captainsolo

Many have spoken about the spiders scene looking odd in IMAX. For me the titles were off in 35mm right off the bat because the title card actually blended into the sky.

The Aluminum Falcon said:

captainsolo said:

I still think the open matte Academy version is superior in many aspects.

Thank you! Agree 1000%. The extra headroom makes all the difference, adds to the creepiness. It also gels with the B&W style. The cropping of the Widescreen version is too distracting.

Thanks, but don't read/post in the aspect ratio thread on HTF. I expressed my love of this framing and posted comparisons and got quite a bit of backlash. I've never seen the film look better than a battered open matte 16mm print.  If Uni actually knew what they were doing, the BD would have both framings seamlessly included ala Touch of Evil. It really works better in many scenes compositionally speaking for the exploitation/TV nature by which it was produced. It should be an alternate but not replace the widescreen matte. (Whatever that is no one can decide either-1.85, 1.75 or even 1.66)

Ah! All my '85 VHS copies just have Dolby system but are otherwise identical looking (too bad I don't have Vertigo this way.)

It appears there are three VHS releases of Vertigo that began with the 1985 Hitchcock issues by Universal. These use the same art for Beta, VHS, and LD. All the VHS titles simply credit Dolby system with the Dolby logo and no hifi mentioned anywhere. The beta Silver mentioned may be the same as this VHS in audio. Then there is the purple Hitchcock Collection VHS which IIRC is from about 1995 or so.

I think this one is hi-fi. The third is the restored version which I have. Any one of these early copies could have the mono, and I'm betting it's the same source as what was used for the 5th generation DVD mono-but you never know..maybe we could pull more quality out and maybe there aren't so many dropouts.

Thanks for saying that AF. I always thought when looking at comparisons that the supposedly bad first DVD actually looked better in places and like the 35mm restored print. It was probably directly print sourced for the LD then ported, and the later versions from a HD scan retimed and tweaked for DVD. I think the correct is a compromise between the two. Who knows what the studio will put out. They seem to have neglected these films since 1985.

http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/wiki/Vertigo_colours

To make the most successful film:

1. A good dramatic structure.

2. A story that has meaning, depth and actual impact.

3. Charge less money.

4. Distribute as widely as possible, or on a roadshow principle if necessary.

I've always felt that if someone could release a good film and charge significantly less money than the competition, meanwhile splitting the profits with the theaters fairly, that the entire industry could follow suit and end much of the nonsense that has existed since the days of the iron clad grip of the studio system.

negative1 said:

more  test shots cleaned up from

the red test reel:

 

the conclusion of the trash compactor scene:

===============================

https://vimeo.com/49303294

 

pw: OT

 

ben deactivates the tractor beam and leia

acts like a princess:

==============================

https://vimeo.com/49303544

 

pw: OT

 

 

is anyone checking these out?

 

i've posted quite a few lately,

but haven't heard anyone say anything.....

 

 

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..............

 

later

-1 

 

Ok ;)

Hey look there's actual blacks and darkness in the image without everything being crushed!

You can easily see the amount of pink shift in the second clip from the skin tones, wall color of the DS (greenish) and the tractor beam power indicator.

Still it says something when a pink shifted reel is 1000% preferable to a single frame of the official BD. I'd watch and love a whole faded, scratched, cropped, beat to hell, torn, water damaged, burned, mold infested print before I'd watch the BD.

I made copies of the PG for backup and have showed it to numerous people. The difference is quite apparent-even to the un-initiated. The fact that the SE prints had such good color and printing and then we get everything reduced to this putrid 2004 mess is inexcusable.

As far as the grindhouse versions, I'd think that the best idea would be to leave it wholly uncropped and reveal the entire frame. Those of us who are viewing these aren't going to care about the inherent quality anyway as we've probably seen far worse. Also this would probably be the best way to see the different ways to perform the overall 2.35 crop points for the final version.

zombie84 said:

In my opinion, it looks like the reality is in between. The film has definitely been brightened to have more midrange, probably just due to the overall yellow-shift bringing detail out in the shadows that was previously less visible because of the former blue-shift, as blue eats up detail and yellow reveals it. Many examples in the pics look much more natural on the blu-ray, like some of classroom scenes. Many of the Cairo scenes are yellower and look nice, while the older version is a bit blue-shifted and may have just been a choice on the part of the colorist or even Spielberg, as the difference is subtle without the side-by-side comparison, it would be hard to notice if you were just watching the film. However, it seems clear to me that the DVD also has instances that are likely to be truer to how the film originally looked.

Agreed. There are parts of the new transfer that look stunning, and parts that seem different. I always thought the DVD wasn't entirely correct but since we can't go back to 1981 or see the OCN this is pure guesswork. The thing to remember about Raiders is that they really did shoot it fast and dirty. Douglas Slocombe didn't even use a light meter for the entire shoot. (!)

Not to mention the JB Theme hasn't been used since 1969...nice thoughts on two of the lowest regarded entries. What really hurt both incidentally were budget cuts.

Kamen's score in places sounds like Die Hard or Lethal Weapon...oh wait he scored those too! ;)

Psycho

Because we all like to be played. A boy's best friend is his mother.

4 balls out of 4. Though I still think the open matte Academy version is superior in many aspects.

The Birds

This has always been a bone of contention with me. I've never really gotten this film, and always felt it extremely overrated-being more of a technical exercise and showing the first signs of Hitch's downward spiral. The coldness coming form the leads, the tepid and slow opening third, the overall feeling of coldness and lack of vitality, the growing sense of dated artificiality that peaked on the next three films and the human story that requires great effort to establish a connection. The suspense is there eventually, and is incredibly done-as always. It's as if Hitch began to lose his connection to the material due to the increasing amounts of external constraints. The best performances come from the more minor characters and the birds themselves.

The script is flawed and frankly rather dull, I've always felt it would have been much improved by the addition of new writers or drafts.

The real problem with THE BIRDS is that is is too devoted to technique. Compounding this is its vastly underwritten characters. The film is at its best when there is no dialogue, and despite the wonderful eerie sound effects could and would work better as a silent film.

It seems coming off of PSYCHO that Hitch felt he could exercise even more technique against an audience and no longer needed the guise of an exploitation movie.

I think the primary problem lies in the script. Like the production on Psycho there probably should have been some more writers involved. The chilliness that emanates from the relatively lifeless performances and the TEPID opening third only increases throughout MARNIE,TORN CURTAIN and TOPAZ; not to mention the artificial quality. It wasn't until FRENZY that Hitch reached anything near his same high standard, and by then it was something of a last huzzah.

The film does get better with age however. The eeriness is exquisite once you get past all the flaws.

Uhh...a possible 3 balls out of 4?

BTW does anybody buy all the recent stories coming out about the Hitchcock-Tippi Hedren relationship? I've studied Hitch my entire life and always found that period of time relatively uncovered, but I'm not really buying all of the lurid new developments.

It's being reported that the 5.1 on the new BD will be a remix with less overpowering foley.
(Not to mention that they seem to be forgoing the Harris-Katz restoration!)

Recently listening to the degraded mono on the 2005 DVD was much more pleasant than I thought. Essential actually. I've pondered getting the '85 LD but is it the same damaged audio? And how bad would the track be being non-CX analog? I've got a few discs from that era, my similar Universal analog only Double Indemnity doesn't sound bad.

This track does need to be preserved at optimal quality if possible, and I seriously doubt Universal will ever allow it out again. If necessary VHS or even that Beta might be the best way to salvage it. I only have the restored VHS, but I'll keep an eye out for anything else.

Being Captainsolo is a state of mind...;)

What we don't really know is how this corresponds to the original negative, but I'm fairly certain that it wasn't quite like this. Spielberg has even admitted to tweaking the opening sequence.

In 35mm this looked like a different film at times, and was insanely bright. The new transfer often resembles that over saturated teaser trailer. The sound stank.

It's not awful or anything by any means, but it isn't quite the original is it?

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/323399/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-in-blu-ray/240

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXl_3kGXIuI&feature=player_embedded

New info on the impending release. Raiders has that new color timing, which I'm not sold on, but TOD and LC are supposedly also from 4K scans. (Isn't this the Lowry scan? They look identical.) LC has some artifacting etc. on screencaps over at caps a holic, but otherwise everything seems ok. (At least nothing as in what's going on about the Hitchcock set.) I'm just not enthused about the new Raiders audio.

The bass and surrounds have been redone to meet modern standards, but to me the sonic identity of the original mix is a part of the film's identity. I hope it isn't lost with new stereo surrounds being done (Didn't Jambe's Raiding confirm that the film was originally mixed for stereo surrounds?) What would have been really interesting would have been to actually incorporate the 70mm mix and find some way to incorporate that baby boom experience. (Actually, would this be possible with the LFE cable being split to two subwoofers playing the same content?)

The new 35mm print sounded terribly dull.

But if they redid the work, went to the original negative, and changed nothing-WHY PAY SOMEONE TO REMOVE THE SNAKE REFLECTION?

Peter Lorre: Noo, noo we wouldn't want anything like that to happen..(chuckles)

Until the disc is out we won't know for sure, but every HD version and preview is still the cropped image.

The UE used a remix in DTS which lacked the bass impact of the original, though I've never heard the DTS LD version. The problem is extracting that DTS form the LD but maybe ti will be possible to find the DTS theatrical discs for GE, TND and TWINE (ES track!). The SE DVD audio should be exactly the same as the LD Dolby track, I don't think there's a difference save for maybe a bit of compression.

Lowry= bad for film fans.

Don't be too certain about Raiders. the 35mm looked different to me, some say this about the IMAX as well, and there are some shots leaking from the BD which show some definite changes. But these of course may be a bit more negative accurate, though I doubt it.

Thanks to Harmy's outstanding work, I'm now wondering about trying to de-specialize the Bonds, but I don't think the grain manipulation and related tweaks could ever match.

How are the Creature sequels? I've never actually seen them, but I do know about the Oscar winning performance form young Mr. Eastwood. ;)

The Empire will compensate Mr. Fett for rounding up the usual suspects. ;)

Ahh..I've gone back over these and they're pretty bad. The player image wasn't the best to start with and in trying to fight some of the bad combing that came out of the Spy transfer it had made the image appear a bit soft, and the LD was already soft. It also continually fights the grain that was on the transfer, something that the DVDs simply have as video noise. The print used is a bit worn, so there are a few big glue spots, and the audio even has what appears to be a tearing noise during the "ride to atlantis" sequence. I wasn't ever able to fully match the side break either, and that was using VHS frames in addition to the LD.

I also think the cheapo capture card I had to use may have had something to do with this.

I think the best thing to do with TSWLM is to utilize the LD audio with either the THX or SE DVD. Despite their flaws they look miles better than this particular pressing and retain all proper colors etc. I've gone back and forth between the two DVDs and I think the THX may be slightly-and I mean very slightly-better. The 5.1 mix isn't bad, and actually keeps the mix identity. It was very well done from the Dolby Stereo original and does not really have much if any stereo separation in the surrounds. This should be the exact one done for the 98 LD when they knew how to upmix properly.

After extensive comparison between all, I think TSWLM had a video master done in say 1989/1990 for LD and this was later scrubbed and applied with EE for the 98 LD and THX DVD. Then this was ported to the SE disc with perhaps a bit more compression for the added features. The UE utilized the video master but Lowry went overboard in scrubbing and completely re-timed the film to suit modern sensibilities.

That's weird. I had thought since they were going back to the negative etc. that all the changes and CGI shot would be nowhere...but the snake reflection was gone on the 35mm. It did have the original cliff shot however, and I didn't notice any problems with the DC shot. That may be due to the over-processing done to blow the film up to 6K for Digital IMAX because I imagine they had to do a lot of scrubbing to eliminate the inherent qualities of the 1981 stock.

I don't see how this is better than the 35mm which is cheaper to see, clearer but sadly much more limited in release. Heck, you could even see their attempts to cover the damage done to the Tanis dig sequence.

Q: Did anybody see the snake reflection in IMAX? Minor quibble, but I hoped it would be back.

Also, no one by any chance ever saw the 70mm version did they? Just curious.

Great car. That was one of my favorite tests they ever did on TG. "We don't do sensible motoring reviews? Here's sensible everyday driving!"

bkev said:

 

Leonardo said:

What cartridges do you have?

ET

 

You're gonna have a lot of fun with that one. ;) And the neck goes up...up...up...

I was passed down a 7200 that I fixed up and played for a while...or should I say attempted to play. The thing was huge for no reason, had a ridiculous power pack that seemed as if it wanted to explode, the games were no good even when they did work, and the damn stupid controllers NEVER WORKED! NON-FUNCTIONING! And that's how they actually sold them originally!

One of those Ebay sales that I was very glad to get rid of.

I recently started playing the multiplayer for World at War again. I do some for a while, forget and then pick it up a few months later.

1987 Acura Integra LS 4 door white with light blue interior. This isn't my photo, and this one's in a lot better cosmetic shape.

The 4 door version is much rarer than the 2 door.  Mine has a broken a/c, headliner nearly gone, slow gas gauge, power windows that act up, broken stereo and cassette, but still this is the best car I've ever driven. It was my first car and I keep coming back to it. (Plus it doesn't die!) Modern cars always make me feel awkward when driving them, I don't know if it's because I have a weird frame or head or something but I just can't stand driving them. Then there's all the plastics they use nowadays that constantly off-gas and give me a massive headache.

The funniest quirk is that the right flip up light is broken so that it always stays up, as if it's winking permanently. At one point I attached some pieces of black paper and felt to look like eyelashes. ;)

Over 215K and she still purrs and gets good mileage. And this is with an automatic too. (Not that I'm any good with stick, but I've never had the opportunity to really practice.) Great grip, power steering is fantastic which always gives me the impression that she's very nimble, and surprisingly for a 25 year old car pretty quick acceleration.

It also helps that this is the same car driven by Chow Yun-fat in The Killer. (That was a head explode moment when I realized this. though it was the Japanese version with the Honda branding.)

I did name her, and like a ship it had to be a she. The name is because of the personality and origin. Akiko or Aki for short. Yes, I named my car after a Bond girl. Go figure.

Ahh..yes a still from the long lost original Director's Cut circa 1979, where SEN took a coffee break to do his telephoning. ;)

You know, I hate to say it, but I sincerely hope that the untouched warts and all scan is released -1. Those clips despite being dirty and faded look wonderful. Even with the expanding frame. ;) I dunno maybe watching degraded prints of films for too many years has warped my mind or something. How are you compensating for the red shift? It looks quite good for a start on these attempts.

I'd guess you would start with the mono elements found in the 97 SE 5.1 mix. That way you could get clean versions of "Close the blast doors!", Leia's .44, the tractor beam line etc.

Whoa!

hairy_hen said:

Applied carefully and selectively, it could eliminate the worst and most noticeably smeared shots in the GOUT, and that would definitely be worthwhile.

Indeed, selectively would be the word to use. The idea is awesome, but in practice as U2 pointed out probably not very feasible. Still...that quick try on ol' 4 eyes gives hope.

You_Too said:

As late as last page in this thread, I explained why the GOUT can't be corrected to look like the original prints.

Of course I would want it to look like the technicolor print but it's impossible since the colors are not separated from each other in a way that would allow that color correction.

Of the three in the GOUT, the most limited would be SW, and I think you both have managed to pull out everything possible there.  But damn ESB and ROTJ look good! I never thought that something like that could be pulled out of the GOUT. Now if only there were a magical anti-motion smearing button. ;)