or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › MGM Hitchcock on Blu-ray
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MGM Hitchcock on Blu-ray - Page 2

post #31 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

Yes. Multiplicative chain.

Ok, but what in the images clues you in to this problem? For the King Kong (1933) BD it's rather apparent but I find it harder to see it in these titles, for all I know they could have been scanned several years ago.
post #32 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Ok, but what in the images clues you in to this problem? For the King Kong (1933) BD it's rather apparent but I find it harder to see it in these titles, for all I know they could have been scanned several years ago.

Just look at how sharp and well defined real word and grain detail is. And compare to other scans from other 35mm films of comparable age and style. There have been several restorations released on BD from camera negatives as a reference point of what is possible.
post #33 of 84
More:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/notorious.htm
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/spellbound.htm

I know dvd is a poor thing to go by but the Criterion Spellbound grey levels and texture look very similar to the BD and the Criterion was released in 2002 making me suspect they are the same master. Don't get wrong, the BD looks great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

Just look at how sharp and well defined real word and grain detail is. And compare to other scans from other 35mm films of comparable age and style. There have been several restorations released on BD from camera negatives as a reference point of what is possible.

I have seen some raw footage of current film so I know it should be crisp like Wizard of Oz, too sharp for me is a red flag for automatic filtering. And that's the problem, so many catalog titles are processed, sometimes heavily or just plain done too long ago that judging generation copy issues is hard.
post #34 of 84
Price is too high to upgrade from DVD. Very surprising to me that these are not sub-$15.
post #35 of 84
Costco has these titles for $9.99 each.
post #36 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltasun View Post

Costco has these titles for $9.99 each.

Wow great news thanks!
post #37 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltasun View Post

Costco has these titles for $9.99 each.

For $9.99, I'm there!!!!
post #38 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rach View Post

Price is too high to upgrade from DVD. Very surprising to me that these are not sub-$15.

The images look like some of the least SD to HD improvement I've seen.

Art
post #39 of 84
I got all three at Costco today for $9.99. I'll give Notorious a look tonight on my RS35/Stewart Studiotek 130.
post #40 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

The images look like some of the least SD to HD improvement I've seen.

As opposed to what BD of films from that era? Going to put a 65/70mm as an example?
post #41 of 84
Just received mine. I'm so thrilled (even before watching them). I love the cinematography in these films!
post #42 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by egrady View Post

I got all three at Costco today for $9.99 EACH.

Ditto.
post #43 of 84
I viewed selected scenes from Rebecca and Notorious. If there was any digital tampering with the image I couldn't see it. Both looked unfiltered. In fact, they resembled the raw, unprocessed look I've seen on the better Criterian B&W releases.

Rebecca looked very good. Good contrast, shadow detail and reasonably good detail. Notorious was disappointing. It looked like a decent DVD rather than HD. While I don't have the Criterian DVD, I suspect a direct comparison wouldn't show much additional detail. It's not that it was filtered away, it just looks like the elements don't have the detail they did in 1946.
post #44 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by egrady View Post

I got all three at Costco today for $9.99. I'll give Notorious a look tonight on my RS35/Stewart Studiotek 130.

+ 1.

Kind of in shock. Great price, and I was already there. Talk about an impulse buy...

However, I am replacing the horrid studio-designed covers with these gorgeous ones:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/5713718-post9092.html
post #45 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexx View Post

+ 1.

Kind of in shock. Great price, and I was already there. Talk about an impulse buy...

However, I am replacing the horrid studio-designed covers with these gorgeous ones:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/5713718-post9092.html

Wow, gorgeous covers.
post #46 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltasun View Post

Wow, gorgeous covers.

It always amazes me how little some of these fantastic original promotional images (posters, etc.) are used. The design work is already done- and beautifully- but they pay some Photoshop jock to spit out a half-hour's turd, instead.
post #47 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post


It always amazes me how little some of these fantastic original promotional images (posters, etc.) are used. The design work is already done- and beautifully- but they pay some Photoshop jock to spit out a half-hour's turd, instead.

That's why we have the customs thread
post #48 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltasun View Post

Costco has these titles for $9.99 each.

After having no luck yesterday at Costco, I found them today at another Costco near me. Picked all three up.
post #49 of 84
Watched Notorious last night. I couldn't be more happy with how it turned out. Miles better than the Criterion DVD.
post #50 of 84
For those of you without a Costco card, WalMart has each movie for 13.99. Reasonable!
post #51 of 84
Finally watched all these. I found Rebecca to have the best PQ. Notorious is ok. Spellbound is a very mixed bag - I'd say they did use very very different looking source material, but luckily the affected scenes seemed quite a few. I didn't really watch for the PQ's, but the films, but still did notice the PQ varieties in Spellbound.
post #52 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by leterface View Post

finally watched all these. I found rebecca to have the best pq. Notorious is ok. Spellbound is a very mixed bag - i'd say they did use very very different looking source material, but luckily the affected scenes seemed quite a few. I didn't really watch for the pq's, but the films, but still did notice the pq varieties in spellbound.

+1
post #53 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leterface View Post

Finally watched all these. I found Rebecca to have the best PQ. Notorious is ok. Spellbound is a very mixed bag - I'd say they did use very very different looking source material, but luckily the affected scenes seemed quite a few. I didn't really watch for the PQ's, but the films, but still did notice the PQ varieties in Spellbound.

Okay, let's get specific, because reading this thread is more than a little frustrating. What specifically are YOUR problems with the PQ of Spellbound? What are these transfer "vagaries" you speak of. Once we know the specifics then a discussion can take place. One cannot have any sort of discussion based on generalities.
post #54 of 84
I watched Spellbound on Sunday evening. I really like this film anyway but the overall quality of the video is very very good IMO. The grain was quite variable but the images were generally quite clean.

I'd say if you enjoy films of this era as I do very much you will like what you see.

Be sure to watch High Anxiety to see professor Littleoldman.

Art
post #55 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

Okay, let's get specific, because reading this thread is more than a little frustrating. What specifically are YOUR problems with the PQ of Spellbound? What are these transfer "vagaries" you speak of. Once we know the specifics then a discussion can take place. One cannot have any sort of discussion based on generalities.

This about sums what I meant:
" Where damage and other age-related issues of wear and tear make their presence felt, they do so without any untoward level of distraction.

Ironically, there are instances of vertical lines appearing on the frame, conjuring-up thoughts of the effect seeing these would have upon Peck's character if he caught sight of them.*"
post #56 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leterface View Post

This about sums what I meant:
" Where damage and other age-related issues of wear and tear make their presence felt, they do so without any untoward level of distraction.

Ironically, there are instances of vertical lines appearing on the frame, conjuring-up thoughts of the effect seeing these would have upon Peck's character if he caught sight of them.*"

I'm not looking for general comments - I'm looking for specific instances of what you consider "vagaries." Because I have to tell you, there really aren't any. This film looks as good as it's ever looked, and I've seen it many times, from original 35mm release prints to 16mm - I believe the "vagaries" you speak of are inherent to the source material and not a transfer issue. There are a lot of opticals in this film - those look exactly like opticals. There is work with diffusion filters and that looks like it should. There is no wear and tear other than some very light scratches during the first few minutes.

What I'm trying to do here is point out a rather flawless transfer. Transfers get blamed all the time for what turns out to be the way the film was made, photographed, etc. Those are not transfer issues. Spellbound looks great on Blu-ray, but the only people who'd really know that for sure are people who are well acquainted with the look of the film from seeing it ON film, not home video.
post #57 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

I'm not looking for general comments - I'm looking for specific instances of what you consider "vagaries." Because I have to tell you, there really aren't any. This film looks as good as it's ever looked, and I've seen it many times, from original 35mm release prints to 16mm - I believe the "vagaries" you speak of are inherent to the source material and not a transfer issue. There are a lot of opticals in this film - those look exactly like opticals. There is work with diffusion filters and that looks like it should. There is no wear and tear other than some very light scratches during the first few minutes.

What I'm trying to do here is point out a rather flawless transfer. Transfers get blamed all the time for what turns out to be the way the film was made, photographed, etc. Those are not transfer issues. Spellbound looks great on Blu-ray, but the only people who'd really know that for sure are people who are well acquainted with the look of the film from seeing it ON film, not home video.

This illustrates a difficult issue. Something can look as good as it possibly can and still look average. Or worse. Of the three, Rebecca looks the best. Whether it simply had the best elements or not I don't know. Notorious looks much more like SD, but I'm sure it wasn't the transfer. Regardless, I'm not sure I agree that the transfer is always blamed for poor results.

Unless it's a catalog title from Universal.
post #58 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

I'm not looking for general comments - I'm looking for specific instances of what you consider "vagaries." Because I have to tell you, there really aren't any. This film looks as good as it's ever looked, and I've seen it many times, from original 35mm release prints to 16mm - I believe the "vagaries" you speak of are inherent to the source material and not a transfer issue. There are a lot of opticals in this film - those look exactly like opticals. There is work with diffusion filters and that looks like it should. There is no wear and tear other than some very light scratches during the first few minutes.

What I'm trying to do here is point out a rather flawless transfer. Transfers get blamed all the time for what turns out to be the way the film was made, photographed, etc. Those are not transfer issues. Spellbound looks great on Blu-ray, but the only people who'd really know that for sure are people who are well acquainted with the look of the film from seeing it ON film, not home video.

Nice post ! Unfortunately it's black and white ,academy AR, and has visible grain.


Art
post #59 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by egrady View Post

Notorious looks much more like SD

My copy of Notorious looks nothing like standard definition.
post #60 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leterface View Post

Ironically, there are instances of vertical lines appearing on the frame, conjuring-up thoughts of the effect seeing these would have upon Peck's character if he caught sight of them.*"

Maybe I am misreading you, are you saying sometimes the print damage enhances the mood of a certain shots? A technique some directors have done although I not saying that about Spellbound.

Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

What I'm trying to do here is point out a rather flawless transfer. Transfers get blamed all the time for what turns out to be the way the film was made, photographed, etc. Those are not transfer issues. Spellbound looks great on Blu-ray, but the only people who'd really know that for sure are people who are well acquainted with the look of the film from seeing it ON film, not home video.

But that leaves out so many dvd reviewers and experts.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › MGM Hitchcock on Blu-ray