A Few Words About A few words about...™ High Noon -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Mark-P]

For me, Robert Harris' opinion carries more weight than anyone else on this forum. However that doesn't mean that just because he gives something a big "fail" that I have to boycott it. The truth is, I'm far less critical than he is and have been very satisfied with some discs that he has not recommended. And before you ask, yes I do view a projected image.

 

[Robert Harris]

For me, Robert Harris' opinion carries more weight than anyone else on this forum. However that doesn't mean that just because he gives something a big "fail" that I have to boycott it. The truth is, I'm far less critical than he is and have been very satisfied with some discs that he has not recommended. And before you ask, yes I do view a projected image.

That's a fair appraisal of the situation. My comments are oriented toward those with higher end desires, seeking the high end look that Blu-ray can provide. Those comments are generally based upon the look of the image, based upon what said image does look like vs. what it could or should, presuming functions have been performed properly.

 

[Yorkshire]

Gotcha.  On another site, at this time, someone is making the point that in discussion of the Rings trilogy, that I said that the image wasn't green or teal.
Many people don't actually read comments, but like to report what they didn't read.
RAH

I find that, on t'internet, things get painted black & white. Something is either 'awesome'or a 'POS'. If you note any faults with something the people who like it accuse you of hating it. If you you say there are positive aspects to it then the people who hate it accuse you of brown-nosing.
What I've come to like most is that you say what you think, and often give balanced comments about problematic releases. The Sting and Chinatown being two recent ones.
For me, for all sorts of reasons (many beyond my control), I've seen far more film on TV than at the cinema. Subsequently, a more 'video' look doesn't irk me as much as it does others.
Steve W

 

[Yorkshire]

I think you underestimate the intelligence of people who read the reviews, i certainly do not misinterpret anything...

Never said you did, Foxy.

...i had this discussion with you regarding The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, i felt it was poor, i didn't want to buy it, i was open to a rental of it, seeing the Italian release proved it could be done much better i just can't support such a release with my money, your argument was that its the film that should matter and not the transfer, i disagree, both matter when it comes to Blu ray, especially if you have seen the film many times in the past.

WOAH! I never said that at all.
My point regarding TGTBATU, as with many releases, is this.
I love the film.
I have it on DVD.
On my projector the DVD is pretty close to unwatchable - I'd certainly never watch in on the projector.
The Blu-ray Disc is far better than the DVD and, despite its problems, is watchable on the projector.
I want to watch the film again on my projector.
It cost less than a tenner.
I can't speak Italian, so the import is no good to me.
Therefore, I bought it.
It's not a difficult, or complex, or irrational decision. It's a film-lovers decision. I care more about the film than the transfer. You might argue that the transfer is part of the film, and you'd be right. But it's just one part of the film. Everything else on the disc (acting, direction, other parts of the cinematography, sound, music, screenplay) are all still there, even if the transfer falls short.
Look, that's just my way of looking at it. I don't expect, or need anyone else to agree with me. It's just how I look at it.
Best wishes.
Steve W

 

[DVDvision]

Interesting, but the fact is that the current widespread Blu-ray of TGTBATU is way inferior to the awesome Italian Blu, and that when you love a film, you should never buy the inferior transfert even for cheap, because that's condoning those kind of bad works to be the acceptable norm. Never settle for second best.

We're not talking here a marginal improvement (like the difference between T2 on the Skynet edition and the Japanese version) of 2 to 5% more detail, but leaps and bounds.

As for the absence of subtitles, I'm a fan enough of any film I like, to spend time locating the subs on the internet, and syncing them to the image using my computer and WDTV, to watch it in the best condition these masterpieces needs to be watched. I'd rather give my money and have proudly on the shelf those brilliant italian editions, even if enjoying them is a bit of hassle. The end results are worth it.

 

[Yorkshire]

Interesting, but the fact is that the current widespread Blu-ray of TGTBATU is way inferior to the awesome Italian Blu, and that when you love a film, you should never buy the inferior transfert even for cheap, because that's condoning those kind of bad works to be the acceptable norm. Never settle for second best.

If your philosophy is to never settle for second best, then you must have a Blu-ray collection of about 5 discs, because almost every release is less than perfect.
I can't speak Italian. I don't have the technical know-how to apply the subs as you suggest.
So, my options are:
1 - Never watch it again.
2 - Put up with the unwatchable DVD, which amounts to the same as 1 (above).
3 - Buy the Blu-ray Disc
No contest, for me.
Now I have a WDTV SMP. If any kind soul wishes to let me have a digital copy - I've bought the film on Blu-ray already, and will put an extra £10 in the charity box - I'll be happy to enjoy that.
Otherwise, what you appear to be saying (given that I'm not going to learn to speak Italian, or be computer literate enough to do the above) I should love TGTBATU (or High Noon) enough to never watch them again.
Steve W

 

[OliverK]

Interesting, but the fact is that the current widespread Blu-ray of TGTBATU is way inferior to the awesome Italian Blu, and that when you love a film, you should never buy the inferior transfert even for cheap, because that's condoning those kind of bad works to be the acceptable norm. Never settle for second best.
We're not talking here a marginal improvement (like the difference between T2 on the Skynet edition and the Japanese version) of 2 to 5% more detail, but leaps and bounds.
As for the absence of subtitles, I'm a fan enough of any film I like, to spend time locating the subs on the internet, and syncing them to the image using my computer and WDTV, to watch it in the best condition these masterpieces needs to be watched. I'd rather give my money and have proudly on the shelf those brilliant italian editions, even if enjoying them is a bit of hassle. The end results are worth it.

You are right that the improvements are not marginal. I would say the difference from the US Blu-Ray to the Italian version is about as big as from the US version to the DVD, if not more but that is of course subjective.
I have a problem though when it is expected that one acquires quite a bit of technical knowledge in the realm of computers and software that is not really legal in many countries in order to enjoy the movie with the language that people understand.
So let's just say it is the best version for those who know how to get it with subs and audio to their liking

 

[OliverK]

If your philosophy is to never settle for second best, then you must have a Blu-ray collection of about 5 discs, because almost every release is less than perfect.
I can't speak Italian. I don't have the technical know-how to apply the subs as you suggest.
So, my options are:
1 - Never watch it again.
2 - Put up with the unwatchable DVD, which amounts to the same as 1 (above).
3 - Buy the Blu-ray Disc
No contest, for me.
Now I have a WDTV SMP. If any kind soul wishes to let me have a digital copy - I've bought the film on Blu-ray already, and will put an extra £10 in the charity box - I'll be happy to enjoy that.
Otherwise, what you appear to be saying (given that I'm not going to learn to speak Italian, or be computer literate enough to do the above) I should love TGTBATU (or High Noon) enough to never watch them again.
Steve W

When you can rent there is always that option - I always try to give as little money as possible for subpar product.
Not an option unfortunately for imports, that is how I got Spartacus and a few other stinkers.
Good luck with TGTBATU - you should really like the Italian version.

 

[jim_falconer]

Originally Posted by RobHam /t/322358/a-few-words-about-high-noon-in-blu-ray/240#post_3956928
I agree with Jim on Rio Bravo - I'd also add also add Butch and Sundance to my personal list of BD disappointments.
For me, on a 47 inch screen, the biggest problem is inconsistency in grain levels - both these westerns on BD exhibit noticeable lurches in grain levels from start to finish.
I understand the reason for grain in a filmic medium, and why some hi-def transfers will have high grain levels to preserve high frequency information and faithfully retain what the DoP intended to be seen.
What I dont understand is why transfers such as the two mentioned above have grain levels that vary so much that it pulls you out of the movie.
When I watch a movie, I want to lose myself in the emotion of whats happening on the screen - I dont want to notice explosions of grain that appear and disappear from scene to scene
I wonder if the biggest problem the studios are faced with on BD transfers is that they are trying to please two mutually incompatible audiences - the pro-grain movie and home theatre enthusiasts and the anti-grain gamers more used to HD computer graphics.

Well stated Rob. Absolutely agree with everything you're trying to get across here.

 

[JoeDoakes]

I agree with Jim on Rio Bravo - I'd also add also add Butch and Sundance to my personal list of BD disappointments.
For me, on a 47 inch screen, the biggest problem is inconsistency in grain levels - both these westerns on BD exhibit noticeable lurches in grain levels from start to finish.
I understand the reason for grain in a filmic medium, and why some hi-def transfers will have high grain levels to preserve high frequency information and faithfully retain what the DoP intended to be seen.
What I dont understand is why transfers such as the two mentioned above have grain levels that vary so much that it pulls you out of the movie.
When I watch a movie, I want to lose myself in the emotion of whats happening on the screen - I dont want to notice explosions of grain that appear and disappear from scene to scene
I wonder if the biggest problem the studios are faced with on BD transfers is that they are trying to please two mutually incompatible audiences - the pro-grain movie and home theatre enthusiasts and the anti-grain gamers more used to HD computer graphics.

From what I have read from Robert Harris, some times changes in grain level are unavoidable. I think he talked about it with optical close ups in To Kill a Mockingbird. I think too, that sometimes it arises from different elements going into a blu ray or from different film stock used in the original shooting. At that point, to even out the grain you have to do digital manipulation that has its own problems

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by JoeDoakes /t/322358/a-few-words-about-high-noon-in-blu-ray/240#post_3957172
From what I have read from Robert Harris, some times changes in grain level are unavoidable. I think he talked about it with optical close ups in To Kill a Mockingbird. I think too, that sometimes it arises from different elements going into a blu ray or from different film stock used in the original shooting. At that point, to even out the grain you have to do digital manipulation that has its own problems

Grain levels are affected by exposure, processing, dupes, etc.

I think Butch Cassidy is a terrific Blu-ray, and a beautiful representation of the film, as shot.

RAH

 

[JoshZ]

If your philosophy is to never settle for second best, then you must have a Blu-ray collection of about 5 discs, because almost every release is less than perfect.

Unfortunately, many people who frequent Blu-ray forums like this (more so on other sites than HTF specifically) fail to distinguish between "problematic" and "unwatchable." If a disc is not what they perceive to be 100% "perfect" in every pixel of every frame, they want to rip it out of their Blu-ray player and set it on fire.
Back to the Future, for example, is a problematic transfer, but is not unwatchable. It's clearly an older master that's had some DNR and sharpening applied. It has edge ringing artifacts in some scenes, and a loss of textural detail. Yes, it could be better. But it's not terrible. In fact, for a lot of the movie, it's a very pleasant viewing experience. I would personally rate it 3.5 out of 5 stars, which is a solid recommendation. Yet I can't believe the arguments I got into about the horrors of that disc. People advocated watching recordings of the (admittedly, DNR-less) ancient HD broadcast transfer, which is swamped in noise and looks horrible. I find that ridiculous.
The Good, The Bad and the Ugly is another problematic Blu-ray, but not unwatchable. It looks pretty bad in some scenes, but pretty good in others. Overall, I think it comes out as a net positive. Maybe the Italian release is better, but until somebody matches that transfer up with the English soundtrack, I will continue to make do with the current American disc.

 

[Yorkshire]

To quote from the greatest film ever made, "Wisdom still flowers in Boston."
Steve W

 

[Jon Hertzberg]

From what I have read from Robert Harris, some times changes in grain level are unavoidable. I think he talked about it with optical close ups in To Kill a Mockingbird. I think too, that sometimes it arises from different elements going into a blu ray or from different film stock used in the original shooting. At that point, to even out the grain you have to do digital manipulation that has its own problems

Haven't seen BUTCH & SUNDANCE or MOCKINGBIRD on 35mm, but I regularly see other films from the '60s and '70s on film at rep theaters and I can certainly attest to seeing and taking note of grain level changes in a particular film, from shot to shot or sequence to sequence. These are, for the most part, new or very fine condition studio prints that I am viewing. In my more recent observations, that I can recall off the top of my head at the moment, the reasons for the momentary increased grain were fairly obvious--low-light conditions (such as in night shots) or the aforementioned optical close-ups.
For someone like me, who views films from this era, on film, any chance I can get, I am used to and welcome these characteristics; I always hope that when, or if, one of these films make it to Blu-ray, the disc version will replicate the 35mm experience as close as possible, "warts" and all. I place that word in quotes, because I really don't consider something such as changing grain levels to be anything of the sort.

 

[DVDvision]

Originally Posted by JoshZ /t/322358/a-few-words-about-high-noon-in-blu-ray/270#post_3957196
Unfortunately, many people who frequent Blu-ray forums like this (more so on other sites than HTF specifically) fail to distinguish between "problematic" and "unwatchable." If a disc is not what they perceive to be 100% "perfect" in every pixel of every frame, they want to rip it out of their Blu-ray player and set it on fire.
Back to the Future, for example, is a problematic transfer, but is not unwatchable. It's clearly an older master that's had some DNR and sharpening applied. It has edge ringing artifacts in some scenes, and a loss of textural detail. Yes, it could be better. But it's not terrible. In fact, for a lot of the movie, it's a very pleasant viewing experience. I would personally rate it 3.5 out of 5 stars, which is a solid recommendation. Yet I can't believe the arguments I got into about the horrors of that disc. People advocated watching recordings of the (admittedly, DNR-less) ancient HD broadcast transfer, which is swamped in noise and looks horrible. I find that ridiculous.
The Good, The Bad and the Ugly is another problematic Blu-ray, but not unwatchable. It looks pretty bad in some scenes, but pretty good in others. Overall, I think it comes out as a net positive. Maybe the Italian release is better, but until somebody matches that transfer up with the English soundtrack, I will continue to make do with the current American disc.

I actually have tons of Blu, the point is not to boycott any sub-par Blu, (many times, we don't have any choice) the point is to hunt down the superior version when it exists.

As an occasional restorer of films / series myself, I set my standarts high. As for matching up the english soundtrack, I believe someone on the internet posted a computer "script" that does just that. That's how dedicated fans are

 

[JoshZ]

I actually have tons of Blu, the point is not to boycott any sub-par Blu, (many times, we don't have any choice) the point is to hunt down the superior version when it exists.

It comes down to a matter of each person's priorities and attachment to a given film. There are some movies that I will go far out of my way to obtain obscure and expensive editions of for even a marginal improvement in presentation quality. And there are other movies where a watchable but flawed presentation is enough to tide me over. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly is one of the latter, for me. You may feel differently.
If the disc had truly been unwatchable (like "Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition" quality), I might re-evaluate that stance. I do not feel that the existing Blu-ray of The Good, The Bad and the Ugly even comes close to approaching that degree of awfulness.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by JoshZ /t/322358/a-few-words-about-high-noon-in-blu-ray/270#post_3957645
It comes down to a matter of each person's priorities and attachment to a given film. There are some movies that I will go far out of my way to obtain obscure and expensive editions of for even a marginal improvement in presentation quality.

Dune. ?

 

[JoshZ]

Dune. ?

Among others.

 

[DavidJ]

It's a shame that Robert Harris "doesn't quite get" Blu-ray. So sayeth a poster at BR dot com, and then agreed to by a major reviewer there: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=6265031&postcount=107
Vincent

Wow.

 

[JParker]

The 1952 Fred Zinnemann, Carl Foreman, Stanley Kramer High Noon has been one of my favorite films since I was a kid. I was a huge Gary Cooper fan, and this is a film that seemed so simple, until you really take a close look at it, and found that there was far more going on than what was on the surface.
With stellar performances, cinematography, the music score by Dimitri Tiomkin. It all fits together to form one to of the greatest films ever created.
Why, then, is it so difficult to release it on home video in a "stellar" state?
Always prepared from dupes...
The earlier DVD releases were some of the worst ever created.
And I was hopeful that Olive Films would finally get it right.
They didn't.
And it's a pity.
From the very opening, the main title sequence is so far away from original, that the hi-con information is soft.
After the opening dupes, we're at what appears to be fine grain level, and that should be fine, but they've given the film a wonderfully electronic look.
If you like that sort of thing.
I don't.
Grain is sticky. It sticks to people. It hangs, motionless, in the air. There are occasional scratches, but I can live with that.
While this new release is a far cry from the old DVDs, which were worse than horrific, and to many it will seem very acceptable, it's just not there.
It would have been so easy to do an image harvest -- where is the original nitrate? -- in 4k, down-rez it, leave the grain where it was, do a clean-up, and get it out there.  We're not talking about a lot of expense here to do it right...
The gray scale is fine. Good blacks. Decent shadow detail.  
Electronic sharpening. Naturally...
All in all an embarrassing Blu-ray, considering how easily it could have been something very special.
RAH

A reasonable question, for which I've run a quick budget.
A full 4k scan and digital clean-up and repair, WITH a record out to a new 35mm archival negative and check print, and inclusive of an HD master, would run, at my cost, under $150,000.  That would be inclusive of archival data files.
And yes, it would be Paramount, Viacom, or whomever, that should be covering that cost. Not Olive, which only holds a limited license.
That investment would cover the studio world-wide in each and every format in perpetuity.
The embarrassment, is NOT making that investment for a film like High Noon...
By the way, if one really wanted to scrimp in the budget, one could hold the data files, and allow the film to bring in some income before recording back out to 35mm as a 4k archival element. If that were to occur, the budget would come down to an immediate cost of $110k, which is still inclusive of my standard 5% contingency.
Food for thought?
RAH

I didn't know Arriflex Alexas were available in the 1950s! http://www.arri.com/camera/digital_cameras & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arriflex_Alexa
Here's the reason why I write this: I don't have a projection system, I have a Panasonic plasma. But to my eyes, "they've given the film a wonderfully electronic look" is clearly visible on a smaller display. I've not viewed the whole film, just a few scenes. Compared to the recent Hitchcock B & W Blu-rays, e.g., Rebecca or All About Eve, the Blu-ray looks to my eyes almost as it the film had been shot with a digital camera. Now it's possible this is the "look" Olive and or Paramount wanted in the century of Avatar. However, I would personally prefer a restoration that captures as close as it is technically possible the look of a pristine print projected when the film was released.
I can understand why some would view this effort as attractive; it is pleasing but it doesn't look to my eyes like the original film. There's a "shiny", glossy look. Again, I don't find it unpleasant but I don't find it faithful to what the original negative must be. And per my limited understanding of restoration, there is only one firm that could reduce grain (if that end is desirable, which to my taste the answer is no) and retain the integrity of the original.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/318205/rest-in-peace-film-restoration-executive-john-d-lowry#post_3893727
Finally, from "Googling" this may be the firm that is working on The Quiet Man:
http://www.technicolor.com/en/hi/creative-services/hollywood/restoration
http://www.technicolor.com/en/hi/news-events/technicolor-news/2011/technicolor-wins-anthology-film-restoration-award

Past achievements include the restoration of director Jacques Tati’s M. Hulot’s Holiday; and last year’s restoration of a collection of classic films directed by French master Pierre Etaix.
Technicolor Creative Services’ digital restoration team in Hollywood, led by Tom Burton, has restored a number of important film classics including director Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, as well as recent restorations on a number of Paramount Pictures’ classics including Breakfast at Tiffany’s and White Christmas.

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/in-contention/posts/paramount-unveils-newly-restored-wings-at-the-academy
Maybe that Olive release will work out. So, I don't know if I communicated with Olive and request that future B & W releases of classic films avoid this over-processed look they'd listen!
Any word on a Sergeant York Blu-ray?