A Few Words About A few words about...™ North by Northwest -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[BillyFeldman]

Some of the most quotable dialogue in movie history, some of which would be at home right in this very thread, if you get my meaning. Like "Games? Must we?"

Originally Posted by benbess

Wow! That is a *great* story. Thanks for sharing it. Wonderful to hear that Lehman was so nice. Watching the film again I was amazed at the sheer perfection of the script. Every little part works together. Same with Rear Window.

Can't wait till Rear Window pops up on blu. The DVD is already quite good...

 

[Jim_K]

Originally Posted by BillyFeldman

You had your answer back on November 7th, when I DID explain the anomalies. I believe I said it was a spot on the lens on that date, agreeing with with the first person who posited that. Mr. Monce posted the same thing yesterday, November 8th, one day later. Ever hear of the scroll bar - it moves down AND up. But since you're lazy, here's the pertinent part of my post:

"Matt is right - it's spots on the lens - just as there are spots on the lens in the opening shots of How The West Was Won - let's blame that on the transfer, too."

No not laziness.........I tend to skip over asinine comments and yours fit the bill.

Originally Posted by BillyFeldman

I have no need to make "claims" that have no basis in reality - I've seen this film over 100 times you don't want to believe it, don't believe it, but that's a typical Internet bully boy tactic, as you well know. During the film's initial run, I actually "followed" it wherever it played. I believe I saw it seventeen times, maybe more, during that initial release. And then I would see it whenever it had third and fourth-runs in neighborhood theaters. And then I saw it repeatedly in its mid-1960s reissue. And then repeatedly at revival houses. And then repeatedly on every home video format.

Sorry if I'm hurting your feelings and all but...... I seriously just don't care how many times you claim to have seen this and in what venue. What does the number of times you claim to have seen this have to do with anything?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyFeldman
Does that make me more of an expert on this particular film than say - you - yes, it does. That apparently rankles you.

No...... I've never claimed any expertise on this film........you have......... not I.

The only thing that "rankles" me was your arrogant diatribe about "nitpicking".

Originally Posted by BillyFeldman
The tone of your post was thoroughly obnoxious and you should apologize, but you, being a product of the Internet, won't - you'll probably come back and make another post filled with personal insults, and continue to subvert words and ignore posts that are right in front of your eyes. And there you have it.

Are you for real? No wait.... don't answer that.

I do have to thank you for reminding me of why I spend so little of my time on the internet these days.........

Carry on..................


[SIZE= larger]IT'S A MADHOUSE! A MADHOUSE!!!!!!!!!![/SIZE]

 

[benbess]

I love that scene!

"Roger Thornhill: And what the devil is all this about? Why was I brought here?
Phillip Vandamm: Games, must we?
Roger Thornhill: Not that I mind a slight case of abduction now and then, but I have tickets for the theater this evening, to a show I was looking forward to and I get, well, kind of *unreasonable* about things like that.
Phillip Vandamm: With such expert playacting, you make this very room a theater."

 

[benbess]

or this one....

Eve Kendall: How do I know you aren't a murderer?
Roger Thornhill: You don't.
Eve Kendall: Maybe you're planning to murder me right here, tonight.
Roger Thornhill: Shall I?
Eve Kendall: Please do.

 

[benbess]

or this classic that I mentioned earlier....

Roger Thornhill: I don't like the games you play, Professor.
The Professor: War is hell, Mr. Thornhill. Even when it's a cold war.
Roger Thornhill: If you fellows can't whip the VanDamm's of this world without asking girls like her to bed down with them and probably never come back, perhaps you should lose a few cold wars.
The Professor: I'm afraid we're already doing that.

 

[jquirk]

I can't wait to see "North by Northwest" on Blu-ray. Gotta pick it up soon. A recent episode of "The Simpsons" spoofed some of Hitchcock's films, including "North by Northwest," "Strangers on a Train," and "Dial 'M' For Murder," and suddenly my seven-year-old son expressed an interest in seeing these films.

Although I have "North by Northwest" on DVD, I want to hold off showing him the film until I get the Blu-ray version. "Dial M ..." and "Strangers ..." would be nice to have on Blu-ray, as well. I wonder if Warner would issue a 3D version of "Dial M ..." on Blu-ray?

Of course, it would be nice to have just about everything Hitch made on Blu-ray. What an incredible slate of classics he made. I can't think of any other director responsible for such a high number of great films. He was an absolutely incredible director.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Luckily, your obnoxious and specious words speak for themselves. You simply make it too easy - I don't have to do anything. You can't respond without insults, therefore you are a big 0. And isn't selective quoting fun? Happily, my refutation of your original obnoxious post is there for all to see.

Pay the two dollars.

Originally Posted by Jim_K ">[/url]



Originally Posted by [b]BillyFeldman[/b] [url=/forum/thread/294159/a-few-words-about-north-by-northwest-in-blu-ray/30#post_3626216][img]https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/thumbs/1/1e/planet-04-300dpi-1024x792.jpg/1000x500px-LL-planet-04-300dpi-1024x792.jpg

/forum/thread/294159/a-few-words-about-north-by-northwest-in-blu-ray/60#post_3626330

 

[Simon Howson]

Originally Posted by BillyFeldman

Some of the most quotable dialogue in movie history, some of which would be at home right in this very thread, if you get my meaning. Like "Games? Must we?"

I always get a kick out of the times Cary Grant says "assembling the assembly" and "colonising the colony".

Also I love James Mason's comment at the end "That wasn't very sporting, using real bullets"

 

[Robert Harris]

In regard to nitpicking of a disc's deficiencies...

It seems to be a factor of the superiority of modern scanning, compression and Blu-ray quality.

One of the great "knowns" in creating a Blu-ray is that no matter how many hours of dirt clean-up and fixes that go into a product, there will always be some problems left. Spend a few hundred hours going through data files frame by frame removing positive and negative dirt and detritus, and the next layer of material will then become more obvious. Smaller, yes, but suddenly more obvious.

Cost then becomes a factor. One can spend 100k creating a clean image, and getting it to well over 90%. Go to the next layer down in size and another 5% can run another 40k. And there will still be dirt. Digital (by hand, frame by frame) dirt clean-up on The Godfather went well above 1,000 hours.

Slight digitally created aberrations can then appear, sourced by miniscule imperfections in the film's edge, timing cues or splices. On some scanning devices these cause the image to slip sideways within the frame with portions of the image moving one way or the other. These must then be fixed digitally, one frame at a time. Can a frame slip through? Certainly. Generally the edict is to create a fix if something can be seen while the film is in motion -- not stopped on a frame.

Minor production imperfections -- dirt caught on the aperture frame in camera, dust or water on a lens, etc. were far less apparent when viewed in contemporary theaters. In projection, film was generally cropped to around 5% all around. Theater dependent, the actual shape being project could be obviously trapezoidal, only to look correct when projected on a screen heavily angled from the booth. Projection jitter, bob & weave, archaic optics, dirt and cigarette smoke on the projection booth glass all added to that inevitable lessoning of image quality.

Take that same image, however, scanned in 4k and properly ported to a Blu-ray, and the viewer has that film that they've always loved, but now warts and all.

When these restored classics are brought to Blu-ray -- generally with new archival elements produced concurrently -- budgets can grow to huge proportions. At a certain point those in charge must take a position of "We're done. Stop." This isn't a matter of thinking that the product is "good enough for government work." The simple truth is that the next step in clean-up, which will go unnoticed by all but the eagle-eyed, can cost another quarter of a million dollars.

And this is, I believe, what Mr. Feldman is referring to. I'm not seeing him suggest that people should not question something that they're seeing. The answers are generally educational and illuminate the subject matter. My perception is that he's saying something far different, which does need to be said.

That some people make a case on line, continually (over and over again) making reference to a problem within a single frame that may have slipped through QC because two people may have blinked together at the wrong moment, and then attack at an entire studio, restoration team or home video entity because of it.

And this takes us far away from what our goal should be. That goal is to harvest an image and audio from "antique" film elements, and within the parameters of a budget that can easily equate to what the final viewer might earn in a ten or twenty year period, create a Blu-ray disc that delivers an image far superior to that seen on a screen decades before.

As to another point that appeared in this thread, I believe if I'm correct on Mr. Feldman's identity, that I have no doubt that he's seen North by Northwest over a hundred times, and knows what it looks like.

Whatever its faults, and I'm certain that I can find some if I look for them, North by Northwest on Blu-ray is both superior classic entertainment as well as a beautifully rendered Blu-ray disc, which very closely approximates the look and feel of running a print at home at a slightly lower entrance fee than owning a print. To me there's a huge difference between the cost of an original print at $5,000 to $7,500 and a Blu-ray disc at under $20.

RAH

 

[Doug Otte]

Thank you, Billy Feldman, for your fascinating stories and reasoned refutations of Jim_K's juvenile rants.

And thank you, Robert Harris, for your detailed posts about restoring a film for BD release.

I've been curious: about how much was spent restoring NxNW and preparing it for BD, and how many copies would need to be sold before Warner's starts to make a profit on that effort?

Thanks and Cheers,
Doug

 

[John Hodson]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /forum/thread/294159/a-few-words-about-north-by-northwest-in-blu-ray/60#post_3626472

And this takes us far away from what our goal should be. That goal is to harvest an image and audio from "antique" film elements, and within the parameters of a budget that can easily equate to what the final viewer might earn in a ten or twenty year period, create a Blu-ray disc that delivers an image far superior to that seen on a screen decades before.

And long may that goal be attained...

 

[Carlo_M]

ZOIKS!!!!

Hey come on...someone had to say it...

 

[BillyFeldman]

Mr. Harris, as always, cuts to the heart of the matter concisely and clearly and it is much appreciated. My entire point was that in this age of DVD and even more so with Blu-Ray, we seem to be losing the ability to just watch and enjoy a movie. If a transfer is bad or not up to snuff, sure we should all speak up loudly, but when such love and care has gone into a transfer like North By Northwest, the movie should be the thing, the enjoyment of one of the most entertaining movies ever made. I tell you, when, in the very first thread about this film, someone said that based on the screencaps at the Beaver that the color of the license plate was off, I just thought, what have we come to?

"Has anyone ever told you that you overplay your various roles rather severely, Mr. Kaplan? First you're the outraged Madison Avenue man who claims he has been mistaken for someone else. Then you play a fugitive from justice, supposedly trying to clear his name of a crime he knows he didn't commit. And now, you play the peevish lover, stung by jealousy and betrayal. Seems to me you fellows could stand a little less training from the F.B. I. and a little more from the Actors' Studio."

"Apparently the only performance that's going to satisfy you is when I play dead."

"Your very next role, and you'll be quite convincing, I assure you."

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

In regard to nitpicking of a disc's deficiencies...

It seems to be a factor of the superiority of modern scanning, compression and Blu-ray quality.

One of the great "knowns" in creating a Blu-ray is that no matter how many hours of dirt clean-up and fixes that go into a product, there will always be some problems left. Spend a few hundred hours going through data files frame by frame removing positive and negative dirt and detritus, and the next layer of material will then become more obvious. Smaller, yes, but suddenly more obvious.

Cost then becomes a factor. One can spend 100k creating a clean image, and getting it to well over 90%. Go to the next layer down in size and another 5% can run another 40k. And there will still be dirt. Digital (by hand, frame by frame) dirt clean-up on The Godfather went well above 1,000 hours.

Slight digitally created aberrations can then appear, sourced by miniscule imperfections in the film's edge, timing cues or splices. On some scanning devices these cause the image to slip sideways within the frame with portions of the image moving one way or the other. These must then be fixed digitally, one frame at a time. Can a frame slip through? Certainly. Generally the edict is to create a fix if something can be seen while the film is in motion -- not stopped on a frame.

Minor production imperfections -- dirt caught on the aperture frame in camera, dust or water on a lens, etc. were far less apparent when viewed in contemporary theaters. In projection, film was generally cropped to around 5% all around. Theater dependent, the actual shape being project could be obviously trapezoidal, only to look correct when projected on a screen heavily angled from the booth. Projection jitter, bob & weave, archaic optics, dirt and cigarette smoke on the projection booth glass all added to that inevitable lessoning of image quality.

Take that same image, however, scanned in 4k and properly ported to a Blu-ray, and the viewer has that film that they've always loved, but now warts and all.

When these restored classics are brought to Blu-ray -- generally with new archival elements produced concurrently -- budgets can grow to huge proportions. At a certain point those in charge must take a position of "We're done. Stop." This isn't a matter of thinking that the product is "good enough for government work." The simple truth is that the next step in clean-up, which will go unnoticed by all but the eagle-eyed, can cost another quarter of a million dollars.

And this is, I believe, what Mr. Feldman is referring to. I'm not seeing him suggest that people should not question something that they're seeing. The answers are generally educational and illuminate the subject matter. My perception is that he's saying something far different, which does need to be said.

That some people make a case on line, continually (over and over again) making reference to a problem within a single frame that may have slipped through QC because two people may have blinked together at the wrong moment, and then attack at an entire studio, restoration team or home video entity because of it.

And this takes us far away from what our goal should be. That goal is to harvest an image and audio from "antique" film elements, and within the parameters of a budget that can easily equate to what the final viewer might earn in a ten or twenty year period, create a Blu-ray disc that delivers an image far superior to that seen on a screen decades before.

As to another point that appeared in this thread, I believe if I'm correct on Mr. Feldman's identity, that I have no doubt that he's seen North by Northwest over a hundred times, and knows what it looks like.

Whatever its faults, and I'm certain that I can find some if I look for them, North by Northwest on Blu-ray is both superior classic entertainment as well as a beautifully rendered Blu-ray disc, which very closely approximates the look and feel of running a print at home at a slightly lower entrance fee than owning a print. To me there's a huge difference between the cost of an original print at $5,000 to $7,500 and a Blu-ray disc at under $20.

RAH

 

[Danny_N]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris


As to another point that appeared in this thread, I believe if I'm correct on Mr. Feldman's identity, that I have no doubt that he's seen North by Northwest over a hundred times, and knows what it looks like.

The presentation is lacking sometimes but Mr. Feldman certainly does know his colours ...

 

[BillyFeldman]

Well, at least one person saw what was going on. Thanks for your post.

"Then, then your name isn't Kaplan?"

"Can't say it is, 'cause it ain't."

Originally Posted by Doug Otte

Thank you, Billy Feldman, for your fascinating stories and reasoned refutations of Jim_K's juvenile rants.

And thank you, Robert Harris, for your detailed posts about restoring a film for BD release.

I've been curious: about how much was spent restoring NxNW and preparing it for BD, and how many copies would need to be sold before Warner's starts to make a profit on that effort?

Thanks and Cheers,
Doug

 

[BillyFeldman]

[/url]




The presentation is lacking sometimes but Mr. Feldman certainly does know his colours ...

 

[Osato]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Alfred Hitchcock's North by Northwest, generally considered to be the master's greatest chase / thriller finds its heritage in his mid to late 1930s UK productions such as The 39 Steps and Young and Innocent. The basis of these films concern someone wrongly accused of a crime, who must survive those who want him dead while staying away from the long arm of the law that is constantly moving in on him.

For its 50th Anniversary Blu-ray release WB has gone back to the basics and totally restored the film, beginning with its problematic original negative.

But this is where things get interesting.

I had once spoken with someone who was purportedly Ned Price, and apparently responsible for the work on The Searchers. Now when I reached out once again, I was told that he was unknown at the studio, and "had never worked there." Not giving up, I made a call to the Warner entity called MPI, and was strangely connected to someone in props. Going through a full search of the studio divisions, I finally found someone who suggested that I was possibly seeking MTI, the developer of digital repair tools, also in California.

Late yesterday I was finally able to get some information which at least tends to separate the sizzle of high end digital restoration from the truth of the matter. Here are the facts as I've now learned them, and they lead me to disbelieve that there is any digital restoration work that has occurred. Through sources both here, and in Europe, I've been able to put together what seem to be the actual facts of the matter.

The original VistaVision negative was shipped to Germany in the fall of 2007. Reports from those who received it, confirm that the film stock was too faded to be representative of the film. The elements were delivered to a group of nuns living somewhere nearby Mummelsee in the Black Forest. Here the delicate film elements were carefully unwound and treated with a secret formula created specifically for the purpose by Benedictine monks.

It was this elixir that was used to regenerate the faded color layers, scene by scene, and in different proportions of chemicals. By the spring of 2009, the material was ready to be returned, and before going to the studio, spent several weeks at a monastery in an undisclosed location somewhere in Northern California, before making its way back to WB.

Once returned to the studio, the film was handled as new. Color correction was handled normally, as it would be for a new production. To bring things full circle, not an hour after screening the new Blu-ray, I received a call from a Ted Rice, who also strangely purportedly works in restoration at WB, but who denied that the film elements ever left Los Angeles, and averred that the studio brought in new and special equipment to scan the film elements at 16k resolution.

The bottom line is simple, be it Ned Price or Ted Rice -- it's all part of the same alphabet soup -- the final product looks and sounds superb on Blu-ray. There is minimal grain, as befits not only VistaVision, but negative that has spend some time in Benedictine DOM. Sharpness varies, as it did in 1959, as quite a bit of diffusion was used in production, yielding a beautifully rendered, fully velvety image. Audio is uncompressed.

With thanks to our friends in Germany, North by Northwest is once again available for prime viewing here back in the States.

North by Northwest from WB is Very Highly Recommended, and a film not to be missed.

RAH

Is this information about the restoration in Germany true? Seems pretty far fetched.

Thanks for the recap. I always enjoy reading your notes on new releases Robert!

 

[Brian Husar]

Is anybody having trouble with the pop menu? I just picked up my copy today and I can't access the menu. I know WB Blu Ray's just start with the film but normally they have a pop up menu that you can access.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

The pop up menu worked fine on my Sony BDP-S350. The movie looked wonderful, too.

I watched about 75% of the Hitchcock special feature, and found it interesting the lengths Warner Brothers went to avoid licensing issues in this documentary. There are lots of film clips showing examples of the techniques and concepts being discussed, and not once was a film from Universal used, or even mentioned. It was as if these films never existed.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

I had the same issue with that one documentary. Apparently the "master" touched only WB films. The concept and presentation was great, but how can you leave out Vertigo, Rear Window, Psycho, The Birds, etc.? Plus, the directors who participated were also represented in lower third text ... strictly by their WB films. Talk about crass self promotion. Sigh, oh well. One can never forget this is all marketing.

The film ... spectacular. Let's be happy with that.

Originally Posted by Scott Merryfield

The pop up menu worked fine on my Sony BDP-S350. The movie looked wonderful, too.

I watched about 75% of the Hitchcock special feature, and found it interesting the lengths Warner Brothers went to avoid licensing issues in this documentary. There are lots of film clips showing examples of the techniques and concepts being discussed, and not once was a film from Universal used, or even mentioned. It was as if these films never existed.