Blu-ray Review Alfred Hitchcock: The Masterpiece Collection Limited Edition Blu-ray Review - Recommended (1 Viewer)

[Charles Smith]

Still in transit.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

I received my UK limited edition set today. The first movie I spun was Family Plot. I thought it looked pretty good.

 

[David Norman]

Still sitting in Scotland. Not transiting at all on Day 15 after shipment. Only 6 more days and I can ask for a re-shipment.

 

[Craig S]

Originally Posted by Steve Tannehill /t/325143/alfred-hitchcock-the-masterpiece-collection-limited-edition-blu-ray-review-recommended#post_4005332
I received my UK limited edition set today. The first movie I spun was Family Plot. I thought it looked pretty good.

Ditto on Family Plot. I mean, it's not a reference transfer by any means, and there are several problematic shots (especially rear-projection). But overall it's a long way from what I would call unwatchable. Now, to level set, I don't have the trained eyes of our friends here in the industry, and my room-dictated setup (sitting 12 feet from a 60 inch screen) helps hide a lot of transfer flaws. I have no doubt the problems others are seeing are there. Just saying those of you with less-than-ideal HT setups may find this OK for non-critical viewing.

I also looked at The Trouble With Harry. In a word - spectacular. It's like looking out a window at the most perfect New England fall day one could ever imagine.

Mine is the UK limited set (#2436), which I also received yesterday. Mine survived the perilous journey across the pond in really good shape - even the outer box was undamaged. All the right discs were in all the right places. The outer case is striking, and will make a nice display piece; the book with the discs slots in nicely next to my Bond 50 box on the shelf. All in all, it's a really nice set. Here's hoping that it shows up soon for those of you still waiting.

 

[WadeM]

I
Next I looked at "Marnie." Now I get what the complaints are about for this one. It's got a lot of soft-focus, diffused photography which gives the impression that this is not HD, but a lot of knowledgable people have stated that this is the way Hitchcock shot the movie, so what is there to really complain about?
.

I was able to see the Marnie blu-ray and I disagree, One of the complaints was about the video noise. Look at the opening credits and compare them to the closing credits. Big difference. What you see on the opening credits is visible throughout most of the film. It IS something to complain about.
Frankly, I think it should be recalled.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Ditto on Family Plot. I mean, it's not a reference transfer by any means, and there are several problematic shots (especially rear-projection). But overall it's a long way from what I would call unwatchable. Now, to level set, I don't have the trained eyes of our friends here in the industry, and my room-dictated setup (sitting 12 feet from a 60 inch screen) helps hide a lot of transfer flaws. I have no doubt the problems others are seeing are there. Just saying those of you with less-than-ideal HT setups may find this OK for non-critical viewing.

The problems with the Family Plot transfer have nothing to do with rear projection shots. Those shots are what they are and should not be considered a transfer problem anyway.
The problem is the wacked-out, almost pixellated look of the entire film, that at times appraoches something like bad youtube compression. It is the worst transfer in the set hands down.
People need to understand that the complaints about Marnie and Family Plot have nothing to do with photography. It's a problem with bits and bytes.

 

[Craig S]

The problem is the wacked-out, almost pixellated look of the entire film, that at times appraoches something like bad youtube compression. It is the worst transfer in the set hands down.
People need to understand that the complaints about Marnie and Family Plot have nothing to do with photography. It's a problem with bits and bytes.

Again, understood. The disc clearly has problems. I support any efforts to get it fixed. All I'm saying is that at my viewing distance (much farther out that the 1.5-1.6 screen-width distance which is often cited as optimal) these problems are not visible most of the time.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

I don't see the pixilated "youtube compression" look in Family Plot.

 

[Mike_Richardson]

I don't see the pixilated "youtube compression" look in Family Plot.

I don't either. Looks to me like Universal put on a bit too much DNR during the rear projection shots. Scenes that don't have opticals seem to be less affected. Either way, while it is not "pristine" by any means, it's not anywhere close to the all-out disaster some proclaimed it to be on various message boards. But this also won't be the first time people went berserk over something, blowing it out of proportion!

 

[Scott Calvert]

What the heck are you guys watching this on where it looks anything close to acceptable? Steve, you've been around a while. I'd assume you would know what film looks like. Family Plot ain't it.

 

[Charles Smith]

Looked at some of this one yesterday. On my 50" plasma the pixellating (whatever the correct word and its spelling) in Barbara Harris's face in the opening scene is outrageous. YouTube indeed. Chapter-stopping my way through further, some scenes would look pretty normal and acceptable for a few moments (probably the brightest, most evenly lit outdoor ones), then there'd be a shot of Bruce Dern standing back a little in the scene, that looked like he had cockroaches crawling all over his face. Shocking quality standards.

 

[Professor Echo]

Geez, I'm so out of it lately and haven't been getting my daily HTF injections that for who knows what reason I invented the scenario in my head that this set was completely fixed. Thus I was about to list all my SD Hitchcocks for sale today to put toward the Blu release as a Christmas present for myself. I just happened to mention this to my brother and he said, "What the hell are you doing? It hasn't been fixed!" So I came here for the details and am so glad. What a mess.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Looked at some of this one yesterday.  On my 50" plasma the pixellating (whatever the correct word and its spelling) in Barbara Harris's face in the opening scene is outrageous.  YouTube indeed.  Chapter-stopping my way through further, some scenes would look pretty normal and acceptable for a few moments (probably the brightest, most evenly lit outdoor ones), then there'd be a shot of Bruce Dern standing back a little in the scene, that looked like he had cockroaches crawling all over his face.  Shocking quality standards.

It is quite possibly the worst BD in my (sizeable) collection. I don't think it's hyperbole to say that. And that's coming from someone who thinks the pre-60's films look great for the most part, even TMWKTM which has been savaged on these boards.

 

[Mark-P]

I was able to see the Marnie blu-ray and I disagree, One of the complaints was about the video noise. Look at the opening credits and compare them to the closing credits. Big difference. What you see on the opening credits is visible throughout most of the film. It IS something to complain about.
Frankly, I think it should be recalled.

Okay I took a second look, and what I see is erratic grain that varies from shot to shot. On my Panasonic projector it's much less noticeable and looks like natural film grain but on my Panasonic plasma screen it really stands out. I really don't get all that worked up over grain. Sure a ground-up restoration could have reduced and evened out the grain, but I'm happy with it as is.

 

[Yorkshire]

Again, understood. The disc clearly has problems. I support any efforts to get it fixed. All I'm saying is that at my viewing distance (much farther out that the 1.5-1.6 screen-width distance which is often cited as optimal) these problems are not visible most of the time. 

Hi Craig.
I've been round more 'seating distance' discussions than I care to mention.
For all the disagreements, for people with projectors almost everyone seems to sit somewhere between 1.0 and 1.5 x screen widths away. I think most cinemas have a back row that's between 1.5 and 2.0 x screen widths away and a front row of maybe 0.75 x screen widths away. Something like that.
In short, if you sit over 1.6 x screen widths away, then I can understand why there are things others are seeing which you can't - this is in no way a criticism, you sit where you feel comfortable.
Steve W

 

[WadeM]

Okay I took a second look, and what I see is erratic grain that varies from shot to shot. On my Panasonic projector it's much less noticeable and looks like natural film grain but on my Panasonic plasma screen it really stands out. I really don't get all that worked up over grain. Sure a ground-up restoration could have reduced and evened out the grain, but I'm happy with it as is.

I don't have a problem with grain. This doesn't look like grain to me.

 

[Scott Calvert]

I don't have a problem with grain. This doesn't look like grain to me.

It might have started out as film grain but whatever transfer methods and processing they applied has turned it into an electronic mess that is something else entirely.
This is definitely not a case of grain-o-phobes being turned off by poor opticals.

 

[Worth]

It doesn't look like grain to me, either. Grain makes up the image - this looks like noise floating on top of the image.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

I'm still trying to decide whether or not to get this. I'm glad most of the films look great, but it's disappointing some have been handled so poorly.

 

[Matt Hough]

I found the time to watch Shadow of a Doubt tonight, my first dip into the box. Though the credits looked a bit soft and there was a scratch here and there, the image mostly looked grand with nice and inky black levels. Very pleased with my first taste of the box's contents.