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

[FoxyMulder]

@Oliver

I agree, there is more to it than just having the equipment set up correctly, the person doing the review has to spot the issues if they are present, many people/reviewers miss edge enhancement even though their equipment is setup correctly and they are sitting a reasonable distance from the screen, it's a pet hate of mine, some reviewers actually LIKE excessive digital noise reduction, see some Disney reviews as proof of that, although maybe they just like it when it's animation.

So you have to take into account not only the equipment but the reviewer and that isn't always easy, i trust very few reviewers to get it right all the time, i can say i think many get it wrong too often and are reluctant to admit when it does happen.

 

[JoshZ]

"tele1962" pulls this same act on multiple forums. He only listens to people who say what he wants to hear, and if anyone expresses an opinion that he doesn't want to hear, he attempts to discredit them by criticizing their equipment as being inferior to an arbitrary standard that he sets (which I'm sure he himself can't even reach).

He pretends that he's close personal friends with top industry professionals, who in reality have only exchanged one single word with him (literally, the word "Yup!") on a forum somewhere, while flatly ignoring other top industry professionals who don't say what he wants to hear.

It's the same thing, time and again. Make no mistake, his questioning RAH's equipment was a transparent attempt to debunk RAH's positive review of the Twilight Time disc, because that would suit his agenda to "prove" that the Arrow disc is perfect, that anything different than the Arrow disc is garbage, and that anyone who doesn't say those exact words is a fraud.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

"tele1962" pulls this same act on multiple forums. He only listens to people who say what he wants to hear, and if anyone expresses an opinion that he doesn't want to hear, he attempts to discredit them by criticizing their equipment as being inferior to an arbitrary standard that he sets (which I'm sure he himself can't even reach).

He pretends that he's close personal friends with top industry professionals, who in reality have only exchanged one single word with him (literally, the word "Yup!") on a forum somewhere, while flatly ignoring other top industry professionals who don't say what he wants to hear.

It's the same thing, time and again. Make no mistake, his questioning RAH's equipment was a transparent attempt to debunk RAH's positive review of the Twilight Time disc, because that would suit his agenda to "prove" that the Arrow disc is perfect, that anything different than the Arrow disc is garbage, and that anyone who doesn't say those exact words is a fraud.

You sir are a Venomous individual who has no place on any forum. That was certainly not the case, I want reviews and reviewers to be as transparent and accurate as possible no matter who they are. Robert was very quick to tell us about his viewing equipment but found humour, not malice in my question which I thanked him for, he also told us Kevin Miller regularly calibrates his system........ONE OF MY NONE EXCISTENT FRIENDS as you say.
I have discredited no one at any point and to carry this argument on over here is honestly one of the most unprofessional acts I have seen from any reviewer any where.
As for my friends what right do you have to make that comment and I really hope they are looking in and laughing at what is one of the most ridiculous posts I have seen. I have never once said they were all close personal friends as we are on opposite sides of a very big ocean but we are in regular contact, some more than others.

I can only apologise that this has moved off topic but felt I had to answer this individual.

PS
The Arrow disc is not perfect, just better than the good TT version where is the agenda in saying that.

 

[Cineman]

"tele1962" pulls this same act on multiple forums. He only listens to people who say what he wants to hear, and if anyone expresses an opinion that he doesn't want to hear, he attempts to discredit them by criticizing their equipment as being inferior to an arbitrary standard that he sets (which I'm sure he himself can't even reach).

He pretends that he's close personal friends with top industry professionals, who in reality have only exchanged one single word with him (literally, the word "Yup!") on a forum somewhere, while flatly ignoring other top industry professionals who don't say what he wants to hear.

It's the same thing, time and again. Make no mistake, his questioning RAH's equipment was a transparent attempt to debunk RAH's positive review of the Twilight Time disc, because that would suit his agenda to "prove" that the Arrow disc is perfect, that anything different than the Arrow disc is garbage, and that anyone who doesn't say those exact words is a fraud.

But, even if your characterization of this or any other poster's past posts here or elsewhere were absolutely, provably true (a conclusion I am not trying to suggest in the least), what on Earth would that have to do with whether or not that poster were making a perfectly valid, easily refutable or arguable point now on the issue at hand?

If the point he is making can be dismissed on its merits as easily as you suggest, even if every previous point the poster has ever made in his life was determined to be irrefutably correct, then have at it, go for it, refute it. The effectiveness of your refutation ought to then stand on its own. What does it matter to this issue and the point he was making if you've noticed or imagined some pattern in his previous posts that apparently disturbs you enough to devote a singular post about it and not about the issue at hand?

I am not a techie on this subject by any means. But when someone makes a point, no matter how ridiculous you might think it is, I learn from the, well, let's say more dumbed down version in some of the responses (despite the annoyance and exasperation the techie responding might exhibit. lol). But if someone tries to cut off all consideration of another poster's questions or points by saying, essentially, "Oh, he always does that", I don't learn a damned thing from that except, perhaps, that you had nothing else in your experience to refute the point he made originally.

 

[John Hodson]

I'm posting this, not in order to stir up any kind of argument, but simply to set the record straight on a few things.

In the (now closed) thread on the Arrow release of The Fury, I said that despite ongoing speculation (presented as fact) on what was or was not done during the transfer of the film to disc, only one man really knew what was done and why - partiuclarly in regard to the night scenes - and that was the inestimable James White, who oversaw the process. This is he, quoted from another forum:

The pushed film look of the night scenes in question appeared to me to be to be directly linked to the element transferred by Fox for their own master (and the source of TT's disc), produced at least five years ago, which would have been the interpositive or internegative, a 2nd or 3rd generation element respectively. The settings that made these scenes stick out in this overly brightened manner were almost certainly baked into the element itself, and therefore one wouldn't have much choice but to transfer these scenes other than how they were printed.But I had the good fortune to be working from the original negative, the one and only first generation element for THE FURY, and this material demonstrated no such boosting. Instead the film exhibited good, consistent and for the most part, natural, night for night cinematography from shot to shot. Not being hamstrung by what appeared to be a rather crudely processed 2nd or 3rd generation element, we were able to retain the look of how the film was shot and indeed how it appeared to be intended to look. On our master blacks appear black, highlights appear bright but not burnt out, and colour, detail and grain haven't suffered as a result of forced lab processing.To match the overly bright and noisy grading of the old Fox transfer and TT release, we would have had to manipulate the images far more aggressively, and as a result, black levels, flesh tones, detail and grain would all have suffered, as they clearly do in the old master. Doing this would also make these scenes stick out like a sore thumb compared to the consistently high quality of the images in the whole of the film.I don't accept descriptions of the night scenes as we've graded them as so dark that "you can barely make out Mr Douglas in the scene", which is pure hyperbole. I can also put to rest the charge that we darkened the scenes or brought up the contrast significantly to disguise grain or noise, as this is something we didn't do - and wouldn't do - either. The decisions we made in grading were always done with reference to older print materials, but were also done in service to the original elements, and what they would actually allow without exactly the kind of manipulations we're accused of doing.Did I made a judgement call in my grading of THE FURY? Of course I did, as does anyone overseeing this kind of work, which often involves thousands of similar judgement calls throughout the workflow process. The point is that you do the best you can by referring to historical representation and the original materials, which can be a bit of a balancing act at times. Sometimes this involves making unobtrusive alterations where improvement was previously impossible, due to the limits of what older technology could achieve. Going from the negative allowed us the benefit of making many such improvements, from restoring the original colour spectrum (including natural flesh tones, pure blacks and highlights), retaining the original grain structure and the extensive details therein, and as one review as pointed out (Mondo Digital), adjusting for the correctly centred framing of the compositions. The images appear sharp, untreated and natural, and there have been no manipulations of any kind to falsely boost details, noise, sharpness, etc. I wouldn't call any of these decisions "revisionism", but rather me doing my job in service to the film.Were we saddled with the same element utilised for the creation of Fox's old master, we would have likely ended up with something very similar to what Twilight Time released (minus the sharpness/aperture correction settings that were an inherent part of the older transfer process). As it stands I don't have a bad word to say about that release, as Twilight Time simply did the best with what they were given. But Arrow made the decision to go the extra mile with THE FURY, and I think the quality we were able to achieve with our master justifies that decision.

 

[FoxyMulder]

@John

Excellent post.

 

[Yorkshire]

When I saw this thread at the top of the tree, I came here to plea "Now now chaps, RAH has closed the other thread and we should respect his wishes".

However, I now have to say kudos to John for referencing one of the most definitive amd comprehensive comments I've read in the hstory of the format by one of the people responsible for the transfer.

Crikey! It's even made the New York Times!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/movies/homevideo/two-dvds-of-the-fury-from-twilight-time-and-arrow.html?_r=0

Steve W

 

[Sgt Pepper]

John thanks for posting that..................now we have the definitive answer to the many questions posted on this subject.

 

[Steen DK]

I agree, there is more to it than just having the equipment set up correctly, the person doing the review has to spot the issues if they are present, many people/reviewers miss edge enhancement even though their equipment is setup correctly and they are sitting a reasonable distance from the screen, it's a pet hate of mine, some reviewers actually LIKE excessive digital noise reduction, see some Disney reviews as proof of that, although maybe they just like it when it's animation.

So you have to take into account not only the equipment but the reviewer and that isn't always easy, i trust very few reviewers to get it right all the time, i can say i think many get it wrong too often and are reluctant to admit when it does happen.

Indeed. I have a fr... acquaintance who has a very expensive JVC projector (their best model, I believe, and ISF calibrated), a ridiculously expensive and very large screen, and a completely darkened room - and yet he seems to be blind to most kinds of noise reduction and edge enhancement. I kind of envy him, but, on the other hand, what's really the point of blu-ray if we accept these technologies that were clearly meant for DVD?

 

[haineshisway]

While I take Mr. White at his word, he is contradicting what he said earlier, which was: “That scene in particular, and some other night scenes, always looked a bit problematic to me, especially compared to the surrounding day shots,” said James White, a freelance DVD producer who lives and works in Britain. “They really suffered, on account of the ‘pushing’ of the film stock, the heavy noise-to-grain ratio, the process shots. None of it really fit in well with the rest of the picture.”

I see the use of the word "me" in there - as in, it looked problematic to me. Now he's saying something else. Look one can argue about this until the cows come home, which they never seem to do, BTW. I've seen this film a lot in 35mm, including a screening a year or two ago. He acknowledges that the scene in the car would have looked like it does on the Twilight Time disc because that's the way it is on the internegative - which is what the theatrical prints were struck from - you know, the graded, timed and approved internegative. The camera negative is something wholly other - its's not a timed, graded and approved answer print or internegative - but still no one will tell me that that scene in the car on the camera negative is as dark as it is on the Arrow disc, and while it obviously doesn't bother Mr. White, it bothers me because it's not what the scene has always looked like. Call that what you will, but it's the truth. He doesn't find it too dark and I do - those are two PERSONAL opinions based on whatever knowledge the people making them have. He acknowledges making a judgment call. That's really the end of that story. Again, by being quoted in the article about that specific scene, it makes it seem like I have damned the Arrow transfer, which is what happens with selective quoting. I have not damned the transfer, in fact I've said I prefer it in certain ways. I just don't think it's the huge difference that some think, just as he doesn't have an unkind thing to say about the Twilight Time transfer, which he acknowledges looks like the film that was released to theaters.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

@ haineshisway, you are IMHO digging a bigger hole with every post. Mr White has answered the questions yet still you question it.

 

[John Hodson]

I don't accept descriptions of the night scenes as we've graded them as so dark that "you can barely make out Mr Douglas in the scene", which is pure hyperbole. I can also put to rest the charge that we darkened the scenes or brought up the contrast significantly to disguise grain or noise, as this is something we didn't do - and wouldn't do - either. The decisions we made in grading were always done with reference to older print materials, but were also done in service to the original elements, and what they would actually allow without exactly the kind of manipulations we're accused of doing.

I really don't know how much clearer he can make it.

 

[haineshisway]

@ haineshisway, you are IMHO digging a bigger hole with every post. Mr White has answered the questions yet still you question it.

Questions? I didnt have questions. I had an opinion about one specific scene and I still have it. I am stating an opinion based on what I see. The End.

 

[haineshisway]

I really don't know how much clearer he can make it.

As I said clearly, I will take him at his word. But he is NOT saying he didn't darken the scene because he clearly did - he is saying he didn't darken it to disguise the grain or noise. Yes, that part I think he's made clear.

I'm sure the person who did any of the Universal transfers that are so hated on this and other boards would defend their choices, too - and sometimes they have. Doesn't seem to make much difference to folks. I'm talking about one scene in the film, not the entire transfer, and that one scene looks nothing like it's ever looked. I don't know how much clearer I can be

And since nothing anyone says is going to change that opinion about that one specific scene, which I know was shot in a certain way and looked a certain way, and that way has been acknowledged by Mr. White repeatedly, I see no reason to make any further posts about this. Mr. White has made his various comments and I've made mine, and I'm kind of bored of tele1962's endless attempts of trying to make this personal, which, for me, it most assuredly is not.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I would like to hear what De Palma has to say about this, i remember Coppola claiming the cinema prints of Dracula and subsequent DVD versions were all wrong, they then released his version on blu ray, that version got many complaints but i actually think it's very good,

James White does say this which is telling to me.

"The decisions we made in grading were always done with reference to older print materials"

 

[Sgt Pepper]

As I said clearly, I will take him at his word. But he is NOT saying he didn't darken the scene because he clearly did - he is saying he didn't darken it to disguise the grain or noise. Yes, that part I think he's made clear.

I'm sure the person who did any of the Universal transfers that are so hated on this and other boards would defend their choices, too - and sometimes they have. Doesn't seem to make much difference to folks. I'm talking about one scene in the film, not the entire transfer, and that one scene looks nothing like it's ever looked. I don't know how much clearer I can be

And since nothing anyone says is going to change that opinion about that one specific scene, which I know was shot in a certain way and looked a certain way, and that way has been acknowledged by Mr. White repeatedly, I see no reason to make any further posts about this. Mr. White has made his various comments and I've made mine, and I'm kind of bored of tele1962's endless attempts of trying to make this personal, which, for me, it most assuredly is not.

I have never made any attempt to make this personal. I have however been saying all along what James White has said in his statement and for that I was ridiculed by certain members here.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I have never made any attempt to make this personal. I have however been saying all along what James White has said in his statement and for that I was ridiculed by certain members here.

No member should be ridiculed here as we need to refrain from making any kind of personal comments towards other members.

 

[EddieLarkin]

I think the most important part of James White's post is the following, emphasis mine:

Not being hamstrung by what appeared to be a rather crudely processed 2nd or 3rd generation element, we were able to retain the look of how the film was shot and indeed how it appeared to be intended to look. On our master blacks appear black, highlights appear bright but not burnt out, and colour, detail and grain haven't suffered as a result of forced lab processing

I think he's basically saying that yes the scene was pushed for the internegative and the prints, but that if De Palma (or whoever else has a hand in such decisions), could have had the scene reflect how it was as shot and on the OCN, they would have done so.

So no one is wrong. The scene doesn't look like it did on original run, but it perhaps now looks closer to what De Palma wanted to achieve during the shoot. No one's the bad guy, this discussion is ridiculous. It's one scene, and both discs have merits in the way they have presented it.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

Sorry Eddie but the Arrow disc is better in just about every way, this is not saying the TT disc is bad it clearly isn't just the Arrow version is better due to the time and expertise afforded to it.

I will try to back away from this debate as a definitive answer has been given and the evidence is there for everyone to see.

 

[Robert Harris]

I think the most important part of James White's post is the following, emphasis mine:

Not being hamstrung by what appeared to be a rather crudely processed 2nd or 3rd generation element, we were able to retain the look of how the film was shot and indeed how it appeared to be intended to look. On our master blacks appear black, highlights appear bright but not burnt out, and colour, detail and grain haven't suffered as a result of forced lab processing

I think he's basically saying that yes the scene was pushed for the internegative and the prints, but that if De Palma (or whoever else has a hand in such decisions), could have had the scene reflect how it was as shot and on the OCN, they would have done so.

So no one is wrong. The scene doesn't look like it did on original run, but it perhaps now looks closer to what De Palma wanted to achieve during the shoot. No one's the bad guy, this discussion is ridiculous. It's one scene, and both discs have merits in the way they have presented it.

I'll add a few points here. I have no idea whether the old element used for transfer was an IP or a dupe neg. Does it matter?

Yes.

C. 1978, there were quite decent duping elements, but not great elements. This opens to question, the age of the element used for transfer, and how that element affected the look of the film. Most important, if the transfer element was an IP, and if that IP was contemporary to the release, it would have timing built in, and as described toward the inability to print the film any other way, baked in.

Returning to the OCN removed all impediments toward creating the best possible version of the film attainable via our current digital tools, which are superb. What it does not do, is to keep the film locked as it looked in 1978. Mr. White did his best to make the best modern presentation possible, using whatever reference he had, and supplanting that reference with the ability to potentially make it better.

To my eye, the Arrow release is a bit more pleasing, grain-wise, if I view close to the screen.

The reality is that the TT release is more accurate to the look of the original prints.

The releases are different. One is not necessarily "better" than the other, regardless of individual likes or dislikes.

RAH