BD 78 Pharaoh

[Bikey]

Beaver

[yoloswegmaster]

No idea if my eyes are playing tricks on me or if my monitor is off but it looks like the transfer has been hit with the DNR button one too many times.

[Aspect]

This is on YouTube in pretty good quality for anyone interested. I admired its scope, but found it stiff and cumbersome. I definitely struggled through its long runtime. Still glad I saw it as it’s quite the curiosity. I had no idea a Polish epic about ancient Egypt existed!

[MichaelB]

No idea if my eyes are playing tricks on me or if my monitor is off but it looks like the transfer has been hit with the DNR button one too many times.

It's baked into the restoration; there's nothing Second Run could do. Although I gather the subtitles have been improved over the Martin Scorsese Presents release.

[Peacock]

Such a shame that the DNR is so bad, it makes one wonder what using another source than the “restoration” would have looked like, but then I suppose the colours would probably be faded or something. I’ll still be buying this with no other alternative out there.

[MichaelB]

There isn't another high-definition source.

[Peacock]

There isn't another high-definition source.

I more meant a film print.

[MichaelB]

You don't ever scan from a projection print unless it's absolutely unavoidable - the contrast will be too high (and you can't regrade it afterwards because it's baked in), and it'll look like shit. It'll also be several generations removed from the negative, with all that that implies in terms of loss of fine detail.

This Beaver comparison of various Straw Dogs releases is an excellent primer - even if you scroll down rapidly, the transfer that's sourced from a film print repeatedly leaps off the screen.

I also seriously doubt that there'll be 35mm projection prints in even minimally acceptable condition any more.

(This is quite aside from the fact that Second Run simply doesn't have the budget to do their own scan and restoration - this may have been a major blockbuster in Poland in 1966, but there's no chance of it being any more than a niche release here.)

[tenia]

The issue lies with the digital work done by the Polish when this restoration was prepped up. Sadly, a good chunk of the movies in those "Martin Scorsese presents" boxsets were restored through an abusive use of digital filtering, mostly DNR, and getting better masters would require new work to be done (at least by going back to the raw scan and re-doing the next steps). Until that, movies like Pharaoh will only have such masters available.
It's a shame, but it's also all there is. The only other alternative would be not to release these on BD and only pick movies available through better restoration work. I'd argue that Second Run's pace on releasing 1 movie per month would allow for that, but it would also imply leaving movies like Pharaoh behind. On the other hand, I think allowing those who commissioned and approved such work to keep cashing on it isn't doing the movie a favor in this regard.

[Peacock]

Exactly Tenia, they DNR it to hell and then SecondRun give them money for it. Did MichaelB support Indicator taking a stand and not releasing Ishtar without contextualising extras? It’s a tricky one though, if SecondRun don’t pay for the rights will the rights holder suddenly pump way more money than they would have gotten from a UK Blu-ray label into rescanning the elements? Of course the answer is no. And I agree, it’s important to be able to see these films.

But I have to admire Eureka for taking a stand when one of their crazy Hong Kong actioners was delivered with a compromised master (edge enhanced and DNR’d if I understand right) and they were told take it or leave it; they decided to release it with lots of pre warnings about the condition it’s in and to only release it on their website in a short run.

Do I admire Indicator for their Ishtar decision? Probably not, it’s a shame they couldn’t have done something similar to Eureka.

I know it would hurt preorders if SecondRun preannounced that the transfer was poor, but at least it would show the rights holders that their iffy decisions have consequences.

As for the quality of release prints scanned for home video releases… it happens all the time, particularly for silent films where there may not be other surviving elements. And obviously it’s common with more recent movies as well where the negative doesn’t survive. See many Agfa releases, some SecondRun DVDs, some blu’s by Synapse etc. Is it ideal? No. Can projection prints be scanned and graded to adjust for their higher gamma? Yes, to an extent, and it may have been better than what we got here. But who knows without seeing a side by side.

Of course I appreciate that SecondRun didn’t have the budget to search for the perfect print to scan and grade themselves etc, and the “restoration” may be the most complete form of the film available, and I will still be purchasing this release anyway. I just bought Raro’s Carmelo Bene DVD set which is in a far worse state!

It’s just a shame when you think that DNR is being generally applied to a less OTT level in the industry as a whole these days and then something like this comes out and it feels like we are back 15 years.

[MichaelB]

Do I admire Indicator for their Ishtar decision? Probably not, it’s a shame they couldn’t have done something similar to Eureka.

They couldn't have done anything "similar to Eureka" because there was nothing wrong with Sony's Ishtar master - the problem was that because of their strictures they could only release a barebones disc with only the trailer (i.e. no booklet), so I'm not surprised that they decided to scrap the project altogether. Which wasn't a decision that they took lightly, and it must have cost them a bomb; in fact, the fully-authored disc was at the QC stage when the plug was pulled, and so contributors would have been paid.

And if by "similar to Eureka" you mean a warning within the package itself about Sony's strictures, that's not viable either because there's no way Sony would have sanctioned something like that bearing in mind that the ban was on any mention of the film's chequered past anywhere in the package. So how do you explain what's happened in a way that doesn't raise that issue?

But there's nothing to stop anybody else from licensing the rights and releasing it barebones if they have more of a track record with that sort of thing; Powerhouse relinquished the rights, so they're presumably available to other labels.

I know it would hurt preorders if SecondRun preannounced that the transfer was poor, but at least it would show the rights holders that their iffy decisions have consequences.

Call me cynical, but that's wildly unlikely. As I'm sure you remember, Polish rightsholders were quite happy not to license their stuff to UK labels at all for many, many years because they wanted unrealistic sums of money, so I doubt they'd be the slightest bit fazed by a refusal on a label's part to license a particular title. These restorations are overwhelmingly created for the Polish domestic market; anything else they get from it is chicken feed.

[Aunt Peg]

My copy of Pharaoh is on it's way. I'm grateful to be able to finally see the film in it's correct ratio and what I am sure is of superior picture quality to the old pan and scan DVD I saw decades ago.

[TMDaines]

Exactly Tenia, they DNR it to hell and then SecondRun give them money for it. Did MichaelB support Indicator taking a stand and not releasing Ishtar without contextualising extras? It’s a tricky one though, if SecondRun don’t pay for the rights will the rights holder suddenly pump way more money than they would have gotten from a UK Blu-ray label into rescanning the elements? Of course the answer is no. And I agree, it’s important to be able to see these films.

I watched a rip of the Scorsese disc years ago on my projector and it is more than watchable. I didn't have a bad experience. You are overreacting a bit.

[Peacock]

I’ve never seen the Scorsese disc or any caps from it so I’m not sure what I’m overreacting about… If you check out the Beaver link above you’ll find the image on the Blu has been completely degrained. Some people may not mind total noise reduction; which is fine, I’m not sensitive to some of the audio issues nicolas is affected by in 4K releases. But everyone has their pet peeves and mine is the removal of celluloid grain…

[tenia]

I watched a rip of the Scorsese disc years ago on my projector and it is more than watchable. I didn't have a bad experience. You are overreacting a bit.

Several of the movies included in the 3 Scorsese / Polish sets clearly were filtered to a visible extent, and this clearly is one of them. The grain has been filtered to oblivion, there isn't an inch of life left in it. I have no idea how poor the previous presentations had been before for this movie, so am in absolutely no position to provide any "it'll probably be better than [insert your previous reference]", but as it stands, this new restoration could be anything from a 4K resto from a OCN to a 20 years old HD master from an interpositive, as it has 0 grain structure to account for its origins.

It's certainly watchable, but just like a thoroughly degrained movie would be. The source seems in good shape though, and past this, I dont recall it having other issue. It's just the kind of work that got hit with DNR-a-gogo and everything else is fine. If I had to score it, I'd give it a 6/10 on PQ.