Universal digital masters lost?

[ClayKing]

A friend of mine who works at a TV station told me that they began operating an additional channel on their sub-carrier (not sure if I have the correct terminology). He told me they had licensed films from Fox, Columbia, and Paramount, but were not able to license 30's-40's Universal films because the digital masters were destroyed in a fire a few years ago, and Universal hadn't made replacement transfers. Does this sound correct? Could this be the reason the big TCM license deal with Universal announced a few years ago ended up showing pretty much the same bunch of titles?

[momsne]

Universal has a sad history of not doing a very good job of safeguarding its film archives.
---
Loss of Universal’s tape and film vault raises archival questions
Jun. 9, 2008 | Broadcast Engineering

http://broadcastengineering.com/news/lo ... -questions" target="_blank

Totally destroyed in the fire were Universal’s vault services, shipping and receiving, and the studio’s massive tape and film vault. Last week’s fire that destroyed a massive video and film vault at Universal Studios in Los Angeles was followed by news that no tape or film assets were lost. Copies of everything exist at a backup location.

Now, a week later, there’s concern this may not exactly be true.

By midweek, as the smoke cleared, Universal executives realized that the losses could be far more serious than originally thought though not even the studio itself is sure where things stand. Some executives said it’s still too early to tell what was lost.

However, Paul Ginsburg, a vice present at the studio, warned repertory theaters in an e-mail that the fire “destroyed nearly 100 percent of the archive prints kept here on the lot.”

Totally destroyed were vault services, shipping and receiving, and the studio’s massive tape and film vault. The majority were tape assets with a small percentage being film.

Everything is replaceable — in theory. Backups exist in Philadelphia. However, some prints are enormously valuable in their own right. EK prints, struck from the original negatives when the negatives were new, are among the most valuable assets, according to experts.

Even if a negative is immaculate, a new print might not match the old, said David Schwartz, chief curator at the Museum of the Moving Image in New York. Even black-and-white classics might not be fully reproducible.

The biggest issue today, though, is that while these archival prints can be replaced, that doesn’t mean they will be. “That’s the biggest fear,” Patrick Loughney, curator of motion pictures at George Eastman House, told “Daily Variety.” “That the only real revenue from these films is from cable TV and DVD, and they won’t have new prints made. Then these important films won’t be available in the form in which they were meant to be seen.”

[telical]

This boggles the mind....and heart.

[sethb]

Everything is replaceable — in theory. Backups exist in Philadelphia. However, some prints are enormously valuable in their own right. EK prints, struck from the original negatives when the negatives were new, are among the most valuable assets, according to experts.

What is an "EK print"? Does it stand for Eastman Kodak? Eastman Kodacolor? Why is it so valuable (unless the original negative no longer exists)? Or is it some type of special print, like an internegative?

"Curious minds want to know," as the National Inquirer used to advertise! SETH

[Paul Penna]

What is an "EK print"? Does it stand for Eastman Kodak? Eastman Kodacolor? Why is it so valuable (unless the original negative no longer exists)? Or is it some type of special print, like an internegative?

Wikipedia sez:

A Showprint is a very high quality projection print, made for screening at special events such as gala premieres. It is usually printed directly from the composited camera negative with each shot individually timed, as a duplicate intermediate element would normally be, and onto a higher quality of print stock than is usual for mass-production release prints. As it is at least two generations closer to the composited camera negative than a typical release print, the definition and saturation in the projected image is significantly higher. Generically called an "EK" (historically, for Eastman Kodak) as "Showprint" is a trademark.

From this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_print, which contains additional info about EK prints.

[Jack Theakston]

Studio prints are most valuable in that they were the "best" print that was made, and represented correct timing and density. In the case of black and white and IB Technicolor prints, they're invaluable in the proper timing for modern restorations.

[sethb]

Thanks for the info!! SETH

[BarnabasCollins]

There has been, VERY quietly, a 'data recovery team' working on reconstituting the library assets. While they've had some success there is very little info coming out of them in terms of what may have been permanently lost.

[Ray Faiola]

Which is why I'm holding on to my 16mm prints of the Leon Errol & Hugh Herbert comedies, the Jivin Jacks & Jills musicals and the Arlen & Devine adventures, among many other Universal treasures in my vault!!!

[Jack Theakston]

No unique film elements were lost (they are stored off-site). Many of their popular repertory prints also escaped, since they're on deposit at Deluxe.

As far as video masters go, Universal was paid insurance to remaster film transfers. I don't know if they did the same titles or not, though.

What IS a shame is that they apparently lost a number of MASTER recordings for MCA subsidiaries like Decca and Coral, and television units.

[fwtep]

The Blu-ray of A&C Meet Frankenstein was, in my opinion, a huge let down; is it possible that their best materials for this were part of what was lost? The Blu-ray looks like it's the same transfer as the previous DVD and doesn't look nearly as good and sharp as I expected it to. And does anyone know if the Buck Privates Blu-ray looks better?

[Christopher Jacobs]

The Blu-ray of A&C Meet Frankenstein was, in my opinion, a huge let down; is it possible that their best materials for this were part of what was lost? The Blu-ray looks like it's the same transfer as the previous DVD and doesn't look nearly as good and sharp as I expected it to. And does anyone know if the Buck Privates Blu-ray looks better?

I actually thought A&C MEET FRANKENSTEIN looked great on the Blu-ray, projecting it four feet tall and a bit over five feet wide. The Blu-ray of BUCK PRIVATES, on the other hand, did not seem as crisp and the sound was not quite as good.

Neither titles looked quite as good as most of the films in the classic horror Blu-ray box set, which generally looked very very good to really incredibly stunning. Now if only we can get their restored version of THE OLD DARK HOUSE on Blu-ray, among numerous other titles.

[telical]

No unique film elements were lost (they are stored off-site). Many of their popular repertory prints also escaped, since they're on deposit at Deluxe.

As far as video masters go, Universal was paid insurance to remaster film transfers. I don't know if they did the same titles or not, though.

What IS a shame is that they apparently lost a number of MASTER recordings for MCA subsidiaries like Decca and Coral, and television units.

To rank newbies, let me see if I understand what you are saying. What you are saying is that no FILM elements were lost. This is about digital masters. So the process from going to film to digital will have to be done all over again.

That seems like "a shame."

[Marr&Colton]

I certainly hope key people at Universal can be impressed how important DVD releases of their older product is to the market.

We currently have lots of access to Paramount, Fox, Columbia, Warners, RKO and even United Artists titles from the 30s, 40s and 50s, but a scarcity of Universal titles. I'm sure we can all think of obscure Universal pictures we'd like to see in beautiful digital transfers!

[Christopher Jacobs]

I certainly hope key people at Universal can be impressed how important DVD releases of their older product is to the market.

We currently have lots of access to Paramount, Fox, Columbia, Warners, RKO and even United Artists titles from the 30s, 40s and 50s, but a scarcity of Universal titles. I'm sure we can all think of obscure Universal pictures we'd like to see in beautiful digital transfers!

While not as many as Warner has put out (including RKO and MGM titles), as far as DVD goes, there are quite a few Universal titles available, most of the major titles and several fun minor series, and remember that the 1930s-40s Paramounts are also mostly owned by Universal, and there's a very nice selection of 30s-40s Paramount films on DVD.

As far as Blu-ray goes, there are very few titles available from ANY of the major studios from before 1960. The studio with the highest number of 30s-40s films actually now seems to be Republic, through its ownership by Paramount and Paramount's license deal with Olive Films. That has also produced quite a few obscure and interesting Paramount films on Blu-ray, mainly from the 1950s-60s-70s.

Regarding the destruction of Universal's digital masters, one might almost look at the fire as a good or at least a fortuitous thing, since those pre-2008 digital transfers could be done much better with today's rapidly advancing technology. Blu-ray nitpickers frequently complain about new releases made from "old" 2005 and 2008 transfers of their favorite films instead of studios doing a new improved scan for their Blu-ray reissues (especially Universal's 100th anniversary series). The insurance settlement would actually have given Universal an ideal excuse to upgrade everything they'd previously done while continuing their regular HD digitization program. Now whether they really used (or are using) the insurance to re-transfer everything or merely put it into their general fund or some new theatrical production is another question that only someone from Universal would be able to answer.

[fwtep]

I actually thought A&C MEET FRANKENSTEIN looked great on the Blu-ray, projecting it four feet tall and a bit over five feet wide. The Blu-ray of BUCK PRIVATES, on the other hand, did not seem as crisp and the sound was not quite as good.

I'm watching on a 10 foot wide screen. The movie does look very good, no doubt about that, but it doesn't look as good as it could, or, rather, as good as I was expecting. My expectations were based on how good it already looked on DVD.

I'm sure this is just the same transfer as the existing DVD because the titles are window boxed, and with HD there's no need for that because overscan is not an issue.

Bummer about Buck Privates. I may just stick with the DVD. Unless it goes on sale really cheap, like Frankenstein did ($14).