Hitchcock's Notorious from Criterion (1 Viewer)

[Gary Tooze]

Wow... fascinating....
Thanks Robert!
------------------

[email protected]
DVD COLLECTION CONTEST , My DVD Collection ,My Home Theatre
DVDBeaver's 15 Member choices of the TOP 111 DVDs available today!

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

RAH, you're killing me!

 

[Douglas Bailey]

Nitrate worms, eh? Those wouldn't, by any chance, be put on a hook and used as bait by certain film archivists, would they?
doug
------------------
"How can it be the same movie if they've changed my character from a
tightly-wound convenience-store clerk to a jittery Eskimo
firefighter?... uh huh... uh huh... uh huh. Well, that's actually a
pretty good explanation..."
--James Woods, on The Simpsons

 

[george kaplan]

Robert,
Given how highly respected you are around here, I think it is very dangerous for you not to use smileys when you're joking. And I can only assume that you were joking when you refered to those creatures known scientifically as Celluloid Caterpillars as Nitrate Worms. Good joke though.
------------------
13-time NBA world champion Lakers: 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 2000, 2001

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Is it true that they called them cigarette burns in memory of legendary assistant film editor Stosh "Smokey" Smith who was lost to this world, along with a Lindbergh Baby newsreel, when he actually tryed to mark a reel change on a nitrate negative with his cigarette?
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA
[Edited last by Ken_McAlinden on October 26, 2001 at 10:22 AM]

 

[carl.k]

Thank you! I did find a solution in combating half of problem posed by nitrate worm activity. I place a black box against the right side of the screen re-framing the film at the worm hole free 1.15:1 ratio. The picture is somewhat small on my 13" Philco 4-barrel television, but as you can see from the screenshots below the presentation is greatly improved!

 

[Ugo Scarlata]

EDIT: Useless explanation of cigarette burns erased. D'oh!
[Edited last by Ugo Scarlata on October 26, 2001 at 10:48 AM]

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Ugo, he was joking. I think yours was the last post meant to be taken sincerely in this thread. Oh, excuse me, except for the one where Peter said Robert was killing him. That's really happening, but the rest was in jest.
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[Ugo Scarlata]

quote: Ugo, he was joking.[/quote]LOL. Yes, I am not that dense -- Mr. Harris' post is a keeper!
I was responding to Carl.k's initial post, however. I hadn't realized that his screenshots were part of an elaborate joke as well! Hmm... on the other hand, I guess I am a bit dense, huh?

Cheers.
[Edited last by Ugo Scarlata on October 26, 2001 at 10:54 AM]

 

[Rob W]

I am very curious as to why the opening credits are so severely windowboxed on this transfer . They appear to be shrunken to the 1:85-safe area from a print designed to be shown in theatres not equipped for 1:33 projection. ( Warner's reissue prints of WIZARD OF OZ were also printed this way several years ago. ) But, Criterion's notes claim the transfer is from original materials, etc. What gives ?
For what it's worth, I HATE it when credits are windowboxed like this. No-one has a set-up that overscans so severely that this is justified. And most of the time it's obvious that the titles don't come near the edges of the frame so even a bit of oversan would leave them completely readable.
[Edited last by Rob W on October 26, 2001 at 10:55 AM]

 

[Rich Malloy]

Ahhh, the mythical "nitrate worm". Utter balderdash, of course. Whatever the actual source of the wormhole - and this is a matter of no small speculation - notions of nitrate-destroying worms are simply fairytales, widely repeated and uncritically accepted by the common classes.
Like their cousins the black holes, "wormholes" were in fact conjectured long before they became a subject of formal study or even before acquiring their common names. Just months after Einstein formulated his field equations, in 1916 Ludwig Flamm discovered that an empty, spherical wormhole could be described by the Schwartzchild solution of the field equation by selecting a particular type of topology.
The men ultimately responsible for the popularization of wormholes are Carl Sagan and Kip Thorne. Sagan was writing his first fictional novel and needed some way of transporting the heroine quickly yet safely to the Vega star system, some 26 light-years away. His original idea was to use some form of black hole as an entryway into hyperspace. Always the stickler for scientific accuracy, he called upon his friend Kip Thorne for advice. That got the ball rolling for what would eventually become an in-depth study of the properties of wormholes, first by Thorne and eventually dozens of others. The rest, as they say, is history. Like most other narrative innovations in those days, which tended to arise in the literary arts before migrating to the cinematic, "wormholes" too were soon to make their Hollywood debut.
However, and I wish to stress this most strongly, the very real existence of "wormholes" has nothing whatsoever to do with common apocrypha featuring that voracious bane of film-stock, the so-called "nitrate worm". How or why the public seized upon this notion in its most literal manifestation is a question for the historians and cultural anthropologists, but I assure you it has neither validity, value or credence in the world of the cinematic arts.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Oh damn... joke's already over? I guess timing really is everything.

 

[Nelson Au]

I finally had a chance to see the Criterion DVD of Notorious yesterday. I‘ve had the Criterion laserdisc of this title for years so I’ve seen this movie more then a few times.
I was very pleased by the presentation and felt good that the purchase was not a total repackage of that laserdisc. The additional material in the suppliment consisting of the Keane commentary and the Unica key piece was great.
I must say that no matter how many times I see this film, I never get tired of it. It’s so compellingly well done. I enjoy being so engrossed in a film that the issue of film grain, or edge enhancement, or 5.1 or whatever are just a no issue here for me. Those issues are not issues to me. Also it’s a Criterion release, they know what they are doing. I buy DVD’s to watch the movie, and it’s a privilege that the studios are giving these Classics for our enjoyment. Seems too many here are more concerned about those technical issues then just plain enjoying a really good movie. The Phantom Menace of course, you can talk all day about the technical transfer issues, but again, I had a good viewing experience with that disc and enjoyed the experience almost as much.
It also makes me think more about the lack of ability of Hollywood to do this kind of film because it is ruled by corporations that pander to the teenage dollar. Sure there have been a few good films of recent years. American Beauty is one. I wonder who could do a film like Notorious with its wonderful mix of romance, and thrills of the espionage story. The lack of overt sex and violence make this movie even stronger as it is all so well handled that it’s there without being there. I’m sure there are screenwriters out there that can put something together this tight; the current Hollywood probably won’t let them. As for actors, the only ones I can think of that can fill the Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman roles with the kind of performance with nuance and screen appeal are Pierce Brosnan and Gwyneth Paltrow.
At any rate, one fine film from one great director and a great DVD presentation. I look forward to the next Criterion releases of Spellbound. I wish a version of Criterion’s past LD of North By Northwest could someday happen on DVD.
Nelson

 

[Brian W]

I finally had a look at the Criterion DVD. I am very confused and I don’t mean to disagree with Mr. Harris or any of the educated, well-founded feedback I have been reading. But I have the AB disc too and I think it is a better film to VIDEO transfer, though the Criterion transfer is from restored elements and the contrast, blacks etc are better.
I have an Elite 510HD with a Panasonic H1000 progressive scan player. The H1000 will detect the original source (film) of a DVD transfer and in essence translate the transfer to 24 frames per second. On all film sourced DVDs, a blue light will appear to let one know this mode is functioning that the source of the DVD is film. If the DVD is sourced or transferred for an original video source the light will not appear, and it will play at video FPS.
The Criterion disc is the ONLY disc I have played from a film source where the blue light does not appear. That tells me something. But without even noticing that, I DID notice at once the transfer lacks the film quality that the AB has; the Criterion to me looks like a video transfer with video artifacting. One obvious example -the café scene when Bergman is wearing a checked blazer, shimmering galore! Virtually non-existent and more filmic on the AB transfer.

 

[GlennH]

Just FYI, Bob Banka reviews the Criterion NOTORIOUS here. He makes reference to the "chatter" on the internet about how this compares to the AB release, regarding grain, etc., which probably refers to this thread. He likes the Criterion.

 

[Gil Jawetz]

Well, I haven't gotten mine yet but i can't wait. Some of the comments here bug me but everytime I read something like this I get worried and then I watch the disc and love it. Plus, RAH's comments are valuable to me since he's a professional (Although I'll never understand Rick Schmidlin "restoration" of "Elvis: That's The Way It Is" which I talked about here) and knows what he's talking about.
------------------
My DVD Reviews
You know you want buskerdog.com -- T-shirts and stuff

 

[Rain]

Having just re-read this entire thread, I am somewhat concerned about the claims of significant artifacting on the Criterion disc.
It is certainly difficult to make much of a distinction between looking at a few screen shots, though the Criterion does look slightly more pleasing.
However, if there is one thing I absolutely cannot stand, it's shimmering artifacts. If there is one thing that absolutely detracts from a "film-like" appearance (IMHO), that would definitely be it.
I was pretty much set on getting the Criterion, but now I'm wavering...
Anyone have any further comments on this?
And the severe windowboxing of the opening credits is a bit ridiculous. Not to mention that there is more visible frame on either side on the Anchor Bay screenshots during the opening credits.
------------------

"Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." - Imagine by John Lennon
Anyone in the Vancouver Canada area interested in a meet? Click here

 

[Randy_M]

Severe windowboxing? I seem to remember about 1/4" all around. Have to admit, I thought something was wrong with my player for a minute, but when I realized what it was it seemed kind of fun. I'm sure it wasn't done for flippancy.
I saw NO shimmering, just film grain. The AB disc will definitely be "smoother" picture-wise, but you'll miss a bunch of interesting extras, if you care about such things...
Cheers

 

[Rain]

I don't care about grain. I'm with Robert on that one...makes film look like film. I honestly don't even notice it.
As for the windowboxing, the screenshots do make it look rather extreme. Perhaps this is not the case.
Since some are seeing shimmering aritifacts and some aren't, I'm guessing this may be a hardware issue.
Keep convincing me to get the Criterion, please....
[Edited last by Rain on October 30, 2001 at 06:42 PM]

 

[Carlo_M]

Rain,
I think only one guy has posted shimmering and "not seeing a blue light" on his player, which was a Panasonic H1000 player. This player was an early progressive entry from Panasonic and doesn't pass all the tests on the Progressive DVD Player Shootout over at hometheaterhifi.com. Maybe the disc is improperly flagged and that's why his H1000 isn't handling it well? Here's a quote for the H1000 from the Shootout:

This player has been around almost as long as the Toshiba 5109, but it’s still hanging in there, and it’s still a contender. This player is the only one to use the Genesis gmVLX1A without the gmAFMC, as far as we know. The player implements its own film detection, which seems to boil down to looking for the standard film flag sequence. If it sees that sequence, it goes into film mode. Any deviation from the standard sequence causes it to go into video mode, except the alternating progressive_frame flag material, which is still recognized as film.