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 3

post #61 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

My copy of Notorious looks nothing like standard definition.

Notorious looks fantastic. If the other poster can see no difference between DVD and Blu-ray then I'm afraid he should not be collecting classic films on Blu-ray.
post #62 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

Notorious looks fantastic. If the other poster can see no difference between DVD and Blu-ray then I'm afraid he should not be collecting classic films on Blu-ray.

"Fantastic" as opposed to what? Compared to the BD of The Treasure of The Sierra Madre there is no comparison. Notorious may look as good as the elements allow, but on an absolute basis it won't compare to what we'll see with the 4k remaster of Casablanca sans DNR.

Notorious simply isn't the BD to illustrate what the format is capable of with acadamy aspect B&W films. If Notorious looks fantastic, what does Rebecca look like? All this does is illustrate the two different ways to look at visual quality. On an absolute basis or on the basis of the best the elements allow. On an absolute basis Rebecca looks better, much better than Notorious. Which one is better based on what they had to work with, who knows? Either way, thank goodness they didn't try and "fix" the films with DNR, sharpening and so on.
post #63 of 84
Haineshisway was only stating it looked fantastic to a poster who was accusing the transfer of looking not much better than SD. I don't think it was being argued that Notorious is the very best High-def image ever put on disc.

Even so, I imagine the difference between Notorious and Sierra Madre and the new 4K Casablanca aren't as major as you make them out to be.
post #64 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanRW View Post

Haineshisway was only stating it looked fantastic to a poster who was accusing the transfer of looking not much better than SD. I don't think it was being argued that Notorious is the very best High-def image ever put on disc.

I couldn't figure out that not better then SD' myself but I have not bought it yet.
post #65 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

I couldn't figure out that not better then SD' myself but I have not bought it yet.

Look at the screen shots from the review at DVDBeaver. Even with its problems, the screen shots from To Kill A Mockingbird show more increase in detail from DVD to BD than Notorious. Which is consistant with my statement, Notorious isn't much better in detail than the dvd.
post #66 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by egrady View Post

Look at the screen shots from the review at DVDBeaver. Even with its problems, the screen shots from To Kill A Mockingbird show more increase in detail from DVD to BD than Notorious. Which is consistant with my statement, Notorious isn't much better in detail than the dvd.

Well, if you're using the Beaver as your point of reference, it's not worth having a discussion, as his caps are never representative of the image on the disc.
post #67 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanRW View Post

Haineshisway was only stating it looked fantastic to a poster who was accusing the transfer of looking not much better than SD. I don't think it was being argued that Notorious is the very best High-def image ever put on disc.

Even so, I imagine the difference between Notorious and Sierra Madre and the new 4K Casablanca aren't as major as you make them out to be.

Correct, but people love to put words in other people's mouths. And, of course, he hasn't seen the 4K transfer of Casablanca and therefore should not be commenting on it. I think Notorious looks swell on Blu-ray. I don't need to play these comparison games because, you know, I'm watching Notorious and to my eyes, eyes which, BTW, have seen several lovely 35mm prints, it's a lovely transfer that very much looks like the 35mm prints. You cannot compare it to Casablanca because Casablanca had a different creative team, different cameraman, and didn't have nearly as many opticals or rear projection scenes.
post #68 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

Well, if you're using the Beaver as your point of reference, it's not worth having a discussion, as his caps are never representative of the image on the disc.

My point of reference is the BD of Notorious. I only mentioned Beaver in response to a a poster that didn't have the BD. In addition, the current BD of Casablanca, even with the DNR, shows more detail than Notorious. Thanks for clarifying that I haven't seen the upcoming remastered version. Hopefully the HD video look will disappear.

I really don't think we're in disagreement. I'll defer to you that the BD of Notorious is consistant with the film showings you've seen. All this does is illustrate my point. If your reference is the best the available elements allow, then I accept your point of view. But on an absolute basis, a demonstration disc to show people what BD can do with these older films, Notorious isn't the one I'd use.
post #69 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by egrady View Post

But on an absolute basis, a demonstration disc to show people what BD can do with these older films, Notorious isn't the one I'd use.

I disagree, since even on an absolute basis, if demo material is to truly show what BD can do on an older film, if that is what the older film may have looked like, than it is still good demo material. If the expectation is it will wow the crowd with detail that was not there in the first place due to filming technique, for example ,then it will fail just as if one expects movies to be in color to be demo material.

I have a friend who simply says he will never watch a black and white movie since it looks like cardboard and is thererfore a waste of his time.

Art
post #70 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I have a friend who simply says he will never watch a black and white movie since it looks like cardboard and is thererfore a waste of his time.

People can be weird in what they like. I have a friend who will not watch movies that are more than 10 years old, even if he liked them in the past. Even stranger, he also refuses to watch new movies that are set more than 10 years ago.

So even a new movie like Hugo... Forget it; it's too "old fashioned" for him. He won't do it.
post #71 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by egrady View Post

Look at the screen shots from the review at DVDBeaver. Even with its problems, the screen shots from To Kill A Mockingbird show more increase in detail from DVD to BD than Notorious. Which is consistant with my statement, Notorious isn't much better in detail than the dvd.

I have gone over every cap of the Notorious BD and I can see a detail increase although not a whopping one. I can understand if you were writing about King Kong or the even worse 'Jesus Christ Vampire Killer', 'Lips of Blood' or the really awful footage of the WWII doc BDs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I have a friend who simply says he will never watch a black and white movie since it looks like cardboard and is thererfore a waste of his time.

For decades many people will not watch productions done in glorious b&W sadly.
post #72 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

People can be weird in what they like. I have a friend who will not watch movies that are more than 10 years old, even if he liked them in the past. Even stranger, he also refuses to watch new movies that are set more than 10 years ago.

So even a new movie like Hugo... Forget it; it's too "old fashioned" for him. He won't do it.

People like that are simply not film buffs the way most of us are. It's hard to imagine, but for some people, movies are mild diversions and many people fail to see them as an art form. Even if they do recognize them as some form of art; they may be people who simply do not appreciate art.
post #73 of 84
Where is Rear Window
post #74 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18 Brumaire View Post

People like that are simply not film buffs the way most of us are. It's hard to imagine, but for some people, movies are mild diversions and many people fail to see them as an art form. Even if they do recognize them as some form of art; they may be people who simply do not appreciate art.

Well put.
post #75 of 84
I watched Rebecca over the weekend and found the restoration acceptable if not good. The movie is fantastic and a favorite in our household!
post #76 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rach View Post

I watched Rebecca over the weekend and found the restoration acceptable if not good.

Comments like this drive me up the wall. Can you elaborate? How do you know this is a "restoration"? How do you know Rebecca even needed to be "restored" for this BD release? What is it about the supposed "restoration" that you find objectionable?
post #77 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

Comments like this drive me up the wall. Can you elaborate? How do you know this is a "restoration"? How do you know Rebecca even needed to be "restored" for this BD release? What is it about the supposed "restoration" that you find objectionable?

Agreed. I thought the consensus was that there was no restoration.

Doug
post #78 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougotte View Post

Agreed. I thought the consensus was that there was no restoration.

If you define restoration the way many studios/distributors currently do, namely re-mastering, then it's digitally restored'.

If you define restoration the way it was before, a meticulous hand done restoration with brand new scans, then the answer might be no.
post #79 of 84
I guess you can define it any way you wish but I don't believe that in the traditional usage of this word that this film has been restored.

I believe that Notorious does look good but does not reach the level of detail that has been achieved in other films of similar vintage on BD. I personally have no reference as to how it looked in a 35mm presentation as some others have. This may well be simply what it is.

Art
post #80 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

Comments like this drive me up the wall. Can you elaborate? How do you know this is a "restoration"? How do you know Rebecca even needed to be "restored" for this BD release? What is it about the supposed "restoration" that you find objectionable?

Get down off the wall and I'll explain. Restoration was a bad choice of words. As someone else said, digitally restored is more appropriate. It is a step up from the DVD as I have watched it many times...and I said nothing about the image being objectionable. I said accecptable if not good.
post #81 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rach View Post

Get down off the wall and I'll explain. Restoration was a bad choice of words. As someone else said, digitally restored is more appropriate. It is a step up from the DVD as I have watched it many times...and I said nothing about the image being objectionable. I said accecptable if not good.

What makes you think there was any kind of "restoration"? They probably used the most recent HD transfer, which I think was made a few years ago for the latest DVD (I think MGM did a DVD after the Criterion DVD).

Doug
post #82 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Average View Post

Unfortunately, the negative for Spellbound was lost to deterioration, and those for Rebecca and Notorious are partially missing and partially damaged beyond use. The current restorations, done in the late '90s, were sourced from combinations of the negatives (where usable), master positives, and prints (including Selznick's personal print of Spellbound).

Thanks, this is the best post in the thread IMO. Is there firther information on this subject somewhere? Eitherway, I think your points explained also my views in my post about Spellbound - the BD is built from many sources with variable PQ. Could these be better digitally fixed together or digitally restored, maby, but still I'm happy with the BD. Can't wait for Lifeboat (MoC) and To Catch a Thief!
post #83 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougotte View Post

What makes you think there was any kind of "restoration"? They probably used the most recent HD transfer, which I think was made a few years ago for the latest DVD (I think MGM did a DVD after the Criterion DVD).

Well as far as I can tell Rach is referring to my digitally restored' comment, which is to say (for me) not restored at all (even though these three look promising).

No more then clowns taking shortcuts and actually painting over an old painting or bathing the painting in cleaning fluid or adding sealant/Varnish is restoring a painting. And I am not talking many decades ago, I mean recently:

http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/30...oration-drama/
post #84 of 84
Having seen the film in 35mm on the big screen, some of the complaints on the look of "Notorious" are inherent to the way the film was shot including the use of filters.
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