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 3

post #61 of 112
Some of the most quotable dialogue in movie history, some of which would be at home right in this very thread, if you get my  meaning.  Like "Games?  Must we?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by benbess View Post

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...

 

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #62 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman View Post

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."

No not laziness.........I tend to skip over asinine comments and yours fit the bill. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman View Post

 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.

Sorry if I'm hurting your feelings and all but......  I seriously just don't care how many times you claim to have seen this and in what venue.  What does the number of times you claim to have seen this have to do with anything? 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman View Post
 Does that make me more of an expert on this particular film than say - you - yes, it does.  That apparently rankles you.  
 

No...... I've never claimed any expertise on this film........you have......... not I.

The only thing that "rankles" me was your arrogant diatribe about "nitpicking".

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman View Post
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.

Are you for real?  No wait.... don't answer that. 

I do have to thank you for reminding me of why I spend so little of my time on the internet these days.........

Carry on..................


IT'S A MADHOUSE!   A MADHOUSE!!!!!!!!!!
post #63 of 112
I love that scene!

"Roger Thornhill: And what the devil is all this about? Why was I brought here?
Phillip Vandamm: Games, must we?
Roger Thornhill: Not that I mind a slight case of abduction now and then, but I have tickets for the theater this evening, to a show I was looking forward to and I get, well, kind of *unreasonable* about things like that.
Phillip Vandamm: With such expert playacting, you make this very room a theater."
post #64 of 112
or this one....

Eve Kendall: How do I know you aren't a murderer?
Roger Thornhill: You don't.
Eve Kendall: Maybe you're planning to murder me right here, tonight.
Roger Thornhill: Shall I?
Eve Kendall: Please do.
post #65 of 112
or this classic that I mentioned earlier....

Roger Thornhill: I don't like the games you play, Professor.
The Professor: War is hell, Mr. Thornhill. Even when it's a cold war.
Roger Thornhill: If you fellows can't whip the VanDamm's of this world without asking girls like her to bed down with them and probably never come back, perhaps you should lose a few cold wars.
The Professor: I'm afraid we're already doing that.
post #66 of 112
I can't wait to see "North by Northwest" on Blu-ray. Gotta pick it up soon. A recent episode of "The Simpsons" spoofed some of Hitchcock's films, including "North by Northwest," "Strangers on a Train," and "Dial 'M' For Murder," and suddenly my seven-year-old son expressed an interest in seeing these films.

Although I have "North by Northwest" on DVD, I want to hold off showing him the film until I get the Blu-ray version. "Dial M ..." and "Strangers ..." would be nice to have on Blu-ray, as well. I wonder if Warner would issue a 3D version of "Dial M ..." on Blu-ray?

Of course, it would be nice to have just about everything Hitch made on Blu-ray. What an incredible slate of classics he made. I can't think of any other director responsible for such a high number of great films. He was an absolutely incredible director.
post #67 of 112
Luckily, your obnoxious and specious words speak for themselves.   You simply make it too easy - I don't have to do anything.  You can't respond without insults, therefore you are a big 0.  And isn't selective quoting fun?  Happily, my refutation of your original obnoxious post is there for all to see.  

Pay the two dollars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_K View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman View Post

 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.

Sorry if I'm hurting your feelings and all but......  I seriously just don't care how many times you claim to have seen this and in what venue.  What does the number of times you claim to have seen this have to do with anything? 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman View Post
 Does that make me more of an expert on this particular film than say - you - yes, it does.  That apparently rankles you.  
 

No...... I've never claimed any expertise on this film........you have......... not I.

The only thing that "rankles" me was your arrogant diatribe about "nitpicking".

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman View Post
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.

Are you for real?  No wait.... don't answer that. 

I do have to thank you for reminding me of why I spend so little of my time on the internet these days.........

Carry on..................


IT'S A MADHOUSE!   A MADHOUSE!!!!!!!!!!





 
post #68 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman View Post

Some of the most quotable dialogue in movie history, some of which would be at home right in this very thread, if you get my  meaning.  Like "Games?  Must we?"
 

I always get a kick out of the times Cary Grant says "assembling the assembly" and "colonising the colony".

Also I love James Mason's comment at the end "That wasn't very sporting, using real bullets"
post #69 of 112
Thread Starter 
In regard to nitpicking of a disc's deficiencies...  

It seems to be a factor of the superiority of modern scanning, compression and Blu-ray quality. 

One of the great "knowns" in creating a Blu-ray is that no matter how many hours of dirt clean-up and fixes that go into a product, there will always be some problems left.  Spend a few hundred hours going through data files frame by frame removing positive and negative dirt and detritus, and the next layer of material will then become more obvious.  Smaller, yes, but suddenly more obvious.

Cost then becomes a factor.  One can spend 100k creating a clean image, and getting it to well over 90%.  Go to the next layer down in size and another 5% can run another 40k.  And there will still be dirt.  Digital (by hand, frame by frame) dirt clean-up on The Godfather went well above 1,000 hours.

Slight digitally created aberrations can then appear, sourced by miniscule imperfections in the film's edge, timing cues or splices.  On some scanning devices these cause the image to slip sideways within the frame with portions of the image moving one way or the other. These must then be fixed digitally, one frame at a time.  Can a frame slip through?  Certainly.  Generally the edict is to create a fix if something can be seen while the film is in motion -- not stopped on a frame.

Minor production imperfections -- dirt caught on the aperture frame in camera, dust or water on a lens, etc. were far less apparent when viewed in contemporary theaters.  In projection, film was generally cropped to around 5% all around.  Theater dependent, the actual shape being project could be obviously trapezoidal, only to look correct when projected on a screen heavily angled from the booth.  Projection jitter, bob & weave, archaic optics, dirt and cigarette smoke on the projection booth glass all added to that inevitable lessoning of image quality.

Take that same image, however, scanned in 4k and properly ported to a Blu-ray, and the viewer has that film that they've always loved, but now warts and all.

When these restored classics are brought to Blu-ray -- generally with new archival elements produced concurrently -- budgets can grow to huge proportions.  At a certain point those in charge must take a position of "We're done.  Stop."  This isn't a matter of thinking that the product is "good enough for government work."  The simple truth is that the next step in clean-up, which will go unnoticed by all but the eagle-eyed, can cost another quarter of a million dollars.

And this is, I believe, what Mr. Feldman is referring to.  I'm not seeing him suggest that people should not question something that they're seeing. The answers are generally educational and illuminate the subject matter.  My perception is that he's saying something far different, which does need to be said.

That some people make a case on line, continually (over and over again) making reference to a problem within a single frame that may have slipped through QC because two people may have blinked together at the wrong moment, and then attack at an entire studio, restoration team or home video entity because of it.

And this takes us far away from what our goal should be.  That goal is to harvest an image and audio from "antique" film elements, and within the parameters of a budget that can easily equate to what the final viewer might earn in a ten or twenty year period, create a Blu-ray disc that delivers an image far superior to that seen on a screen decades before.

As to another point that appeared in this thread, I believe if I'm correct on Mr. Feldman's identity, that I have no doubt that he's seen North by Northwest over a hundred times, and knows what it looks like.

Whatever its faults, and I'm certain that I can find some if I look for them, North by Northwest on Blu-ray is both superior classic entertainment as well as a beautifully rendered Blu-ray disc, which very closely approximates the look and feel of running a print at home at a slightly lower entrance fee than owning a print.  To me there's a huge difference between the cost of an original print at $5,000 to $7,500 and a Blu-ray disc at under $20.

RAH
post #70 of 112
Thank you, Billy Feldman, for your fascinating stories and reasoned refutations of Jim_K's juvenile rants.

And thank you, Robert Harris, for your detailed posts about restoring a film for BD release.

I've been curious: about how much was spent restoring NxNW and preparing it for BD, and how many copies would need to be sold before Warner's starts to make a profit on that effort?

Thanks and Cheers,
Doug
post #71 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

As to another point that appeared in this thread, I believe if I'm correct on Mr. Feldman's identity, that I have no doubt that he's seen North by Northwest over a hundred times, and knows what it looks like.
RAH

That, ladies and germs, is known as the 'Scooby Doo moment'...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

And this takes us far away from what our goal should be.  That goal is to harvest an image and audio from "antique" film elements, and within the parameters of a budget that can easily equate to what the final viewer might earn in a ten or twenty year period, create a Blu-ray disc that delivers an image far superior to that seen on a screen decades before.

And long may that goal be attained...
post #72 of 112
ZOIKS!!!!

Hey come on...someone had to say it...


Quote:
Originally Posted by John Hodson View Post


That, ladies and germs, is known as the 'Scooby Doo moment'...


 
post #73 of 112
Mr. Harris, as always, cuts to the heart of the matter concisely and clearly and it is much appreciated.  My entire point was that in this age of DVD and even more so with Blu-Ray, we seem to be losing the ability to just watch and enjoy a movie.  If a transfer is bad or not up to snuff, sure we should all speak up loudly, but when such love and care has gone into a transfer like North By Northwest, the movie should be the thing, the enjoyment of one of the most entertaining movies ever made.  I tell you, when, in the very first thread about this film, someone said that based on the screencaps at the Beaver that the color of the license plate was off, I just thought, what have we come to?

"Has anyone ever told you that you overplay your various roles rather severely, Mr. Kaplan?  First you're the outraged Madison Avenue man who claims he has been mistaken for someone else.  Then you play a fugitive from justice, supposedly trying to clear his name of a crime he knows he didn't commit.  And now, you play the peevish lover, stung by jealousy and betrayal. Seems to me you fellows could stand a little less training from the F.B. I. and a little more from the Actors' Studio."

"Apparently the only performance that's going to satisfy you is when I play dead."

"Your very next role, and you'll be quite convincing, I assure you."



Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

In regard to nitpicking of a disc's deficiencies...  

It seems to be a factor of the superiority of modern scanning, compression and Blu-ray quality. 

One of the great "knowns" in creating a Blu-ray is that no matter how many hours of dirt clean-up and fixes that go into a product, there will always be some problems left.  Spend a few hundred hours going through data files frame by frame removing positive and negative dirt and detritus, and the next layer of material will then become more obvious.  Smaller, yes, but suddenly more obvious.

Cost then becomes a factor.  One can spend 100k creating a clean image, and getting it to well over 90%.  Go to the next layer down in size and another 5% can run another 40k.  And there will still be dirt.  Digital (by hand, frame by frame) dirt clean-up on The Godfather went well above 1,000 hours.

Slight digitally created aberrations can then appear, sourced by miniscule imperfections in the film's edge, timing cues or splices.  On some scanning devices these cause the image to slip sideways within the frame with portions of the image moving one way or the other. These must then be fixed digitally, one frame at a time.  Can a frame slip through?  Certainly.  Generally the edict is to create a fix if something can be seen while the film is in motion -- not stopped on a frame.

Minor production imperfections -- dirt caught on the aperture frame in camera, dust or water on a lens, etc. were far less apparent when viewed in contemporary theaters.  In projection, film was generally cropped to around 5% all around.  Theater dependent, the actual shape being project could be obviously trapezoidal, only to look correct when projected on a screen heavily angled from the booth.  Projection jitter, bob & weave, archaic optics, dirt and cigarette smoke on the projection booth glass all added to that inevitable lessoning of image quality.

Take that same image, however, scanned in 4k and properly ported to a Blu-ray, and the viewer has that film that they've always loved, but now warts and all.

When these restored classics are brought to Blu-ray -- generally with new archival elements produced concurrently -- budgets can grow to huge proportions.  At a certain point those in charge must take a position of "We're done.  Stop."  This isn't a matter of thinking that the product is "good enough for government work."  The simple truth is that the next step in clean-up, which will go unnoticed by all but the eagle-eyed, can cost another quarter of a million dollars.

And this is, I believe, what Mr. Feldman is referring to.  I'm not seeing him suggest that people should not question something that they're seeing. The answers are generally educational and illuminate the subject matter.  My perception is that he's saying something far different, which does need to be said.

That some people make a case on line, continually (over and over again) making reference to a problem within a single frame that may have slipped through QC because two people may have blinked together at the wrong moment, and then attack at an entire studio, restoration team or home video entity because of it.

And this takes us far away from what our goal should be.  That goal is to harvest an image and audio from "antique" film elements, and within the parameters of a budget that can easily equate to what the final viewer might earn in a ten or twenty year period, create a Blu-ray disc that delivers an image far superior to that seen on a screen decades before.

As to another point that appeared in this thread, I believe if I'm correct on Mr. Feldman's identity, that I have no doubt that he's seen North by Northwest over a hundred times, and knows what it looks like.

Whatever its faults, and I'm certain that I can find some if I look for them, North by Northwest on Blu-ray is both superior classic entertainment as well as a beautifully rendered Blu-ray disc, which very closely approximates the look and feel of running a print at home at a slightly lower entrance fee than owning a print.  To me there's a huge difference between the cost of an original print at $5,000 to $7,500 and a Blu-ray disc at under $20.

RAH

Edited by BillyFeldman - 11/10/09 at 10:43am
post #74 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post


As to another point that appeared in this thread, I believe if I'm correct on Mr. Feldman's identity, that I have no doubt that he's seen North by Northwest over a hundred times, and knows what it looks like.
 

The presentation is lacking sometimes but Mr. Feldman certainly does know his colours ...
post #75 of 112
Well, at least one person saw what was going on.  Thanks for your post.

"Then, then your name isn't Kaplan?"

"Can't say it is, 'cause it ain't."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Otte View Post

Thank you, Billy Feldman, for your fascinating stories and reasoned refutations of Jim_K's juvenile rants.

And thank you, Robert Harris, for your detailed posts about restoring a film for BD release.

I've been curious: about how much was spent restoring NxNW and preparing it for BD, and how many copies would need to be sold before Warner's starts to make a profit on that effort?

Thanks and Cheers,
Doug
post #76 of 112


If there were only a few more book readers here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny_N View Post




The presentation is lacking sometimes but Mr. Feldman certainly does know his colours ...
 
post #77 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

Alfred Hitchcock's North by Northwest, generally considered to be the master's greatest chase / thriller finds its heritage in his mid to late 1930s UK productions such as The 39 Steps and Young and Innocent.  The basis of these films concern someone wrongly accused of a crime, who must survive those who want him dead while staying away from the long arm of the law that is constantly moving in on him.

For its 50th Anniversary Blu-ray release WB has gone back to the basics and totally restored the film, beginning with its problematic original negative.

But this is where things get interesting.

I had once spoken with someone who was purportedly Ned Price, and apparently responsible for the work on The Searchers.  Now when I reached out once again, I was told that he was unknown at the studio, and "had never worked there."  Not giving up, I made a call to the Warner entity called MPI, and was strangely connected to someone in props.  Going through a full search of the studio divisions, I finally found someone who suggested that I was possibly seeking MTI, the developer of digital repair tools, also in California.

Late yesterday I was finally able to get some information which at least tends to separate the sizzle of high end digital restoration from the truth of the matter.  Here are the facts as I've now learned them, and they lead me to disbelieve that there is any digital restoration work that has occurred.  Through sources both here, and in Europe, I've been able to put together what seem to be the actual facts of the matter.

The original VistaVision negative was shipped to Germany in the fall of 2007.  Reports from those who received it, confirm that the film stock was too faded to be representative of the film.  The elements were delivered to a group of nuns living somewhere nearby Mummelsee in the Black Forest.  Here the delicate film elements were carefully unwound and treated with a secret formula created specifically for the purpose by Benedictine monks.

It was this elixir that was used to regenerate the faded color layers, scene by scene, and in different proportions of chemicals.  By the spring of 2009, the material was ready to be returned, and before going to the studio, spent several weeks at a monastery in an undisclosed location somewhere in Northern California, before making its way back to WB.

Once returned to the studio, the film was handled as new.  Color correction was handled normally, as it would be for a new production.  To bring things full circle, not an hour after screening the new Blu-ray, I received a call from a Ted Rice, who also strangely purportedly works in restoration at WB, but who denied that the film elements ever left Los Angeles, and averred that the studio brought in new and special equipment to scan the film elements at 16k resolution.

The bottom line is simple, be it Ned Price or Ted Rice -- it's all part of the same alphabet soup -- the final product looks and sounds superb on Blu-ray.  There is minimal grain, as befits not only VistaVision, but negative that has spend some time in Benedictine DOM.  Sharpness varies, as it did in 1959, as quite a bit of diffusion was used in production, yielding a beautifully rendered, fully velvety image.  Audio is uncompressed.

With thanks to our friends in Germany, North by Northwest is once again available for prime viewing here back in the States.

North by Northwest from WB is Very Highly Recommended, and a film not to be missed.

RAH


 


Is this information about the restoration in Germany true? Seems pretty far fetched. 

Thanks for the recap. I always enjoy reading your notes on new releases Robert! 
post #78 of 112
Is anybody having trouble with the pop menu? I just picked up my copy today and I can't access the menu. I know WB Blu Ray's just start with the film but normally they have a pop up menu that you can access.
post #79 of 112
The pop up menu worked fine on my Sony BDP-S350.  The movie looked wonderful, too.

I watched about 75% of the Hitchcock special feature, and found it interesting the lengths Warner Brothers went to avoid licensing issues in this documentary.  There are lots of film clips showing examples of the techniques and concepts being discussed, and not once was a film from Universal used, or even mentioned. It was as if these films never existed.
post #80 of 112
I had the same issue with that one documentary. Apparently the "master" touched only WB films. The concept and presentation was great, but how can you leave out Vertigo, Rear Window, Psycho, The Birds, etc.? Plus, the directors who participated were also represented in lower third text ... strictly by their WB films. Talk about crass self promotion. Sigh, oh well. One can never forget this is all marketing.

The film ... spectacular. Let's be happy with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Merryfield View Post

The pop up menu worked fine on my Sony BDP-S350.  The movie looked wonderful, too.

I watched about 75% of the Hitchcock special feature, and found it interesting the lengths Warner Brothers went to avoid licensing issues in this documentary.  There are lots of film clips showing examples of the techniques and concepts being discussed, and not once was a film from Universal used, or even mentioned. It was as if these films never existed.
 
post #81 of 112
It's not so much self-promotion as budgetary licensing issues.
post #82 of 112
True. But why wouldn't Paramount or Universal wave clearances on a documentary that would obviously help promote their products? Methinks it was never in WB's agenda, which is their right, but not a true documentary approach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Conway View Post

It's not so much self-promotion as budgetary licensing issues.
 
post #83 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywoodaholic View Post

True. But why wouldn't Paramount or Universal wave clearances on a documentary that would obviously help promote their products? Methinks it was never in WB's agenda, which is their right, but not a true documentary approach.
 


 

If you owned some high quality Hitchcock films, but your competitor owned the films that were considered the cream of the crop, would you let his product over shadow yours in your own documentary?


Doug
post #84 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce View Post

If you owned some high quality Hitchcock films, but your competitor owned the films that were considered the cream of the crop, would you let his product over shadow yours in your own documentary?


Doug

 


Aye.  And then, it's probably almost *never* an easy/simple thing to waive such rights when it involves big corporations, especially if they also happen to be direct competitors, since one would likely have little to no control over matters once one legally waives the rights unless there are legally binding stipulations clearly spelled out and documented in the agreement.

All the legality involved could easily end up being much more costly and/or take much longer (and/or w/ much greater effort) to iron out than the brief references that we're talking about for the documentary.

It's too bad things are the way they are for something so seemingly simple and benign (as being suggested here), but that's just where this world of ours has evolved -- and well, it probably has been that way for the longest time in some form and at some level or another.

And when you consider how it can be a real hassle even simply loaning out a few DVDs (or your favorite power tool or whatever else) to friends and family -- nevermind "competitors" -- (and then subsequently retrieving them) or some other similarly simple and benign things we might personally care to do (w/out being taken advantage of in some bad way), it really is too bad that things often don't work out simpler/better than they do...

_Man_
Edited by ManW_TheUncool - 11/13/09 at 2:07am
post #85 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlo Medina View Post

ZOIKS!!!!

Hey come on...someone had to say it...



 

Actually it's "Zoinks" isn't it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Husar View Post

Is anybody having trouble with the pop menu? I just picked up my copy today and I can't access the menu. I know WB Blu Ray's just start with the film but normally they have a pop up menu that you can access.
Works very well on my ps3 just by pressing the "pop up/menu" or the button with the circle on it.

Also no doubt how great this looks but I think it's a tad dark.
and volume at least the dialog channel is very low.

I think this is Hitch's best film, other then the terrible drunken car chase scene this is a perfect movie.
post #86 of 112
I love this film too. I don't think it's too dark. The special effects (esp. at the very end of the movie) work much better for me now than they did in the overly lightened DVD. I love how you can see in detail the patterns on the beautiful dresses. The driving scene early on has a few sped up scenes that I don't like, but otherwise I think it's a great example of comedy and scary at the same time. Cary Grant pulls it off masterfully. I really enjoy that scene where he's looking out the door of the Mercedes off a cliff and looking at his tires spinning. Nice povs shots. It is pretty much a perfect film, and deeper in its critique of the Cold War (even while being patriotic at the same time) than is generally realized. One of the things I noticed when watching it again is how good Eva Marie Saint is in that scene in the woods after she's "shot" ROT. She's saying goodbye, and he's just coming to realize what she's in for. And then she begins to weep a little.

But to me there are so many Hitchcock films at the NNW level that it's hard for me to count. Would love to see so many on blu, including Rebecca, Shadow of a Doubt, Spellbound, Notorious, Rope, Stage Fright, Strangers on a Train, Dial M, Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much (my avatar), Vertigo, Psycho, and the Birds.

And there are many others that are pretty close for me, like the following flawed but underrated films: Saboteur, Lifeboat, Under Capricorn, To Catch A Thief, The Wrong Man, and Marnie (and probably a few others I've forgotten)...
Edited by benbess - 4/29/10 at 10:52am
post #87 of 112


Since this thread was recently resurrected, let me take a stab at an old question from November:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Haxton View Post

Is this information about the restoration in Germany true? Seems pretty far fetched. 

Thanks for the recap. I always enjoy reading your notes on new releases Robert! 
 


Only Mr. Harris can explain what exactly he meant by that tongue-in-cheek review.

 

But I can guess.  Considering the shape that the negative was in, the digital restoration of North by Northwest is nearly miraculous. Miracles = nuns and monks and magical potions.

 

1958-1960 were the absolute worst years for survivability of Eastmancolor negatives, and that's exactly when North by Northwest was made.  A combination of film stock and processing changes just caused the Eastmancolor negatives from this period to fade faster than any other -- both before and after.

post #88 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by taoyue View Post


Since this thread was recently resurrected, let me take a stab at an old question from November:

 


Only Mr. Harris can explain what exactly he meant by that tongue-in-cheek review.

 

But I can guess.  Considering the shape that the negative was in, the digital restoration of North by Northwest is nearly miraculous. Miracles = nuns and monks and magical potions.

 

1958-1960 were the absolute worst years for survivability of Eastmancolor negatives, and that's exactly when North by Northwest was made.  A combination of film stock and processing changes just caused the Eastmancolor negatives from this period to fade faster than any other -- both before and after.


Thanks! Very interesting. Would've been nice to have a feature about the restoration work. I always appreciate docs about the process and the insight too. 

 

There is a nice one for the James Bond films on Dr. No. 

 

In regard to restorations, it seems like it can be a double edged sword at times. Both with the clarity of HD and blu ray showing more than what a DVD transfer does. Audio updates like On Her Majesty's Secret Service (not currently on blu ray but remixed in DTS and DD for the UE DVD) and not getting the film score mix quite right in the Gumbold's safe scene even though overall sounding much clearer and better than the previous DVD. It's nice they do include the original mix for purists too. Color timing can be another issue too. That is making the film possibly looking better than it was in the theater and for modern audiences as well. 

 

I think it's interesting for audio mixes that many who want original cuts of films, don't necessarily want the original audio mix included. Such is the case for Star Trek The Motion Picture on blu ray which is a new 7.1 mix. Or the original version of the Star Wars films on DVD where they are in 2.0 audio. Many were upset that a 5.1 mix was not included however isn't this the same mix that would've been in theaters? Personally, I appreciate the new audio mixes for the most part, however I do appreciate having the original mix included for reference as well. 

 

In another thread someone posted screen caps of Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan and made the comment that it seems the new blu ray restoration version of the film is tinted or timed differently than the previous DVD release. I have a difficult time with those comparisons at times mainly due to the wider color spectrum that Blu ray can show than dvd and the fact that comparing a DVD transfer and blu ray transfer can be like comparing apples and oranges. In addition I believe Director Nick Meyer was also involved with the restoration. However as we know from other films director's may even choose to have their films now look a bit different now too (The French Connection).

 

There has been some remarks on color timing for On Her Majesty's Secret Service UE DVD and that the colors and lighting in the opening beach fight sequence is much different than previous DVD and home video releases too. I believe another comment was also made about the opening shots of You Only Live Twice right after the open titles sequence as well. 

 

I appreciate Robert Harris' insight on the transfer process as it relates to blu ray and also what the studios are facing in terms of budget challenges. Every project comes down to $ of course and meeting the cost of a project. As fans of films we always want them to spend as much as possible to get it right, however there is a constraint of doing it right as well as cost for each project. They need to make their investment back so they can continue to spend and do other transfers and releases of other films. 

 

I really appreciate what the studios like WB and MGM (w Fox) have done for titles like North By Northwest and the James Bond films. The Sergio Leone Man With No Name Trilogy was a mixed bag from what I've read and also the comparisons to the Italian transfers. I can only speculate on those films and MGM's financial issues at the time it was released on blu ray... 

 

I hope the studios strive to give us the best product as possible too. 

 

post #89 of 112
Thread Starter 

Since the process has been inadvertently allowed out of the proverbial bag in a Ten Commandments promo piece, it is perhaps time to explain how N x NW and other films may now be brought back to their original glory by certain well-placed digital wonders.

 

It was the intent to reign in the process to be used only by those entities which I felt could take proper advantage of it, but here we go...

 

And this will be a discussion that may give some a headache.

 

A dozen years ago, during the restoration of Rear Window for Universal, we discovered that beyond extreme yellow dye failure in dupes, that the entire reel 5B had been damaged in the removal of protective lacquer.  Since RW had been protected on the earliest variant of separation masters, compositing those masters, especially for dupes would be problematic, if not downright unpleasant.

 

In a meeting, held in a small inconspicuous Italian restaurant not far from the Paramount lot, a discussion was held with Phil Feiner, then chief of Pacific Title, whether one might be able to drop the entire yellow dye layer out of a dupe during exposure, and replace it on an optical printer, by maneuvering the contrast levels and size differentials of the black & white master positive containing the information as copied from that yellow dye layer before damage.  He averred that it was worth a try, and Jim Katz, producing the restoration nodded approval to begin testing.  While sizing and contrast were initially problems, the final result was only problematic in terms of increased contrast because of the optical generation.

 

This process was used for portions of reel 5B, as well as all of the opticals, with the slo-mo optical Stewart / Kelly kiss, being a combination of analogue yellow layer replacement, combined with a final digital clean-up pass.  Further tests were performed on The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956), and with some problems of fit, color was brought back to day one accuracy.  While conceptually this may all sound relatively simply, there is actually quite a bit of elemental hand-holding.

 

Beginning in 2003 toward the restoration of Williamsburg: The Story of a Patriot, we began to test the process digitally, dropping out the entire yellow dye layer from extant portions of the original negative, and replacing same with a re-sized, gamma-manipulated digital version of the original 1956 black & white yellow master in VistaVision format.  After months of testing at various facilities, the work moved to Kodak's CineSite, with Jerry Pooler in the colorist seat.  Working on a small monitor, he was able to control LUTs, and we were able to create workable data files, allowing us to record out a new VistaVision interpositive, which could then be optically enlarged to the necessary 65mm negative, toward 70mm printing.  The entire film, as it always the norm, was broken down shot by shot, with certain shots using the extant masters, and others using a more complex set of digital layer replacements, all being brought together to form a cohesive final product.  Different technical facilities were used, changing on a shot by shot basis.

 

In the summer of 2005 testing moved to Lowry Digital, where among other items on the agenda, we were permitted to test various elements from The Ten Commandments, and were able to bring the film back to it's full 1956 color rendering.

 

Later tests at WB's MPI facility were used to bring back color to The Alamo (1960) after 8k scans produced at FotoKem, although for the record, fade is one of The Alamo's lesser problems.

 

The process, which has far wider abilities than described, was most recently used for North by Northwest, and portions of The Ten Commandments.

 

Using this process, every film with separation masters, and via other means in the process, some without, can be brought back to their original chromatic luster, which one cannot achieve by comping the three separation records.

 

Fortunately films must no longer be shipped to the Black Forest.

 

RAH

 

 

 

 

post #90 of 112

i find it extremely gratifying to be in the company of people on this website who have the type of

knowledge that feeds my film geekness.

 

I'd like to thank you all.To be succinct,i will say this.

 

I love my life,but im pretty darn happy theres a thing called film thats a giant part of it.

 

that said,with the awesome power of the internet,can we put all the Robert Harris entries into a book,because some of these in this thread alone are pure gems to be kept as reference.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

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