Bond Movies: Which Are You Buying? - Page 8

Originally Posted by robertc88

I was referring to the boxed sets. Going to get expensive buying them separately.

BTW, where did filmbuff 2 go? We are waiting for reviews!

Originally Posted by dragonyeuw

I agree that buying them seperately will be expensive.I was merely commenting to your statement that they aren't individually packaged,which is not true.You can either get them as 2 packs with 3 movies per pack,or individually.Of course the three Connery releases are split between the two available packs,as would be expected as mentioned above by a few posters.I would personally rather spend a few extra bucks per film and get the ones I want,rather than be forced to buy packs containing films I don't want.And out of the 21 Bond Films,I would only invest my hidef dollars in the first 5 Connery films and 2006's Casino Royale(which I already own).

Originally Posted by Lance_G

Does anyone know if the James Bond 3-pack collections will still have each movie in its own individual keepcase like Sony did with Spider-Man trilogy?

Also, will the individual Bond releases have slipcovers?

Thank in advance for any information.

Originally Posted by browerjs

Actually Circuit City is going to have them for 21.95/ea and if you buy 2 you get $5 off. So for all 6 it would be: $116.70, only about $5 more then the 6pack on amazon... Of course you'd have tax on top of it, and you may have to do 3 seperate orders...

Originally Posted by DarkKnight2k4

Is the sale this week or next ?

Originally Posted by PittDVD

For those buying the single releases:

On every copy I've seen so far, FOX has stuck the Movie Cash sticker on the SLIP COVER, rather than onto the shrink wrap of the case itself.

The problem is not only is the sticker very hard to get off, but a lot of the print on the back of the sticker winds up STAYING on your slip cover!

I have no idea if goo-gone or anything else will remove the ink.

Just a word of warning to everyone!

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

Just received Die Another Day today....Yesterday i received From Russia With Love and was disappointed with the grain structure of that film which i felt had been partially scrubbed away and what was left was a slightly clumpy grain structure instead ( and would like to clarify that it was just slightly and not major ) which isn't film like to my eyes at least thats the way it looked on a 106inch projection screen...I noticed this while the film was in motion and paused it to examine it closer up and the grain did not look like natural film grain either in motion or when paused and when they use their DNR tools it's getting easier to recognize...Detail was still high and it generally looked very good but the film grain just didn't look natural to me although others may well disagree ( especially reviewers )

I'm going to check Die Another Day out later and see if it looks the same way
( detailed but not film like with the grain structure partially scrubbed away )

I will probably be in the minority here but i was disappointed with From Russia With Love even if it was leaps and bounds better than the DVD editions.

Originally Posted by MovieSwede

Foxy

Dont forget that filmgrain comes in great variations. And what the the encoder is trying to do is recreate the grainstructure with it blocks without destroying the other detail.

Originally Posted by MovieSwede

By looking at the screencap, I still think it has the look of film to it. As there is plenty of grain in the background.

But without having access to the orginal negative, its impossible for me to be sure whats been done to the movie.

And Im not old enough to have seen this in theater, so I have no reference to if this should look different.

Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn

Thanks for the mini review. Too bad that they feel compelled to clean them up when it sounds like really,they don't know how.

Art

Robert Harris
Motion Picture Archivist

Local Time: 04:52 PM
Local Date: 10-17-2008
Posts: 2,537

A few words about...™ Dr. No - in Blu-ray

Make no mistake. Dr. No was a film made on a tiny budget, which it outshines at virtually every turn.

I've heard numerous tales about precisely how the Bond series got its start, and the one that I believe came from a UA exec who delivered the news to Mr. Broccoli and Mr. Saltzman.

After meetings at UA, the pair were ensconced in their Manhattan luxury hotel, and on a particularly hot day, the air conditioning had gone down. When the exec arrived, he found the pair in their suite, nervously pacing in their shorts.

The word from UA was positive. They were going to finance their film.

And they were going to allow them to shoot...

in color.

From these inauspicious beginnings came probably the greatest financial blockbuster of all motion picture series, now hitting number 22.

I'll say it again. Dr. No was an inexpensive film -- probably around one million or less. For those who have not seen the early films in the series, don't expect hundred million dollar extravaganzas. Just terrific filmmaking on a budget.

I presume that it was photographed on Eastman 5250, the same emulsion that was exposed by Freddie Young to capture Lawrence of Arabia, and like many popular films, the original negative saw its share of use.

M-G-M and Eon made a prudent move in permitting Lowry Digital to scan, digitize, and work their magic on the elements. A featurette produced several years ago describes the work performed as restoration, and while I'm not certain whether the actual work performed was restoration or digital cleanup, the final result on Blu-ray is nothing less than spectacular.

There is also something of major importance to the home theater community to be learned here that has measurably increased the carbon footprint of the web since the release of Patton and The Longest Day months ago. And that is a very simply fact regarding noise and grain reduction.

Noise and grain reduction are not, in and of themselves, bad things.

The correct post facility, using the correct (here Lowry's proprietary) techniques, can make a huge difference in the viewing pleasure of films from the last half of the twentieth century.In this case, a film cropped to 1.66 and therefore enlarged for home video has an attractive sheen of delicate moving grain. Having worked with 5250 and 5251, this does not appear to be the original grain, but good, natural looking grain of a slightly later vintage. And the overall image is beautiful.

What does this mean?

Simple. It means that with the proper tools and the right people behind them, grain can be removed or reduced WITHOUT AFFECTING THE RESOLUTION, DETAIL OR HIGH FREQUENCY INFORMATION.
Dr. No, via the wizards at Lowry Digital, looks far better than it has any right to look. The overall viewing experience is superb. The disc arrives at a street price with a full list of extras of around $23.

The question that I raised earlier, as to whether this film is truly "restored" in the full sense of the word really doesn't come into play here. The single overriding fact is that the Blu-ray is as perfect as it can be. Any modifications to grain in moving toward the final resultant image are secondary, as unlike some of the other films which we consider classics, and which may actually depend upon the original grain structure, the Bond films are and always have been, pure visceral entertainment of the highest order -- more fashion than art, great story-telling, and as they moved from production to production, eventually produced on the grandest of budgetary scales.

This is merely my first look at the new Blu Bonds. I need to spend some quality time with them as I can find the time, and will report back with findings.

Suffice to say that the first episode, Dr. No, went well beyond my expectations. A very high quality disc representing the birth of a behemoth series.

Highly Recommended.

RAH

Originally Posted by ack_bk

Well Robert Harris would disagree with you there:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...o-blu-ray.html

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

It's not the original grain ? Why not ? Did they add it later to give an illusion of film grain ? How does all that work ?

Originally Posted by MovieSwede

I guess they either did

1. Grain reduction, that removes some of the grain, and changes the grain structure as a result.

2. Grain removal, completly removed the grain, and then added simulated grain to recreate a more vintage filmlook.

3. The encode itself gives a slight different grainstructure when it tries to encode the grain with blockpatterns.

4. Something I have no idea of.


But it still looks like film to me. So I would give the restoration work 2 thumbs up.

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

If it's simulated grain i wonder if that explains the moving ants on Rosa Klebbs head during an early scene which doesn't quite have a look of film grain for me...Perhaps the simulation didn't quite get it right there.

If it is simulated grain it doesn't completely work for me.

It'll no doubt be interesting to hear more details from Mr Harris after he views this one....He's an expert and i am not so maybe i am wrong ( and i am quite willing to admit it )

Originally Posted by robertc88

Well hollywoodguy did say on the BD review thread for the Bonds that for From Russia With Love, -- almost as good as Dr. No, but sharpened more aggressively.