Or did they have to use a mix of both to restore the print? I just wondered since the 16 millimeter color prints (early ones) were done in Cinecolor. Later 16mm prints were on Eastman stock which fades to read after several years. The original 35mm prints were in Technicolor btw.
shareSee here: http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/video_first_person_restoring/
Is this the version available on Blu-ray from Kino Classics? It sais "Mastered in HD from an original Technicolor nitrate 35 mm print, preserved by George Eastman House Motion Picture Department"?
shareI'm afraid not. It's a transfer of the complete Selznick print whose main title and color credit cards (only) were used for the 1999 Disney-funded restoration.
As well as the link I posted above, there's lots more on it here:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/316717/a-few-words-about-nothing-sacred-in-blu-ray
Essentially, this is the second best print of Nothing Sacred in existence, after the Disney restoration, so close, but still no cigar.
There's a good review of the overall quality here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/5977/nothing_sacred.html
It beggars belief that the restored version still isn't available, after all this time. My guess is that Kino tried to acquire it for blu ray release, but were quoted a price that would have made the venture commercially unviable.
An utter shame; this is possibly my favourite screwball of my favourite film genre...
I just saw the Kino Classics version on TCM. If any restoration has been done on it, it wad very little indeed. The color quality throughout was so uneven. The best seemed to be during some close-ups. Maybe they concentrated most of their work on those. And, the soundtrack didn't seem to have had anything done to it at all.
share