Superior Cinematography in the Craig era?

It's come to something when Bond directors are adding smoke to the NON-exploding sets ...

Again much of the series still lack proper HD transfers that would better show off the photography. So don't go by what we have on video alone.

Speaking of HD transfers, I find that the John Glen directed Bond movies have a made for TV look, accept for The Living Daylights, which looks better. Does anyone else find this, especially with A View to A Kill being the most made for TV looking?

ironpony wrote:

Speaking of HD transfers, I find that the John Glen directed Bond movies have a made for TV look, accept for The Living Daylights, which looks better.  Does anyone else find this, especially with A View to A Kill being the most made for TV looking?

I feel this is especially true of the three Moore films that had Alan Hume as DoP. At worse, they look like they could have been clips from THE A-TEAM or MacGYVER. Just a very bland and generic kind of look. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was a step up, but sometimes I felt Alec Mills used way too much light to fill sets that they'd no longer look like real rooms but obvious movie sets. This is made even worse in LICENCE TO KILL.

It's weird because I thought Hume's cinematography in Runaway Train, which came out the same year as AVTAK, looked a lot better.

I had no idea LTK and TLD were both done by the same cinematographer, as they both look very different in my opinion. TLD definitely looks more cinematic to me.

It's weird because I thought Hume's cinematography in Runaway Train, which came out the same year as AVTAK, looked a lot better.

I had no idea LTK and TLD were both done by the same cinematographer, as they both look very different in my opinion.  TLD definitely looks more cinematic to me. I didn't really notice too much light on Mill's sets, but I do like his cinematography better than Hume's.

Makeshift Python wrote:

I expect snobs in this thread will snort a shot like this, but whatevs.

They shouldn't because Meheux is an ace.

Whatever you can say of GOLDENEYE and CASINO ROYALE, I like how Meheux presents Bond in moments like these, a figure in the shadows.





Well, at least when Campbell isn't having Bond plowing his way via tank and bulldozer.

Goldeneye had some of my favorite cinematography as well.  Better than CR for me. I don't like the yellow tint that they starting doing from CR to Spectre, and GE doesn't have that yellow tint yet.

hegottheboot wrote:

I will say that to properly appreciate the photography of the series you must see some actual print screenings. I don't think many of the video transfers do the cinematographers justice-particularly the framing. I remember always wondering why FYEO could look so drab until I ran it on a projector and was bowled over by how well the scope compositions played out on a larger screen. The few 35mm showings I've managed to see have all been incredible-sometimes with far more vivid color than even the modern "restored" versions some of which are not very good.

I'm curious, outside of Bond what examples of video transfers do you think captured films the closest?

If you ever get to see any 35mm bits of the 80's films they look so much better that you quickly forget how flat they look on video. The old masters were very good for the time on CRT sets and Laserdisc but none look as good as they should today.
TLD indeed has great photography and the few moments on video that look suspect do not look this way in 35mm. LTK's problem was that they had to shoot in Mexico in the makeshift stages they built on the lowered budget and then send the film out to be processed in Mexico City and Florida instead of the usual and superior London and LA labs. In fact when editing Glen found that a scene was missing and it had to be tracked all the way back to where it had been mistakenly left in FL!!!
On the big screen and in trailers LTK has really nice color and overcomes some of its drabness. However I finally realized that it SHOULD be slightly drab as it fits with the story and tone. Bond and the film itself goes gritty.
The trailer scans included on most releases and the HD ones from 007 Dossier will always give you a better idea of what original release prints would have appeared like versus the video editions.

The best HD transfer currently is TSWLM since it is the only confirmed new one and replaces the pretty crummy standard def ones. Outside of some minor color timing issues which are very infrequent (Merely some slight cases of the modern trend of adding teal colors) it has the best and most natural HD transfer of the entire series with a lovely grain structure. The only downside is that it lacks the original 2.0 surround mix.

As for best HD transfers currently available, short of 4k UHD and HDR which is still being worked out I would say the new digital restorations of My Fair Lady, Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai-and many of the modern transfers of B&W and early Technicolor films look staggering. For example the new restored OLD DARK HOUSE is absolutely astonishing for a film nearly lost and only available in a poor transfer of a battered 16mm print for 30 years.

I thought the LTK trailer looked worse than the move though, at least this trailer I saw:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quHQAuO0lkg

The color looks worse and looks unfinished or something, with a brown tint to it.

hegottheboot wrote:

The best HD transfer currently is TSWLM since it is the only confirmed new one and replaces the pretty crummy standard def ones. Outside of some minor color timing issues which are very infrequent (Merely some slight cases of the modern trend of adding teal colors) it has the best and most natural HD transfer of the entire series with a lovely grain structure. The only downside is that it lacks the original 2.0 surround mix.

It's on the blu, at least for my copy. You might be thinking of the Ultimate Edition DVD, which was notably missing the original 2.0 surround mix probably due to the additional Roger Moore commentary taking up space. LALD and FYEO were also missing the original mixes.

Quote :

As for best HD transfers currently available, short of 4k UHD and HDR which is still being worked out I would say the new digital restorations of My Fair Lady, Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai-and many of the modern transfers of B&W and early Technicolor films look staggering. For example the new restored OLD DARK HOUSE is absolutely astonishing for a film nearly lost and only available in a poor transfer of a battered 16mm print for 30 years.

I got to see screening of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA for its 50th anniversary. It was only a 4K digital screening, but still gorgeous.

One of my local theaters one had a 70mm screening of THE HATEFUL EIGHT and I assumed at the time that it would be screened at the IMAX venue or one of the larger theaters. Instead, it was screened at a tiny theater usually reserved for movies that have already been out for weeks. Meanwhile, the larger ones were taken up by THE FORCE AWAKENS, which is of course a Disney film. https://deadline.com/2015/12/the-hateful-eight-star-wars-force-awakens-arclight-theater-fight-1201668018/

Pretty crocked. Only times I could go see 70mm screenings for any specials are all the way up in LA, and I don't have a lot of time to drive there for such things.

I forgot the BD has a 2.0 track. Duh. Here's my old writeup on the various audio mixes:
Letterboxed Ld, THX remaster, DVD, UE DVD and BD.
After further comparison, the THX disc for TSWLM centers the dialogue AND score. The 5.1 was done and I believe the stereo matrixed PCM is a downmix. Why or how this was done is unknown or whether it is more accurate. Honestly I don’t think it is. Bond '77 in the PTS clearly shows the score being centered, as the opening bass notes are firmly centered as are the cymbal crashes in the chase. These were all panned hard right in the older release. It sounds as if they went back to the elements and played with the mix configuration in the 5.1 format.
Direct comparison to the older WS LD reveals the former as having a much better stereo spread and despite having some distortion and noise it is preferable I think. The film was supposedly a matrixed stereo release without Dolby encoding. No details of 70mm blowups have ever arisen.
The THX remaster has far better color and detail. The source transfer is identical, right down to the frame wobble in Gogol’s office after the titles. The THX DVD is a port and the SE is as well, though it may suffer from some additional processing.

Edit: the dts hdma on the Bluray sounds better than the 5.1/2.0 remixed track. It still centers everything but has far better clarity and detail in addition to better stereo imaging. Which is correct centered or not is unknown. Also the 2.0 track is the same as the thx LD.
The hdma has the original film version of the song.

This makes 4 mixes:
Original WS LD surround
Thx remaster 5.1/2.0
UE remastered 5.1 in Dolby/DTS with soundtrack title song
BD dts hdma remastered 5.1 with original song reinstated.