A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Fury (Arrow UK import) -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

I've decided to separate this thread from my earlier Fury discussion, as I'd like to avoid any concept of competition between Arrow and Twilight Time.

Two different companies. Two different business models.

Here's what I'm seeing in the Arrow R2 release of The Fury.

Partially because it's a newer scan as opposed to an older transfer, and from the OCN, grain structure is smoother, and noticeably so. Older transfers had a bit of sharpening built in at the capture level, and one can see that in the TT release. It was state of the art.

I honestly am unable to comment on color or density, as I don't have reference, or even reference in my memory bank. I doubt that anyone who worked on either of the transfers had good reference either. There are some who know this film well, and can comment. I'm not one of them.

The TT release had a bit of built-in dirt, mostly in dupes. This has been cleaned up in the Arrow release. Strangely, the dirt in dupes, makes the TT release appear a bit more film-like, as in projection prints.

Bottom line is that these are both quality releases. Sit at a proper distance, and both will look superb. Get up close, and the grain, especially in dupes in the TT version, will appear sharpened, which was part of the normal process.

As noted, these are different image harvests, from different elements, produced years apart. They're both quality Blu-rays, and I'd rate them equally.

If I had to give an edge, I'd give it to the Arrow release for the extra effort in clean-up, as well as making the effort and paying the price to access the OCN. James White has done a superb job for Arrow in overseeing, preparing and digitally rendering the elements for release.

Image - 5

Audio - 5

Recommended.

Note: While the Twilight Time release is officially "sold out," copies have been purchased by that very special crowd, who make a market on eBay in resales. Currently available at auction with bids in the mid-teens. When those dry up, the Arrow will be a good bet for those with multi-region players, a group which I've recently joined.

RAH

 

[FoxyMulder]

Wouldn't they have access to an answer print and can then work on what the colours should be from that, therefore no memory needed.

 

[Alan Tully]

Wouldn't they have access to an answer print and can then work on what the colours should be from that, therefore no memory needed.

Na, who'd keep the answer print, & what answer print, there could have been 3-8 of them before they agreed on the correct colour grading & the lab started bulk printing, & if printed on Eastman stock it would probably have faded to magenta by now.

 

[cineMANIAC]

I recently had the pleasure of sitting through this wonderful film via the Arrow release and I gotta say the PQ was beyond excellent, for a film from 1978. I am now a certified Brian DePalma fan and a "strengthened" Arrow follower. I couldn't get over how good Arrow's transfer is - I wish they had access to better source material for their MGM titles. This was one of my better blind-buys.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Na, who'd keep the answer print, & what answer print, there could have been 3-8 of them before they agreed on the correct colour grading & the lab started bulk printing, & if printed on Eastman stock it would probably have faded to magenta by now.

They must have access to something to tell them the correct colours, maybe an Interpositve. ?

When they go back to the OCN for films like Lawrence Of Arabia or Raiders Of The Lost Ark they must have had a reference to use for colour grading, it can't just be memory, my point being they would use something for reference, if not it strikes me as strange and crazy.

 

[John Hodson]

For those so equipped, my humble advice would be to ignore ebay and import the Arrow disc. And for those MR enabled fans who already own the TT BD, the Arrow's supplements make it a worthwhile additional purchase.

 

[Robert Harris]

They must have access to something to tell them the correct colours, maybe an Interpositve. ?

When they go back to the OCN for films like Lawrence Of Arabia or Raiders Of The Lost Ark they must have had a reference to use for colour grading, it can't just be memory, my point being they would use something for reference, if not it strikes me as strange and crazy.

On Lawrence, we had both the DP and the director. And dye transfer prints. Raiders also. Problem occurs between 1953 and 1982, for all Eastman prints. SP, which arrived in 1981, was supposed to be a solution, but faded. If an LPP print was properly produced, identified and stored, it could be reference. It arrived late 1982, which makes things difficult for a 1978 film.

RAH

 

[haineshisway]

I said that earlier - that while I personally would give the edge to the Arrow for color, I'm not at all certain that it's accurate to how the film was printed, although I did see a print with pretty good color two years ago and it was actually somewhere between the two. But what I cannot give high marks for was the "solution" to darken the car scene, shot in low light with pushed film which rendered and extremely grainy image, so much that you can barely make out Mr. Douglas in the scene - in my opinion a ridiculous solution to something that is only a problem to people who do not understand film. And as I've said elsewhere, it's amusing that the same people lauding the Arrow for that scene are also lauding the Twilight Time disc of The Driver, which, wait for it, has low-light pushed film scenes that are even grainier than the Twilight Time The Fury's car scene - and, BTW, GRAIN, not noise. If it's noise in The Fury then it's noise in The Driver - can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. Otherwise, I think if you look at my post of some time ago about both transfers, you'll find that Mr. Harris and I are pretty much in agreement about almost everything.

 

[Jacksmyname]

I saw this one in a theater when it first came out; loved it then and still do. Unfortunately I missed it from TT, so it looks like I'll have to use EBay.
I have it on VHS, so I'll be glad to check it out for color accuracy if anyone wants me to.

 

[Yorkshire]

One of things I'm used to from all of RAH's threads is the in-depth knowledge and expertise.

One of the things I'm seeing more and more of recently is a genuine sense of realism and honesty about releases.

I think before threads like this we might have seen these two discs and said one must be right and one wrong, one of them a good effort and the other one a complete cock up.

I'm appreciating the frankness which says we can have two different products and, because of the issues mentioned in posts 1 & 7, it's not quite as simple as that.

It's all too easy in internet land to read of absolutes, stated with cast iron certainty. Black and white judgements, where perhaps there are realistically many shades of grey.

Steve W

 

[Robert Harris]

One of things I'm used to from all of RAH's threads is the in-depth knowledge and expertise. One of the things I'm seeing more and more of recently is a genuine sense of realism and honesty about releases. I think before threads like this we might have seen these two discs and said one must be right and one wrong, one of them a good effort and the other one a complete cock up. I'm appreciating the frankness which says we can have two different products and, because of the issues mentioned in posts 1 & 7, it's not quite as simple as that. It's all too easy in internet land to read of absolutes, stated with cast iron certainty. Black and white judgements, where perhaps there are realistically many shades of grey. Steve W

Comment is appreciated. If readers reference Mr. Kimmel's comments, it's obvious he and I are of a single mind regarding The Fury. In this case, he is far more familiar with the film, its exposures and how it was originally printed. And on those specifics, I defer.RAH

 

[Yorkshire]

Of course, Kudos to BK, too.

Steve W

 

[Steen DK]

If it's noise in The Fury then it's noise in The Driver - can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

They don't look similar on my screen, I'm afraid.

 

[FoxyMulder]

They don't look similar on my screen, I'm afraid.

I'm probably opening up a can of worms by addressing your post but it looks like film grain with The Driver but with The Fury it looks like some scanner noise is added to the mix, looks a little like some of those Italian CRT sourced Argento/Fulci transfers.

 

[Steen DK]

Yeah, that's my impression too.

 

[Yorkshire]

I know we often have a downer on screencaps - often with good reason.

But can any of you show the rest of us anything which would demonstrate the differences and similarities between what some are saying is grain and others noise?

Cheers.

Steve W

 

[FoxyMulder]

I know we often have a downer on screencaps - often with good reason.

But can any of you show the rest of us anything which would demonstrate the differences and similarities between what some are saying is grain and others noise?

Cheers.

Steve W

I could but then it would be an argument back and forth between myself and i suspect one other member here, i'm not prepared to get into that debate again, i have spoken to someone who works in the business and they told me about the Italian releases and The Fury, i'll quote them below. The quote below is from David Mackenzie, he did the encode for The Fury that is reviewed here.
"The use of CRT would explain why we have a soft focus with sharp noise. The soft focus would be caused by a poorly focused CRT generating a blurry flying spot. And the sharp noise would possibly be explained by failing PECs. From what I gather, CRT telecine does not automatically equal crap transfer. The reason for Hollywood moving over to CCD was, as I gather, largely to do with the high levels of maintenance that CRT needs to keep it running optimally."
"I've received a master lately that was done on a CRT and yes, my hunch was correct. What you are seeing on those images is indeed video noise from a tube-based telecine, which has been made worse by edge enhancement. It seems that in order to try and sharpen the image underneath the noise, the distributors have added extra sharpening, which of course makes the noise worse. It's actually not "digital noise", but decidedly analogue, BTW. Of course, this coarse high-frequency noise is NOT good for compression. Especially not when some of the smaller labels are using poor quality encoders such as Apple Compressor."
The scanner being talked about above is a Cintel DSX scanner.
Good interview with James White below in the link, i do suspect, although i do not know, after reading the interview that they had access to an Interpositive of The Fury to help with colour timing.
http://arrowvideodeck.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/whats-transfer-like-what-print-did-they.html

 

[Yorkshire]

I could but then it would be an argument back and forth between myself and i suspect one other member here, i'm not prepared to get into that debate again, i have spoken to someone who works in the business and they told me about the Italian releases and The Fury, i'll quote them below. The quote below is from David Mackenzie, he did the encode for The Fury that is reviewed here.
"The use of CRT would explain why we have a soft focus with sharp noise. The soft focus would be caused by a poorly focused CRT generating a blurry flying spot. And the sharp noise would possibly be explained by failing PECs. From what I gather, CRT telecine does not automatically equal crap transfer. The reason for Hollywood moving over to CCD was, as I gather, largely to do with the high levels of maintenance that CRT needs to keep it running optimally."
"I've received a master lately that was done on a CRT and yes, my hunch was correct. What you are seeing on those images is indeed video noise from a tube-based telecine, which has been made worse by edge enhancement. It seems that in order to try and sharpen the image underneath the noise, the distributors have added extra sharpening, which of course makes the noise worse. It's actually not "digital noise", but decidedly analogue, BTW. Of course, this coarse high-frequency noise is NOT good for compression. Especially not when some of the smaller labels are using poor quality encoders such as Apple Compressor."
The scanner being talked about above is a Cintel DSX scanner.
Good interview with James White below in the link, i do suspect, although i do not know, after reading the interview that they had access to an Interpositive of The Fury to help with colour timing.
http://arrowvideodeck.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/whats-transfer-like-what-print-did-they.html

Cheers.

Sorry for being a bit thick, and just for clarification - David (top bloke, BTW) did the Arrow release, and he's saying the TT one looks like it was done on a CRT and has analogue noise, right?

Steve W

 

[EddieLarkin]

But can any of you show the rest of us anything which would demonstrate the differences and similarities between what some are saying is grain and others noise?

http://i.imgur.com/rLNHOSl.jpg

Zooms of the grain on The Driver, The Fury (TT) and The Fury (Arrow) (same zoom level, from accurate caps). I think a difference is obvious and I think the Arrow version of The Fury resembles The Driver far more than it does the TT Fury disc. But that's just me and this is completely unscientific and largely pointless.

 

[Yorkshire]

http://i.imgur.com/rLNHOSl.jpg

Zooms of the grain on The Driver, The Fury (TT) and The Fury (Arrow) (same zoom level, from accurate caps). I think a difference is obvious and I think the Arrow version of The Fury resembles The Driver far more than it does the TT Fury disc. But that's just me and this is completely unscientific and largely pointless.

Cheers Eddie.

Trying to access that, but blocked (I'm still at work).

I'll check it out when I get home.

Thanks again.

Steve W