jayembee
Senior HTF Member
They are also available (in SD) in The Superman Motion Picture Anthology set from 2011 (on the discs of the two films that Josh mentioned).
Regarding the 1941-1943 Superman, was there another DVD release besides the 2000 Image release?
Agreed. However, we’re seeing two reports from Mr. Hunt. First a tweet, followed by his review on the Bits, which is about as negative as it might be.I’m not going to cancel my order on the basis of one report, no matter how well qualified the author is. I want to see the shorts in HD and am happy to judge them for myself.
I haven't preordered this particular release so I'll just hold off. Anyhow, I need to watch these toons to see if I'll enjoy them enough to buy them again. I have them on the following releases:Agreed. However, we’re seeing two reports from Mr. Hunt. First a tweet, followed by his review on the Bits, which is about as negative as it might be.
Historically his reviews tend to side with the studio, so coming out with a negative this bad doesn’t bode well. Hopefully, I hope to have a copy shortly and will able to offer a yea or nay.
But I’m not feeling good about this. The one positive is that if the product is that bad, WB will have to offer replacements for those who purchased. This is my presumption because the work has been going on for quite a while, with a very large investment of both time and budget. No one involved will want to be aligned with a product this potentially problematic.
Except obviously whomever did final QC, who must believe it to be spot on!
Which is why I’m not seeing any downside for the consumer beyond the time and effort of going through the steps toward replacement.
Best move for those w/o incoming orders is probably to hold off.
I wouldn't go that far. Also, if one of those boxed set releases is the Rocky movies then that's not really Warner's issue as they're only the distributor of the product. MGM is the culprit when it comes to that problematic release.So my question at this point is if anyone seriously thinks Warner is going to fix this disc?
I would bet not, though I hope I am wrong. They already have two faulty boxed set releases in the past month we all know won't get corrected.
They have reached Paramount Studio status with putting out inconsistent quality product.
This is the kind of thing I just don't understand about botched releases like this, and they keep occurring. The studio invests a LOT of time, money, and expertise to get a title out the door, and then the whole thing comes crumbling down due to lax or uninformed QC, possibly at the hand of a single individual? That's not a smart way to run a business if you want to make fans happy AND make a decent profit. There appears to be a real lack of checks and balances in the workflow, and it happens fairly often, with some studios (I'm lookin' at you, Paramount) having a worse track record than others. So they put themselves in the position of either ignoring the issue and alienating customers, or going through the trouble of initiating a replacement program at significant cost and losing money.But I’m not feeling good about this. The one positive is that if the product is that bad, WB will have to offer replacements for those who purchased. This is my presumption because the work has been going on for quite a while, with a very large investment of both time and budget. No one involved will want to be aligned with a product this potentially problematic.
Except obviously whomever did final QC, who must believe it to be spot on!
Jerry Beck made these comments on the Facebook group "The REAL Flesicher Studios Group" in response to questions about the Digital Bits review and the production in general.But I’m not feeling good about this. The one positive is that if the product is that bad, WB will have to offer replacements for those who purchased. This is my presumption because the work has been going on for quite a while, with a very large investment of both time and budget. No one involved will want to be aligned with a product this potentially problematic.
From whom?I can't wait for the inevitable review. "5/5. Never looked better. Highly Recommended".
Not necessarily, that work would be done by MPI, Warner Bros. Motion Picture Imaging. Jerry Beck is saying that neither he, George Feltenstein or the Warner Archive was involved at all - see quotes in my post a few spaces up."Warner Bros. Discovery’s advanced remastering process began with a 4K, 16-bit scan of Fleischer’s original 35mm successive exposure negative. Staying true to the original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.37-to-1, the highest quality raw image was then scanned and then entered into the recombine process – utilizing special proprietary software to merge the successive exposure Technicolor negatives into a single RGB color image. The end result are pristine animated shorts that have been restored to the animators’ originally intended production quality."
"the recombine process – utilizing special proprietary software"...doesn't that indicate that the Archive staff were involved at some point?
Where does MPI end and Warner Archive begin? So MPI must have developed the recombine software. Did they also develop the proprietary retouching software that gets rid of dirt and scratches without (reasonably) affecting the film grain? Is there a constant back and forth between the divisions? Would they be bothered with old film restorations? Isn't that below their pay grade? Aren't they the software gurus who do special effects for blockbusters? Or does MPI do the heavy lifting in old film restorations and Warner Archive does final editing and mastering? Look at this Tweet announcement - they both are given credit:Not necessarily, that work would be done by MPI, Warner Bros. Motion Picture Imaging. Jerry Beck is saying that neither he, George Feltenstein or the Warner Archive was involved at all - see quotes in my post a few spaces up.
If you're trying to assign blame here, good luck with that endeavor, especially looking from the outside to inside a large corporation. Let's just say that Warner failed here and that they need to do better.Where does MPI end and Warner Archive begin? So MPI must have developed the recombine software. Did they also develop the proprietary retouching software that gets rid of dirt and scratches without (reasonably) affecting the film grain? Is there a constant back and forth between the divisions? Would they be bothered with old film restorations? Isn't that below their pay grade? Aren't they the software gurus who do special effects for blockbusters? Or does MPI do the heavy lifting in old film restorations and Warner Archive does final editing and mastering? Look at this Tweet announcement - they both are given credit:
Curse of Frankenstein: Before and After
Because none of the problem (whatever if might be) has anything to do with the basic scanning or recombine.This is from a current interview of George Feltenstein:
"In about an hour, I’m going over to our motion picture imaging facility, which is where we do most of the mastering, to look at a film of ours from the 1920s that’s getting a brand new restoration – so that people can look at this that’s nearly 100 years old and be compelled by the entertainment and cinematic magic of that film."
Country & Town House
So isn't MPI doing the actual restorations? How could they do the Looney Tunes and Tex Avery cartoons one way and then do these Superman cartoons in another way??
I haven't preordered this particular release so I'll just hold off. Anyhow, I need to watch these toons to see if I'll enjoy them enough to buy them again.