Man on a Ledge plummets onto Blu-ray this week with an edition that presents the picture and sound as well as possible, along with a minimum of special features. The movie itself is hard to...
The most infamously unsuccessful movie at the box-office thus far in 2012 (though Battleship and Dark Shadows may give it some competition), Andrew Stanton’s John Carter mixes elements of...
What can I say? I love 3D! From the moment I began watching 3D content in my home I quickly discovered that I needed more content. I suspect that those of you just purchasing...
Smokey and the Bandit drives onto Blu-ray in a nice edition that can really take the viewer back to 1977 for 90 minutes of sheer moviemaking fun. The Blu-ray comes with the same HD transfer...
Monika Eriksson is one of the first antiheroines in the filmography of Ingmar Bergman. In Summer with Monika, she’s brash, effervescent, and completely captivating, that is, until the realities...
You could set your receiver to mono, so that it folds the signal down to one channel.
But I agree, these sort of stuff ups should be fixed.
Yes you could do that but these dvd's should be right in the first place.Surely someone is in charge of quality control and if it's not right they shouldn't allow it to be sold until it is right.
John,
Later today, I'll check the time on that disc and compare it's runtime to what AFI has listed for it.
John,
I have to apologize because I don't have this disc. I mixed up this title with "Return of the Badmen" which I have from Warner Archive. However, I did check AFI and the listed runtime for "Badmen's Territory" is 97-98 minutes. Judging by what Mike's been posting, the disc is matching that time.
John,
I have to apologize because I don't have this disc. I mixed up this title with "Return of the Badmen" which I have from Warner Archive. However, I did check AFI and the listed runtime for "Badmen's Territory" is 97-98 minutes. Judging by what Mike's been posting, the disc is matching that time.
Crawdaddy
Robert, in all likliehood any cuts (if they exist on the print used) by the BBFC will only amount to a few seconds, I don't usually get too wound about this kind of thing (and less so on a disc I can't even get at), but odd times it results in a poor edit which can be jarring.
Yes you could do that but these dvd's should be right in the first place.Surely someone is in charge of quality control and if it's not right they shouldn't allow it to be sold until it is right.
I completely agree with you. As I pointed out in this post, these discs are being encoded to a shonky public domain standard. Most likely they are being encoded by people at Allied Vaughn who have no idea what they are doing.
Warner should have these discs encoded by the same people who do their regular releases, and NOT using constant bitrate encoding which they would never use for regular discs.
BILLY THE KID (1941). Robert Taylor as Billy and Brian Donlevy as a character based on Pat Garrett. The transfer is acceptable but not much more. This is one of the rare color westerns from a period when the color was great; it would have been a perfect candidate for full restoration, but alas. . .
BROADWAY RHYTHM. This is a gorgeous looking three-strip Technicolor print that is comparable to some of the MGM box set musicals in picture and sound quality. I watched the DVD twice. Once on my DVD machine and again on my newly hooked up Blu Ray and it seemed to take the quality up a few notches. There is minor print damage, but not enough to bother about. The last time I saw this film was on its VHS release and this DVD certainly towers over that video.
I'm wondering if anyone who has bought Mr Lucky can compare it to these screen caps? I recorded it off digital TV last Saturday, and am curious if this is the same transfer used for the Warner Archive version. It had a lot of speckles all through it, which suggests to me it is a pretty old transfer. I selected some with large scratches, if these are also in the Warner Archive DVD, then that would confirm it is the same transfer. Click the captures for larger views.
I'm wondering if anyone who has bought Mr Lucky can compare it to these screen caps? I recorded it off digital TV last Saturday, and am curious if this is the same transfer used for the Warner Archive version. It had a lot of speckles all through it, which suggests to me it is a pretty old transfer. I selected some with large scratches, if these are also in the Warner Archive DVD, then that would confirm it is the same transfer. Click the captures for larger views.
Screen caps are screen caps so I don't know how you compared them to moving video on just a few select caps except if they both have same defects beyond just some speckles. Chances are they both came from the same transfer for this RKO release in which it has been stated that these particular (RKO) film elements are in terrible shape and full restoration can only do so much with them.
Screen caps are screen caps so I don't know how you compared them to moving video on just a few select caps except if they both have same defects beyond just some speckles.
I haven't compared them, I asked if someone who owns the Archive version could compare the DVD to the captures, especially those with large scratches (top middle and bottom left). They were both taken from the start of the film, the scene at the dock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
Chances are they both came from the same transfer for this RKO release in which it has been stated that these particular (RKO) film elements are in terrible shape and full restoration can only do so much with them.
At the very least a new element could be wet gate printed to remove all the minor speckles. The more severe scratches would probably require digital restoration ('painting' good frames over bad).
I haven't compared them, I asked if someone who owns the Archive version could compare the DVD to the captures, especially those with large scratches (top middle and bottom left). They were both taken from the start of the film, the scene at the dock.
That's my point, beyond those two with long scratches it will be difficult to compare still caps to the moving video of a playing dvd. With that being said, I will check my dvd for those long scratches, but I'm pretty sure right now it's probably the same transfer.
At the very least a new element could be wet gate printed to remove all the minor speckles. The more severe scratches would probably require digital restoration ('painting' good frames over bad).
I already know that, but I'm talking about film damage beyond removing speckles.
I watched my first two Archive DVDs this past weekend: Wichita and Westbound. I was impressed with both the films and the transfers. They looked as good as any DVD in my library.
One thing though. I was watching them on my sister's Samsung HD TV and Blu-ray player. I've noticed that whenever a SD DVD is played on their setup, the DVD intermittently looks videoized, instead of having the film-like look I'm used to on SD monitors. Does their HD TV need adjusting, or is this the result of the upscaling?
I watched my first two Archive DVDs this past weekend: Wichita and Westbound. I was impressed with both the films and the transfers. They looked as good as any DVD in my library.
One thing though. I was watching them on my sister's Samsung HD TV and Blu-ray player. I've noticed that whenever a SD DVD is played on their setup, the DVD intermittently looks videoized, instead of having the film-like look I'm used to on SD monitors. Does their HD TV need adjusting, or is this the result of the upscaling?
It depends on a lot of factors:
1. Is the HDTV 1080p native or 720p native? Upscaled DVD looks much better on 720p native HDTVs.
2. What kind of Blu-ray player does she own? Until just recently, the only Blu-ray "player" that did a really good job of upscaling DVD was the PS3. According to what I've been reading, the recently released Samsung (BD-P3600 & BD-P4600), Panasonic (DMP-BD60), and Oppo Blu-ray players also feature outstanding DVD upscaling. Almost any other standalone BD player seems to come up short when it comes to upscaling DVD.
3. It's possible that -- as discussed earlier in this thread -- those Warner Archive transfers may have been encoded interlaced; that alone will limit how much like "film" they can look when upscaled.
Yes, your friend needs to adjust her TV, just as I had to. Have friend go into settings, click on Mode, find picture options - there your friend is probably still on the factory setting of standard - have friend set that to custom - the jutter and motion blur are set to five - have friend set jutter to 0 and motion blur (I think that's what they call it - but whatever the other one is) to ten. Voila - film look rather than hi-def video look. I found that info on the AVS and it worked perfectly for me.
One thing though. I was watching them on my sister's Samsung HD TV and Blu-ray player. I've noticed that whenever a SD DVD is played on their setup, the DVD intermittently looks videoized, instead of having the film-like look I'm used to on SD monitors. Does their HD TV need adjusting, or is this the result of the upscaling?
They probably have AMP on, which utilizes a frame insertion technology to reduce motion blur. It has the side effect of making film look like video (often referred to as the Soap Opera Effect). It can be turned off or lower, if desired. A lot of people like it, but movie lovers tend to prefer not to use it.
PARTY GIRL (1958): A gangster film with the color and glitz of an MGM musical, even featuring a few dance scenes, it features Robert Taylor as a mob lawyer who decides to go straight, Cyd Charisse as his girl, Lee J. Cobb in a colorful performance as a syndicate boss, and John Ireland as a thug. Directed by Nicholas Ray.
I don't think many will be disappointed with the picture quality of this enhanced widescreen release. It's one of the better ones I've seen.
Yes, the print quality of PARTY GIRL is quite excellent. I have no complaints. And they even included a trailer. Unlike others I have had no complaints with the many DVD's I bought from the archives. I have ordered three times and all three times the discs were sent to me with no trouble!
They probably have AMP on, which utilizes a frame insertion technology to reduce motion blur. It has the side effect of making film look like video (often referred to as the Soap Opera Effect). It can be turned off or lower, if desired. A lot of people like it, but movie lovers tend to prefer not to use it.
That's what it sounds like to me. Great for sports but lousy for movies when the film look is desired. However, I'm not sure what is meant by AMP? I've just seen it listed with TV's as having a 120Hz mode. But it sounds like the same thing.
Watched Tarzan's Magic Fountain last night. To my uneducated eye ,it looked pretty good. Good Tarzan movie about fountain of youth in the jungle. Pretty good supporting cast with Albert Dekker,Evelyn Ankers,Charles Drake and Alan Napier among others.Pleased with the quality of both picture and the movie itself.
That's what it sounds like to me. Great for sports but lousy for movies when the film look is desired. However, I'm not sure what is meant by AMP? I've just seen it listed with TV's as having a 120Hz mode. But it sounds like the same thing.
AMP (Auto Motion Plus) is what Samsung calls their motion processing. It is often mistakenly referred to as "120 Hz" (in fact, Samsung actually calls it Auto Motion Plus 120 Hz). However, the 120 Hz refresh rate is the feature that makes it feasible to do the frame interpolation process. When you turn AMP off, the TV still refreshes at 120 Hz, but there is no motion processing being performed. In fact, with AMP off, the TV should be able to do 5:5 pulldown and give a more film-like image, free from 3:2 judder.
FALLEN SPARROW (1943): Film noir meets Hitchcock; this one has both a femme fatale and a McGuffin. A good John Garfield thriller, it's in pretty good shape other than a few speckles here and there. Nice contrast.
BHOWANI JUNCTION (1956): Set in India, shot on location in Pakistan; the location shooting really adds to the flavor of this romantic adventure. The colors are nice and the picture is sharp. Widescreen enchanced and no complaints here on picture quality.
I finally caved and bought 5 DVDs from Warner Archive, all Norma Shearer or Joan Crawford vehicles from the early 30's. (Which means Norma's films will be bundled soon and 50% off the price I paid haha) Some of the DVDs seemed to be pretty good quality-wise (Let Us Be Gay, Strange Interlude) while others were disappointing (Private Lives, Chained). Let Us Be Gay seemed brighter and more detailed than my recording from TCM last year. Strange Interlude looked nice also, but the audio was pretty crackly. I was particularly disappointed with was "Chained" (1934). I have never seen the film before so I have nothing to compare it to, but the print was dreadful for an MGM film of the time period. It didnt appear to be a problem with the DVD, it seems that the print they used was just bad. I wonder if a better print exists somewhere? As for "Private Lives," Im considering sending it back. Its one of my top 10 favorite films, but I think the DVD I bought looks worse than the one I recorded on TCM 4 or 5 years ago. It seems darker and less detailed and just has that look of a VHS recorded to a DVD-R. Just didnt seem worth it. I also got "Laughing Sinners"...it looks pretty good to my eyes, but its also one I have never seen before. I found it interesting that the picture they used on the back cover was of Joan, Neil Hamilton and Johnny Mack Brown! (Brown was replaced by Gable after most of the film was done and his scenes were re-shot). Curious to hear others thoughts on these or other early 30s releases
I also got "Laughing Sinners"...it looks pretty good to my eyes, but its also one I have never seen before. I found it interesting that the picture they used on the back cover was of Joan, Neil Hamilton and Johnny Mack Brown! (Brown was replaced by Gable after most of the film was done and his scenes were re-shot). Curious to hear others thoughts on these or other early 30s releases
With Laughing Sinners, I would have preferred to see Johnny Mack Brown in the role. Gable has charisma and chemistry with Crawford, but because of the character he's playing, someone holier than thou, it adds little to the movie. Gable as a Salvation Army worker trying to save Crawford from becoming a kept woman doesn't ring true. I guess MGM recognized their mistake, as in their next feature together, Possessed, it's Gable who takes over the Hamilton role from Laughing Sinners. He's nicer than Hamilton, but he turns Crawford into a kept woman none the less, and Crawford, far from needing to be saved, likes it!
None of the Archive releases from the 1930s have had a new transfer. Imagine how all these could look with at least a new telecine?
I just watched Dream Wife with Cary Grant. There were many issues with the soundtrack. Some scenes were out of sync. Other scenes had the sound go very low at times. There was also a pretty good amount of hissing and crackle in the soundtrack. I was wondering if anyone else has bought this title? If so is the soundtrack messed up? Or is my copy messed up?
I'd like to see a review for Four's a Crowd. If not I'll be renting it from ClassicFlix as I've deemed in multiple other threads the Archives aren't a suitable program for Errol Flynns filmography.
Oh and perhaps some John Garfield and Greta Garbo titles also. Even Robert Montgomery and Stewart Granger.
Yes, all the above actors I would've purchased boxsets of if they weren't MOD...
Min and Bill (1930) with Marie Dressler and Wallace Beery boasts a pretty solid transfer, a notch above a transfer from a video master. It's not at the level of Warner's commercial releases though. Perhaps they were starting to ready this for a regular release, to tie in with an aborted Oscar promotion? Marie Dressler did win the best actress Oscar for it. This film is more of a vehicle for her, and she's great! I wouldn't say this is her best performance though.
Tugboat Annie (1933), a more equal teaming of Dressler and Beery, is a straight transfer from a video master; nothing more, nothing less. I think it's a better film than Min and Bill, perhaps thanks in no small measure to the contribution of director Mervyn LeRoy. It has more humor, better atmosphere, as well as some interesting action scenes! This film is a curiosity well worth checking out!
VIDEO - 4.5/5 (this is relative to other films of this vintage and budget as presented on DVD)
Presented in anamorphic 1.78:1 and progressively encoded, ...ALL THE MARBLES looks surprisingly good on this Warner Archive DVD-
R release! The murky and cropped VHS from the 80's can easily be forgotten now (though I have posted a few comparison pictures as a reference below) as image on this DVD is clean, bright, and vivid with color. Even the scenes shot during the wrestling matches, which always appeared somewhat foggy with the variable lighting from principal photography, fare quite well in this release, though they do still look a notch or so lower in overall quality when compared to the rest of the film. The film was shot soft-matte and has been matted here with a bit more picture information added to the sides and an uneven amount of cropping top to bottom (more on the bottom) when compared to the open-matte VHS release of yesteryear (and who knows what cropping and reframing it was subject to), but the framing is consistently satisfactory at this near-proper theatrical ratio (the packaging incorrectly states it is 1.85:1, but as the screen captures prove it is slightly more open than that at 1.78:1).
Quite frankly, I'm shocked at the quality of this release, as it IS of the same quality as a pressed official release from Warner aside from the menus and 10-minute chapter stops. Though the WBShop website warns, "This film has been manufactured from the best-quality video master currently available and has not been remastered or restored specifically for this DVD and On Demand release," I just don't believe that this transfer did not originate from a recent high definition remastering. This DVD was certainly not from some old broadcast video master as has been the case with some of the Warner Archive titles. The compression is handled well with no notable flaws, though there is little to no grain to speak of that would present a problem save for during the wrestling matches. If one is looking for it, there is some minor macroblocking in the darker areas of the frame during the crowd scenes, but it is never to the extent that it detracts from the story at all. The images below grabbed from the DVD demonstrate the terrific color balance and snappy contrast far better than I can describe.
AUDIO
The audio is presented in competent Dolby Digital 2-channel mono encoded at 192 kbps. Another nice surprise, dialog is crisp and music particularly rich and clean, a definite sonic improvement over the buzzy and muffled VHS audio track. Dialog that was previously obscured is now intelligible on this DVD, though this remastering also reveals the limitations of the original sound mix as far as the added foley isn't always well-balanced in the mix. The sound supports this very entertaining film well and its few deficiencies can be traced back to how it was originally created.
The theatrical trailer (in 4x3 format) has also been included on this release, a nice bonus to round out a satisfactory Warner Archive release of a beloved (there is a very real fan base online for this film) but rather forgotten and obscure catalog title. Perhaps this new release will introduce more people to the film, though its rather limited distribution online might prevent that from happening. Still, I can't help wishing some interviews with the cast or some kind of featurette had been produced for this release, though I can't stress enough how pleased I am to finally have a quality release of this film - PERIOD.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
Here is the trailer:
MGM VHS:
Warner Archive DVD:
Warner Archive DVD:
Warner Archive DVD:
MGM VHS:
Warner Archive DVD:
MGM VHS:
Warner Archive DVD:
MGM VHS:
Warner Archive DVD:
MGM VHS:
Warner Archive DVD:
Edited by Chuck Pennington - 8/11/2009 at 09:06 am GMT
Good news! I just received the Archives disc for URGH! and the Gary Numan sequence is intact. The film on the disc has an actual running time of 2:00:40 which is about 3 minutes shorter than the 124-minute running time listed on the old VHS from CBS-Fox. I don't have the video handy to do an actual time-check on it to see if it was actually a full 124 minutes, or 121 minutes as this print is. In any event, it's definitely better than the 116 minutes WB is advertising on their site and on the back of the case. A scratchy trailer is also included in full-frame.
