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

[Charles Smith]

As Reed said, we still enjoyed a fine afternoon. I sat there forcing my attention away from the flaws and just let Hitchcock's genius, and the impact of the giant screen, work their magic. The cheesy and meaty decompression at Frank Pepe's afterward did the trick, too.

 

[cannon1]

I'm curious how the Rear Window blu-ray color balance compares to one of the IB Tech prints...I missed the restoration IB's and never saw any of the earlier ones.....anyone? (I only saw in the cinema, the 1982 re-release, which of course the BRD is far superior)

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm curious how the Rear Window blu-ray color balance compares to one of the IB Tech prints...I missed the restoration IB's and never saw any of the earlier ones.....anyone? (I only saw in the cinema, the 1982 re-release, which of course the BRD is far superior)

The dye transfer prints struck c. 1962 were timed warm, in an attempt to cover problems with the negative.

RAH

 

[Oblivion138]

Now you can have a bad TV experience at the theater, and the privilege of paying for it.

I would've walked out and demanded my money back. That's just horrible. I've had very good luck with the various screenings I've gone to, From North by Northwest to Rear Window, with everything from The Bride of Frankenstein to The Princess Bride in between. The only one I had a problem with was the 2012 screening of Halloween, which looked like the 2007 Blu-ray, down-rezzed to 720i, then blown up onto a big screen. Just awful. Thankfully, this past year's screening of the film was excellent.


But I haven't had any trouble with aspect ratios, aside from that one instance, many years ago, of seeing The Maltese Falcon stretched to 1.78...and that was a free event, so I didn't feel too cheated. Nauseous, yes, but not cheated.

 

[DavidJ]

Well, based on this thread, I guess I'm glad weather intervened and prevented me from catching the showing tonight.

 

[ahollis]

This is what the BD of Rear Window looks like on my 120" screen:

RearWindow1.jpg

This is what we saw at the Danbury (CT) Lowes Cinema this afternoon (I have 2 other witnesses):

RearWindow2.jpg

The "money shot" of Grace Kelly (Home):

RearWindow3.jpg

The "money shot" of Grace Kelly (Theater):

RearWindow4.jpg

Jimmy (Home):

RearWindow5.jpg

Jimmy (Theater):

RearWindow6.jpg

I knew right from the main credits that something was wrong. And I know that Raymond Burr was overweight in this film, but James Stewart and Grace Kelly certainly weren't.

Granted, these "simulated" shots of the theater are from memory (very recent memory), but it is what I saw. The picture brightness in the theater was somewhat reduced from what I'm seeing at home, so I tried to simulate that as well.

After the film was over, we had a chat with the projectionist. He confirmed that we were watching a satellite screening through a Christie projector. Not a DCP presentation.

Picture quality wise, It looked as if we were watching a 1080p Blu ray, blown up to a 25' (height) screen. There were minor compression artifacts visible, and some banding in solid colors such as the sky and walls. Miss Kelly's green dress "squirmed" at times, and looked as if it were alive.

But it would take more than what I described above to completely ruin a Hitchcock film, and despite the flawed presentation, I daresay that it was still an enjoyable experience. And seeing it with my HTF friends (Charles and Rich) made it that much more so.

I don't think there could have been a fix at the theatre after looking at the shots you posted. This was clearly an error on the upload side. I have had more poor experiences with the satellite presentations than when they ship a DCP. There are just to many stages where it can get screwed up.

 

[Reed Grele]

I don't think there could have been a fix at the theatre after looking at the shots you posted. This was clearly an error on the upload side. I have had more poor experiences with the satellite presentations than when they ship a DCP. There are just to many stages where it can get screwed up.

Keep in mind that the shots of what I saw in the theater were not actual pictures taken in the theater. I memorized the cropping of the main credits (i.e, the "Directed By Alfred Hitchcock") which had part of the "A" in Alfred, and the "K" in Hitchcock cut off. I then used that as a template in Photoshop for the other 2 "simulations". But the faces really did look quite similar to what I've posted.


Since the picture did fill the screen almost edge to edge at the theater, I'm guessing that some cropping, and then stretching was employed. How or why this happened, and on which end remains a mystery.

 

[Wayne_j]

I don't remember the titles being cropped in my theater.

 

[JoeDoakes]

She always is. Any movie gets an extra star in the rating just because she is in it.

Maybe someone can get The Mating Season released. I think that's her best film (Gene Tierney's not bad either).

 

[Patrick Donahue]

Just came back from seeing it. The screen was so dark that if it was a nighttime scene you could only see teeth and eyeballs. But hey, the aspect ratio seemed fine!

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Now I know I was underpaid for all those shows I ran.

 

[Reed Grele]

Just to change the subject of the sub standard presentations for a moment.


One of the fun things about seeing a film with several friends and then discussing it later, are some new bits of information that one notices, and brings to your attention.


Has anyone besides Rich D. noticed that in some scenes of the film, the negative of the cover girl on Jeff's table has her right shoulder raised higher than the left, and in other scenes it's the opposite?


Right shoulder higher:

Left shoulder higher:

Right shoulder higher:

Left shoulder higher:

Also, are there any lip readers out there that can tell us what Mr. Hitchcock is saying to the song writer during his

clock winding cameo which occurs at about 26 minutes into the film?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[laser]

When I went to a Fathom screening of Dial M For Murder in 3D last year, the first couple minutes were a blurry purple mess. My diagnosis - something, somewhere along the line was set to red/blue anaglyph 3D instead of polarized.


The rest of it looked really good though!

 

[Dr Griffin]

Now I know I was underpaid for all those shows I ran.

It sounds like you had knowledge of, and pride in, your work.

 

[Charles Smith]

Now I know I was underpaid for all those shows I ran.

Nevertheless, thank you for not charging me extra all those times!

 

[WilliamMcK]

I saw the Fathom presentation in NYC last night... the only presentational thing wrong was the theater forgetting to dim the lights until about 5 minutes into the picture (and a super brief moment of digital break-up about 2/3 of the way through), otherwise the showing was fine... as far as it goes; but I'm afraid it doesn't go far enough. It was painfully obvious that this wasn't "film" I was watching... it had a grain-free, soft focus look with very slight (but noticeable) haloing around the edges. The black level density was a farce... and the whole thing looked like... well exactly what it was: a hi-def television broadcast. The movie is great... and I was able to enjoy it... especially the end, since by that time I was "over" the non-film video look... but, frankly I'd rather see a genuine 35mm print -- even one in poor condition -- then this soft-focus video mess. I'm afraid I'll be skipping THE SOUND OF MUSIC next month... I think this is a real shame... I'm not anti-digital, I've seen DCPs of A STAR IS BORN (1954), WEST SIDE STORY, VERTIGO and most recently THE TALES OF HOFFMANN and could almost have been fooled into thinking I was watching real film... but Fathom clearly uses inferior technology.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Thanks. What's interesting is that I had a couple of phone conversations with NCM/Fathom about partnering for something back in 2005 when they were starting to roll out these classic 'events'. They were wondering how we did it at the Lafayette Theatre (my former home) - we had just come off a year where we ran three separate and highly regarded events (3-D weekend, film preservation weekend, horror-thon) as well as our weekly classics shows. When I explained it involved tracking down the best prints whenever possible (collectors, archives, etc.; and the persistence of people like Bob F. who casually said one day, "If you're going to put in 2 projectors, you might as well run dual-strip polarized 3-D.") plus a great deal of pre-show work, they suddenly lost interest. They also thought we were running everything off of DVDs or other video sources, it was like 35mm was a dirty word.


That said, I've heard that since they've gone to DCP for a lot of these shows that they are much better than they were. These Rear Window satellite incidents sound more isolated.

 

[WilliamMcK]

That said, I've heard that since they've gone to DCP for a lot of these shows that they are much better than they were. These Rear Window satellite incidents sound more isolated.

This is good to know... Could it be the problem is TCM and not Fathom? Both classic Fathom Events I attended (REAR WINDOW last night, and WEST SIDE STORY about 4 years ago) were sponsored by TCM and featured TCM introductions.


And just to clarify, 6 months after I saw the disappointing TCM/Fathom theatrical presentation of WSS, I saw an actual DCP at the Film Forum... if it hadn't been advertised as a DCP, I could have been fooled into thinking I was watching a freshly struck 70mm print (except for that awful "Overture" gaffe... but let's not raise that again!) -- but my point is that the TCM/Fathom Event looked like high quality video, the DCP looked like film.

 

[Robert Harris]

I saw the Fathom presentation in NYC last night... the only presentational thing wrong was the theater forgetting to dim the lights until about 5 minutes into the picture (and a super brief moment of digital break-up about 2/3 of the way through), otherwise the showing was fine... as far as it goes; but I'm afraid it doesn't go far enough. It was painfully obvious that this wasn't "film" I was watching... it had a grain-free, soft focus look with very slight (but noticeable) haloing around the edges. The black level density was a farce... and the whole thing looked like... well exactly what it was: a hi-def television broadcast. The movie is great... and I was able to enjoy it... especially the end, since by that time I was "over" the non-film video look... but, frankly I'd rather see a genuine 35mm print -- even one in poor condition -- then this soft-focus video mess. I'm afraid I'll be skipping THE SOUND OF MUSIC next month... I think this is a real shame... I'm not anti-digital, I've seen DCPs of A STAR IS BORN (1954), WEST SIDE STORY, VERTIGO and most recently THE TALES OF HOFFMANN and could almost have been fooled into thinking I was watching real film... but Fathom clearly uses inferior technology.

Fathom's presentations are venue and film centric.


If 2 or 4k DCPs are available, and the venue can project them, all should be well.


RAH

 

[rich_d]

A question was raised, over dinner, whether it really was Grace Kelly that climbed into Thorwald's window.


I thought so, but on subsequent viewing, I'm not sure it is.


Even in 1954, it's hard to imagine that a filmmaker would risk any harm to a major star. The problem with this scene is not just the fall but where the climber might fall and as there is a open window with a frame that might cause a serious injury during a fall. It seems unlikely that reasonable filmmaker would take such a risk.


Additionally, on the pro-stunt double side of things, before Lisa climbs into the apartment, there is a cut to a reaction shot by L.B. Jefferies. This often serves as a bit of slight of hand for tricks played on the audience. Then we've got a far shot of Lisa climbing into the open window without a good look of her face. As anyone that has seen actors posing with their stunt doubles, many look reasonably close to the star (which shouldn't be a surprise). That and a really good wig. I guess if it were Grace Kelly, I'd wonder why she's not turning back toward the camera rather than just us seeing the back of her head going into the apartment. Actors like face time and if she were doing her own stunt, one would think this would be highlighted.


On the pro-side of Grace Kelly doing her own stunt, there is nothing obvious to my eyes that it isn't Grace Kelly.


Also, notice that the fifth brick from the left on the window sill is raised to allow the climber to get a foothold before climbing into the window.


Thoughts?


Rich D