thought too, Roger, yet here's a scratch on the Masters of Cinema copy which isn't on the Universal, so perhaps that makes a case for different prints being used.

[Terry]

Perhaps with the lower resolution I wouldn't notice anyway, but I'm not seeing the scratches on Universal's prior DVD release of the restored version.

[Roger Ryan]

I did a comparison last night between the "Preview" version of the film and the "Reconstructed" version on the Universal Blu-ray. It appears that different sources were used in each for the footage not found in the original theatrical release. The additional footage used in the "Reconstructed" version has the vertical scratches whereas the same footage in the "Preview" version does not. However, the footage in the "Preview" version is less stable and has what appears to be water or chemical stains, or a mottling defect, that can be seen throughout. I suspect the producers chose to use the footage with the vertical scratches as part of the restoration of the "Reconstructed" version since the overall resolution is better and the picture is considerably more stable.

As I noted earlier, I'm almost certain that the unique footage found only in the "Preview" and "Reconstructed" edits comes from preview prints (two different ones) whereas everything else (as seen in the original theatrical release) comes from the camera negative. In fact, the "Preview" version uses that original camera negative (as does the "Reconstructed" version) for all of the footage common with the original theatrical release.

[Terry]

Thanks, Roger. So the theatrical cut exists as a negative, the preview version exists as prints, and the reconstructed version will be cobbled together from those sources. I guess my reason for starting this thread is that I found the Universal Blu-Ray to be unwatchable, and later I was rather shocked to see that the Masters of Cinema release looked so good when it was drawn from the same sources. Wasn't the reconstruction screened theatrically when it was finished in the late 90s? I guess Universal didn't take care of that print.

In searching old threads on the board, I sadly have to agree with this prophecy:

Universal is one of the worst publishers when it comes to blu-rays, a lot of their blurays has been ruined either by using vastly outdated masters or then rubbing the film with DNR so when Universal eventually releases Touch of Evil, expect it to be utter gash. I'd be very surprised if they doesn't screw it up somehow.

[Roger Ryan]

Not having access to the Masters of Cinema release, I can't comment on the quality of the sources used. I can only say that, if I had to choose between the unstable, water-stained footage and the scratched footage, I'd go with the latter to restore the "Reconstructed" version as the Universal Blu-ray producers did. Now I don't recall there being scratches on this footage when the "Reconstructed" version played theatrically in 1998. Did the damage happen later? As you note, the MOC release doesn't have this issue. Does the MOC use the footage that has the water-stains? If not, it appears that some additional clean-up was done for the MOC release...or they had access to a better source not used for the Universal release.

What I can say for the Universal release is excessive DNR (digital noise reduction) is not a problem with the Touch of Evil Blu-ray. Earlier Universal Blu-rays may have suffered from this problem, but the Touch of Evil disc looks healthy in this respect.

[edmoney]

Scratches aside, I much prefer the picture quality of the Universal Blu-ray over the Masters of Cinema one (I own both). While the scratches aren't pronounced on the MoC as they are on the Universal, I feel the Universal wins out in almost every other respect PQ-wise. The Universal appears sharper, tighter, and has better contrast, while the MoC appears a bit dingy in comparison. No notes appear about any restoration work done on the Universal, but it looks to me like it may have received a 4K scan, while the earlier MoC did not. Still, I'm also hanging onto the MoC because of the additional full frame versions not found on the Universal.