Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › A Few Words About By Robert Harris › A few words about...™ North by Northwest -- in Blu-ray
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A few words about...™ North by Northwest -- in Blu-ray - Page 2

post #31 of 112
11/4/09 at 9:34pm
Cannot wait to see this but have to as here in the UK its not released until 16th Nov.

I just hope that Universal sit up and take notice of this release as they hold IMHO many of the other Hitchcock crown jewels (Marnie (my favorite Hitchcock movie), Vertigo & The Birds). Those 3 titles need the exact same loving treatment for Bluray ASAP!!!!
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

North by Northwest (50th Anniversary Edition Blu-ray Book) [Blu-ray]
post #32 of 112
11/5/09 at 8:00am
Beautiful Blu-ray.  Simply glorious.

However, I'm seeing something different and strange re: the color on the Blu-ray in one sequence, compared to the DVD. I've yet to check my venerable letterboxed MGM laserdisc, but...

...at the end of the Glen Cove car chase scene, after the police are on Roger's tail, Cary Grant appears "colorized." In fact, at the end of the sequence, the sides of his face - and particularly his ears - are devoid of color altogether. This is *not* present on the DVD. What happened here?  Were B&W separations colorized digitally in this sequence?  Color correction gone awry?
Reply
post #33 of 112
11/5/09 at 9:21am
Now that Robert has revealed the truth about the Catholic Church's secret role in digital restoration, I'd suggest that he start looking over his shoulder to make sure he isn't being followed by a large, imposing albino.
Reply
post #34 of 112
11/5/09 at 4:39pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob_L View Post

Now that Robert has revealed the truth about the Catholic Church's secret role in digital restoration, I'd suggest that he start looking over his shoulder to make sure he isn't being followed by a large, imposing albino.
That "large, imposing albino" works out of Culver City, not Burbank.  
Reply
post #35 of 112
11/6/09 at 7:57am
I watched this masterpiece twice this week. And I am absolutely stunned also. Magnificent visual quality that gives new life to the cinematography of mr. Hitchcock.

I just wonders about one segment. During the scene in the woods, where Grant meets and talks to Eve Marie Saint, it's like heat is coming up in front of the camera and it makes the picture wooble/bounce for a few moments. Someone who has an explanation for this?

Also during the cropduster scene, two circular spots appears in the blue sky, just slightly more dark in appearance. Anyone else noticed this?
Reply
post #36 of 112
11/7/09 at 5:45am
I watched this last night and I noticed those darker spots also.  They're pretty large and close to the center of the shot so it stood out like a sore thumb.

Other than that anomaly it looked excellent.
Reply
post #37 of 112
11/7/09 at 7:35am
I watched the film last night and noticed them, too, but haven't they always been there? I just assumed it was something on the lens when those shots were originally filmed. I don't think the transfer is to blame. I don't have my old DVD any more to check, but I believe they were there, too.
Reply
post #38 of 112
11/7/09 at 9:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flemming.K View Post
... during the cropduster scene, two circular spots appears in the blue sky, just slightly more dark in appearance. Anyone else noticed this?

UFOs.

Vincent
Reply
post #39 of 112
11/7/09 at 12:40pm
 This sort of frame by frame nitpicking is so tiresome, really.  Matt is right - it's spots on the lens - just as there are spots on the lens in the opening shots of How The West Was Won - let's blame that on the transfer, too.  I'm wondering in this age of Blu-Ray (and DVD to a lesser extent) if it's even possible to just watch a movie anymore.  I've never seen anything like this in all my days of being a movie fan.  I understand that people think they know what they're talking about, and that it's just a discussion board, but my word it gets awfully thick sometimes. :)
Reply
post #40 of 112
11/7/09 at 6:06pm
I finally watched this film for the first time.  It was more interesting than some of the James Bond flicks I've seen.  I'm not a Hitch fan, but I'll be keeping my eye on future releases of his films.

The restoration for this 50th Anniv. edition is fantastic! WB did a wonderful job with this release.
Reply
post #41 of 112
11/7/09 at 6:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman View Post

 This sort of frame by frame nitpicking is so tiresome, really.  Matt is right - it's spots on the lens - just as there are spots on the lens in the opening shots of How The West Was Won - let's blame that on the transfer, too.  I'm wondering in this age of Blu-Ray (and DVD to a lesser extent) if it's even possible to just watch a movie anymore.  I've never seen anything like this in all my days of being a movie fan.  I understand that people think they know what they're talking about, and that it's just a discussion board, but my word it gets awfully thick sometimes. :)

Well, it says something about how far home video has advanced technologically that flaws like this can now be seen. Try picking out things like that in the VHS era!

Of course if the discussion doesn't interest you, you don't have to read it.
Reply
post #42 of 112
11/7/09 at 8:04pm
The discussion of film and Blu-Ray interests me, not this incessant one-frame nitpicking, but unfortunately it happens in every thread about every transfer, no matter how small the "imperfection" that turns out not to be an "imperfection" at all.  In the good old days, you know, when you just went to the movies to see the movie - remember that - we didn't sit in the theater and look at the print and say, gee what are those two blue marks that just went by lasting less than a second?  No, what we did was - wait for it - watch the movie.  We didn't notice the cue change marks, what the people here call "debris" didn't bother us because we were moviegoers - today's home video crowd is something wholly other, and not in a good way, at least from my perspective.  Few here saw any of this stuff when it was originally released - and few here have actually seen most of the classics discussed here in an actual cinema.  If there's a way to filter out the "ooh, there was a mark at 35:43 - they ruined the transfer!" type posts, let me know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Howson View Post




Well, it says something about how far home video has advanced technologically that flaws like this can now be seen. Try picking out things like that in the VHS era!

Of course if the discussion doesn't interest you, you don't have to read it.
 
Reply
post #43 of 112
11/7/09 at 8:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman View Post

The discussion of film and Blu-Ray interests me, not this incessant one-frame nitpicking, but unfortunately it happens in every thread about every transfer, no matter how small the "imperfection" that turns out not to be an "imperfection" at all.  In the good old days, you know, when you just went to the movies to see the movie - remember that - we didn't sit in the theater and look at the print and say, gee what are those two blue marks that just went by lasting less than a second?  No, what we did was - wait for it - watch the movie.  We didn't notice the cue change marks, what the people here call "debris" didn't bother us because we were moviegoers - today's home video crowd is something wholly other, and not in a good way, at least from my perspective.  Few here saw any of this stuff when it was originally released - and few here have actually seen most of the classics discussed here in an actual cinema.  If there's a way to filter out the "ooh, there was a mark at 35:43 - they ruined the transfer!" type posts, let me know.
 


 
The only person wetting his pants and having his blood pressure rise over the comments of this transfer, is, as usual, Billy Feldman (big surprise, that). Nobody said the transfer sucked,or that it was a travesty, or any such thing. The only person who has said "they've ruined the transfer!" is, again,  Billy Feldman.

Somebody mentions on a discussion board, that he sees something on the screen. He doesn't even say it bothers him. He just freakin' noticed it! Frankly, Billy, I really am getting tired of your drama queen posts in which you constantly invent straw man arguments about this and other comments on films. Even if someone disagrees about a film, most of us here are mature enough to discuss it like adults without throwing a hissy fit. Almost every post here has been positive about this Blu-ray release. The things people are noticing are really questions and not complaints.

If it bothers you that much that somebody happened to notice something about a transfer then don't read the posts.
Reply
post #44 of 112
11/7/09 at 9:42pm
 I, a drama queen?  I don't see anything either dramatic or Queenly about anything I've written - I do, however, see a great deal of unnecessary emotionalism and yes, queeniness, in your very own diatribe.  My point was and is, there is a lot of what is, IMO, silly nitpicking - frame by frame looking for things that is so peculiar to me it defies logic.  Why don't you, in fact, instead of making with the overdramatic responses, address the real issues in the post above yours - the days of just being a moviegoer, thanks to DVD and now Blu-Ray are over.  That is an interesting discussion, and maybe it deserves its own thread.  And if you think there was just one nitpicky comment about North By Northwest's Blu-Ray, think again.  This isn't the only board where such things occur - the color has been debated, the "darkness" has been debated, dots in the sky, black and white ears - I mean, well, you know what I mean.  You are attributing to my post all sorts of things that only exist in your mind.  What to make of that, I know not.  Oh, and please feel free to point out the quote you attribute to me - you know, the one I never uttered in any post anywhere "they've ruined the transfer."  Why would you attribute that fictional statement to me, when all I've said is that it's a great transfer in every way?

If the only way you can respond to a post made by me is to get personal and nasty, maybe you should not read my posts.  I didn't get personal and nasty in this or any other thread.  I did not attack any poster personally.  But you did, didn't you?
Edited by BillyFeldman - 11/10/09 at 10:32am
Reply
post #45 of 112
11/7/09 at 11:33pm

The spots in the sky you mentioned are dust in front of the lens.

Reply
post #46 of 112
11/7/09 at 11:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian1972 View Post

The spots in the sky you mentioned are dust in front of the lens.


Dust in front of a camera lens would not likely be visible in such a way on a shot.  I'd think the imperfection is more likely right on the film itself (in one way or another) -- or if it's dust or some such, it was probably much much closer to the film itself during exposure, perhaps somewhere between the lens and the film, rather than in front of the lens.

_Man_
Reply
post #47 of 112
11/8/09 at 9:16am
I know I'm danish, but I like to believe that I'm capable of making myself understandable in the kings english 

I had to revisit my post about my "nitpicking" and I don't believe asking for an explanation is in the territory of nitpicking and mentioning ruining the transfer. Actually I'm a reviewer of movies and rate NBNW 10/10 in PQ. I'm just interested if people knew the reasons for the small anomalies. I know how a discussion about PQ, can run wild. Just think back to the Bram Stokers Dracula release. I still regard that transfer as the most breathtaking I've seen on blu-ray, when compared to earlier releases on DVD.

I'm even more curious about the woobling effect of the picture during the talk between Grant and Saint. Maybe Hitchcock was lighting a cigar during that scene? 
Reply
post #48 of 112
11/8/09 at 12:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flemming.K View Post

I know I'm danish, but I like to believe that I'm capable of making myself understandable in the kings english 

I had to revisit my post about my "nitpicking" and I don't believe asking for an explanation is in the territory of nitpicking and mentioning ruining the transfer. Actually I'm a reviewer of movies and rate NBNW 10/10 in PQ. I'm just interested if people knew the reasons for the small anomalies. I know how a discussion about PQ, can run wild. Just think back to the Bram Stokers Dracula release. I still regard that transfer as the most breathtaking I've seen on blu-ray, when compared to earlier releases on DVD.

I'm even more curious about the woobling effect of the picture during the talk between Grant and Saint. Maybe Hitchcock was lighting a cigar during that scene? 


Honestly, you don't have to explain yourself in response to that diatribe above.

I read nothing into your post that I'd consider nitpicking.

If making observations and or inquiries about visual anomalies is tiresome reading for some self-proclaimed NBNW expert on an internet messageboard then that's their problem.   I could care less.

My $.02
Reply
post #49 of 112
11/8/09 at 1:02pm
I get where Billy is coming from but in this case, it seems more like someone basically said "What the heck is that?" and they got their answer. I'm as tired as anyone of seeing self-appointed experts make proclamations about a release being 'wrong' or make demands for a recall or whatever other silliness you read on the internet and this inquiry didn't seem to fall into that category at all.
Reply
post #50 of 112
11/8/09 at 1:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong View Post



Dust in front of a camera lens would not likely be visible in such a way on a shot.  I'd think the imperfection is more likely right on the film itself (in one way or another) -- or if it's dust or some such, it was probably much much closer to the film itself during exposure, perhaps somewhere between the lens and the film, rather than in front of the lens.

_Man_


The spot looks a little large to just be some dust, however it does look to me to be something on the lens its self. The spot is actually visible on the previous DVD release. The shots in question seems to be made with a fairly wide angle lens, and as such something on the front element would be more visible than on medium or telephoto lens The plane has just flown over the camera in this particular shot (probably a second unit shot because it includes only the plane), I think its is likely something that was kicked up by the prop and onto the lens.

Doug

Reply
post #51 of 112
11/8/09 at 1:45pm
Doug, Your observation was spot on.
Reply
post #52 of 112
11/8/09 at 1:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce View Post


The spot looks a little large to just be some dust, however it does look to me to be something on the lens its self. The spot is actually visible on the previous DVD release. The shots in question seems to be made with a fairly wide angle lens, and as such something on the front element would be more visible than on medium or telephoto lens The plane has just flown over the camera in this particular shot (probably a second unit shot because it includes only the plane), I think its is likely something that was kicked up by the prop and onto the lens.

Doug



 

Good point.  Maybe they're some kind of water spots or some such since they only darken the areas somewhat, not completely blot them out.

I don't have the BD just yet (and don't have the old DVD), so I can only speculate based on what y'all have been describing.

_Man_
Reply
post #53 of 112
11/8/09 at 2:06pm
My comments were more general in tone, and if that wasn't apparent, apologies.  I wasn't picking on one specific post, just an amalgamation of them not only in this thread but in The Wizard Of Oz thread and every other thread about a classic film transfer.

As to the person who rolled his "eyes" at this "self-proclaimed expert" something which many on this site do profess to be, me not being one of them - I do think having seen the film in question over 100 times, mostly in theaters in 35mm IB Tech prints does make me more of an expert on this film than, for example - you.  I'm sure you can figure out why, but you keep sniping away, old chap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR View Post

I get where Billy is coming from but in this case, it seems more like someone basically said "What the heck is that?" and they got their answer. I'm as tired as anyone of seeing self-appointed experts make proclamations about a release being 'wrong' or make demands for a recall or whatever other silliness you read on the internet and this inquiry didn't seem to fall into that category at all.
Reply
post #54 of 112
11/9/09 at 4:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman View Post


As to the person who rolled his "eyes" at this "self-proclaimed expert" something which many on this site do profess to be, me not being one of them - I do think having seen the film in question over 100 times, mostly in theaters in 35mm IB Tech prints does make me more of an expert on this film than, for example - you.  I'm sure you can figure out why, but you keep sniping away, old chap.
 


 

Why would I want to snipe at such a charming person as yourself?

But 100 times? really? you keep track?   Honestly I could care less how many times (real or imaginary)  you've seen NBNW, I can't imagine anyone else would care either. That's the great thing about the internet, anyone can make any type of claim in order to make themselves seem more important that they really are. 

Now if only you'd have been able to explain the anomalies in question you'd have helped to prove your dubious claim of "expertise".  But all I'm reading from you is a whole lot of hot air instead.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce View Post




The spot looks a little large to just be some dust, however it does look to me to be something on the lens its self. The spot is actually visible on the previous DVD release. The shots in question seems to be made with a fairly wide angle lens, and as such something on the front element would be more visible than on medium or telephoto lens The plane has just flown over the camera in this particular shot (probably a second unit shot because it includes only the plane), I think its is likely something that was kicked up by the prop and onto the lens.

Doug






and there we may have our answer......thank you Doug.  and you didn't even need to proclaim how many times you've seen NBNW. 

I never really noticed that spot before on the many times I'd watched this previously.
Reply
post #55 of 112
11/9/09 at 11:20am
"Now if only you'd have been able to explain the anomalies in question you'd have helped to prove your dubious claim of "expertise".  But all I'm reading from you is a whole lot of hot air instead."

You had your answer back on November 7th, when I DID explain the anomalies.  I believe I said it was a spot on the lens on that date, agreeing with with the first person who posited that.  Mr. Monce posted the same thing yesterday, November 8th, one day later.  Ever hear of the scroll bar - it moves down AND up.  But since you're lazy, here's the pertinent part of my post:

"Matt is right - it's spots on the lens - just as there are spots on the lens in the opening shots of How The West Was Won - let's blame that on the transfer, too."

 And there you have it.  Here's what we know about the Internet - it breeds people like yourself.  I have no need to make "claims" that have no basis in reality - I've seen this film over 100 times - you don't want to believe it, don't believe it, but that's a typical Internet bully boy tactic, as you well know.  During the film's initial run, I actually "followed" it wherever it played.  I believe I saw it seventeen times, maybe more, during that initial release.  And then I would see it whenever it had third and fourth-runs in neighborhood theaters.  And then I saw it repeatedly in its mid-1960s reissue.  And then repeatedly at revival houses.  And then repeatedly on every home video format.  Does that make me more of an expert on this particular film than say - you - yes, it does.  That apparently rankles you.  And to that I say, oh well.  Again, people like you, unable to actually debate, always do personal attacks.  It's as tiresome as the nitpicking in these threads.  And there you have it.  The tone of your post was thoroughly obnoxious and you should apologize, but you, being a product of the Internet, won't - you'll probably come back and make another post filled with personal insults, and continue to subvert words and ignore posts that are right in front of your eyes.  And there you have it.
Edited by BillyFeldman - 11/9/09 at 3:36pm
Reply
post #56 of 112
11/9/09 at 12:16pm
BillyFeldman: I'm interested in the fact that you saw this so many times on the initial run. That seems to show that you knew right then that this is a very special film.

This may seem off topic, but did it surprise you then a little bit that viewed from a certain perspective this film is something of a critique of the Cold War? Every time Cary Grant, er, Roger Thornhill, says that maybe it's better to keep your morals even if it might mean losing part of the war, I'm shocked. Seems like that was a fairly unusual point of view for 1959...

What do you think?

Best, Ben
Reply
post #57 of 112
11/9/09 at 1:28pm
I didn't really think about the politics of things back in 1959 - I was eleven when I first saw North By Northwest.  I just thought the film the most exciting, funny, clever, and wonderful thing I'd ever seen.  I played being chased by an airplane, literally running down the street looking over my shoulder, and then suddenly dropping to the ground.  I'm sure it was amusing to passersby.  Or not.  I also kept going back because I was so in love with the score by Bernard Herrmann and there was no soundtrack, so I tried to memorize all the themes.  I also wanted my hair to look just like Cary Grant's, and I asked my mother to get me a gray suit like he wore.  Go know.  But my favorite memory of loving the film is that one day I picked up the phone book and looked up Ernest Lehman.  He was listed.  I called him and he was just wonderful to me on the phone.  I told him how much I loved Hitchcock movies since seeing Rear Window, but especially the 1956 The Man Who Knew Too Much, but that I thought North By Northwest was the best movie I'd ever seen.  He was delighted that an eleven year old had the chutzpah to call him and delighted that at that young age I had the good taste to know a great script or even what a script was.  The film holds a very special place in my heart and this Blu-Ray, which, frankly, I was very concerned about, turned out brilliantly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by benbess View Post

BillyFeldman: I'm interested in the fact that you saw this so many times on the initial run. That seems to show that you knew right then that this is a very special film.

This may seem off topic, but did it surprise you then a little bit that viewed from a certain perspective this film is something of a critique of the Cold War? Every time Cary Grant, er, Roger Thornhill, says that maybe it's better to keep your morals even if it might mean losing part of the war, I'm shocked. Seems like that was a fairly unusual point of view for 1959...

What do you think?

Best, Ben
Reply
post #58 of 112
11/9/09 at 2:31pm
Wow! That is a *great* story. Thanks for sharing it. Wonderful to hear that Lehman was so nice. Watching the film again I was amazed at the sheer perfection of the script. Every little part works together. Same with Rear Window.

Can't wait till Rear Window pops up on blu. The DVD is already quite good...
Reply
post #59 of 112
11/9/09 at 2:38pm
Here's something completely extraneous. 

Lehman was 86 when his son Jonathan was born (according to imdb)! 
Reply
post #60 of 112
11/9/09 at 3:27pm
Go Ernie! :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Frezon View Post

Here's something completely extraneous. 

Lehman was 86 when his son Jonathan was born (according to imdb)! 
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

North by Northwest (50th Anniversary Edition Blu-ray Book) [Blu-ray]
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › A Few Words About By Robert Harris › A few words about...™ North by Northwest -- in Blu-ray