Brandon Gantt

I read Stuart Galbraith IV's DVD review of Maniac at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=44813 and...

You do realize that Maniac was shot on 16mm and blown up to 35mm. The final negative is this 35mm blowup. It's not a "true" 16mm transfer as those elements don't exist. You can not compare this to other 16mmm productions. This HD transfer is a true representation of the 35mm blow up elements. HD can't work miracles.

S Galbraith IV

I'm not sure what you mean and yes, I state several times in the review that this was shot in 16mm.

The transfer is only going to be as good as the element sourced, and the 16mm camera negative would have been a better source than any 35mm blow-up element. As I state in the review, I've seen excellent high-def transfers from 16mm; this isn't one of them.

How do you know the 16mm elements no longer exist?

Chas Speed

It wouldn't surprise me if it was lost. It seems like I remember reading that a whole reel of film was lost or destroyed before the movie was even released and nobody seemed to notice or care. It's like if someone had done a porn movie and 10 minutes were destroyed at the lab, they would probably just shrug and release it anyway. I remember really hating this film when it first came out on video, but have seen it on IFC and couldn't get worked up over it anymore. It's like your review said the film seems to have lost it's ability to shock or offend.

Brandon Gantt

Lustig says he tossed it in the 80s when he moved to LA. I understood your review fully. It was shot in 16mm and some very good HD transfers can be made from 16mm elements. Yet in this case Blue Underground did not have the 16mm film to go back to. The only negative that exist for this film is 35mm. Your review states that you've seen some excellent transfers from 16mm, yet you missed the point of my original post: this ain't from 16mm, cause that's long gone!

The review should judge it for what it is: 35mm blowup.

S Galbraith IV

If, as you say, Lustig "tossed" the 16mm camera negative and is now forced to rely on secondary 35mm blow-up elements, that would tend to support my argument, not yours.

The transfer may be, as you say, "a true representation of the 35mm blow up elements," but if so those elements sourced still look like crap, and this is reflected in most of the reviews I've read of the new Blu-ray and DVD. I suggest you compare the HD U.S. trailers (both "hard" and "soft"); the image, color, and contrast on those is much better than the film.

I suppose it's fair to say "This is an accurate transfer of extremely poor secondary film elements," but that doesn't make the image any better.