What's new

A Few Words About A few words about...™ The African Queen -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
Originally Posted by Jeff Adkins

First of all, the accusations that the picture quality suffered on Near Dark and U-571 because of lossless audio are false.


No such accusation was made as to Near Dark, either here or in the linked review.

As for U-571, I have a reliable source that I'm not at liberty to disclose who tells me lossless was the reason. You can choose to believe me or not.
 

cafink

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
3,044
Real Name
Carl Fink
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben

As for U-571, I have a reliable source that I'm not at liberty to disclose who tells me lossless was the reason. You can choose to believe me or not.
Assuming that Jeff's disc-size figure is correct (and it should be easy enough to check), something's obviously not right here. I can understand why a studio might sacrifice video quality in order to make room for a lossless audio track, but if there are 5GB of unused space on the disc, no such sacrifice should have been necessary. There must be some other factor involved, right?
 

Mark B

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
1,070
Location
Saranac Lake, NY
Real Name
Mark
Five pages of conversation about the audio of a film that has always sounded like it was recorded with two tin cans and a string. Interesting.

Now that the disc is in release I'm curious to hear about how the restoration team dealt with the opticals, the jittery stock footage of jungle animals, and the night scenes.
 

Nelson Au

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 16, 1999
Messages
19,040
Originally Posted by Mark B ">[/url]

Five pages of conversation about the audio of a film that has always sounded like it was recorded with two tin cans and a string. Interesting.

Now that the disc is in release I'm curious to hear about how the restoration team dealt with the opticals, the jittery stock footage of jungle animals, and the night scenes.[/QUOTE]Yes, I was hoping the audio discussion would go to a separate thread discussing compression vs lossless techniques and so on. But I can see it made sense as it related to this disc.
 

Adam Gregorich

What to watch tonight?
Moderator
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 20, 1999
Messages
16,530
Location
The Other Washington
Real Name
Adam
Five pages of conversation about the audio of a film that has always sounded like it was recorded with two tin cans and a string. Interesting.

If we had an award for comment of the week this would be it!


Now that the disc is in release I'm curious to hear about how the restoration team dealt with the opticals, the jittery stock footage of jungle animals, and the night scenes.

Why don't you ask?

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/298828/official-african-queen-paramount-question-thread
 

Jeff Adkins

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 18, 1998
Messages
2,842
Location
Tampa, FL
Real Name
Jeff Adkins
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben ">[/url]





No such accusation was made as to [i]Near Dark[/i], either here or in the linked review.

As for [i]U-571[/i], I have a reliable source that I'm not at liberty to disclose who tells me lossless was the reason. You can choose to believe me or not.[/QUOTE]
As for [b]U-571[/b], I certainly believe you have a source that told you that. He or she may have believed that is the reason, but the evidence speaks for itself. Obviously, the source was incorrect. The numbers prove it.

OT: Does anyone have a link where I can read how to use the multi-quote function here? I've tried everything and can't get it to work.
 

TonyD

Who do we think I am?
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
24,241
Location
Gulf Coast
Real Name
Tony D.
Originally Posted by Mark B




Thanks. I thought the deadline for submitting questions had passed.


Originally Posted by Jeff Adkins




[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]This is what you said about Near Dark:

"Something had to give. Know what it was? Picture quality. The image was filtered and stripped of fine detail. The result was a disc that is, according to the standards of the lossless zealots, fully "HD". But according to someone who knows the film well (that would be me), the disc does a worse job at presenting it than the previous DVD. I wonder how much better an image could have been achieved with the bit savings from a simple DD 5.1 track."

If you weren't trying to say that the picture quality suffered due to the lossless track, then maybe I'm reading it wrong. That's exactly what it sounds like you were saying.
[/COLOR]
As for U-571, I certainly believe you have a source that told you that. He or she may have believed that is the reason, but the evidence speaks for itself. Obviously, the source was incorrect. The numbers prove it.

OT: Does anyone have a link where I can read how to use the multi-quote function here? I've tried everything and can't get it to work.
for each post you want to quote click the double quote tag at the bottom of the post then click the single quote tag on the last post you want to quote.




Also, Thanks HTF and Paramount, I received my copy today.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
Originally Posted by Jeff Adkins


This is what you said about Near Dark:


You quoted less than half of what I said. Here's all of it, with the parts you left out in italics:


Originally Posted by Michael Reuben . Its a catalogue title and a cult film; so Lionsgate wouldn't spring for more than a BD-25. There were supplements and commentary from a prior DVD they obviously felt they had to include. And to satisfy the lossless crowd, the soundtrack was mastered in DTS-HD MA, although it was hardly a high-end affair.
[/i]
Something had to give. Know what it was? Picture quality. The image was filtered and stripped of fine detail. The result was a disc that is, according to the standards of the lossless zealots, fully "HD". But according to someone who knows the film well (that would be me), the disc does a worse job at presenting it than the previous DVD. I wonder how much better an image could have been achieved with the bit savings from a simple DD 5.1 track.

Of course, the obvious answer would have been to use a BD-50, but economics are part of the landscape, and the point is that there will almost always be limitations of some kind (economic, technical, artistic) requiring a disc producer to choose between competing priorities. Blu-ray expanded possibilities, but it didn't make them limitless.

This was preceded by a general response to the question of whether there's always room for lossless audio on every Blu-ray:



As with so much else, it depends.

It depends on the film length, content and nature of the source (some material compresses better, some not so much).

It depends on the extras you want to include (leave off something from a previous DVD edition, and listen for the howling).

It depends on the available budget (a BD-50 costs more to manufacture than a BD-25).

It depends on who has the final say on what constitutes "high quality video".

Anyone reading the entire post with an open mind should be able to see that I acknowledge a variety of ways that the video quality could have been improved: by using a BD-50, by dropping the extras, or by using a lossy track instead of a lossless one. The last point received more attention because it happened to be the discussion's point of departure. It didn't become an "accusation" until you decided to call it one.

As for U-571, neither of us has convinced the other. Let's not sidetrack this thread any further.
 

Scott Calvert

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 2, 1998
Messages
885
Originally Posted by DavidJ

It is not a fact that it is patently ridiculous. The uncompressed audio has greater dynamic range than a compressed signal. While it's not likely that we could tell the difference given the perceptual coding techniques used and their ability to reproduce an effective dynamic range at or near the limits of human hearing, it's possible some of the flaws in the original recording will be audible or more audible in the version with greater dynamic range because there is more separation from the noise floor. In the compressed version, they may disappear into that noise floor since the dynamic range has been limited.

I hope you aren't confusing dynamic range compression with data compression. If not, please clarify.
 

DavidJ

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2001
Messages
4,365
Real Name
David
No, I am not, but I'm not sure I want to derail this thread any further. Like I said at the end of my post:


I doubt that is why the decision was made to use a compressed track as it is much more likely that it was a space saving matter. I'd say space was at a fairly high premium on this disc as its size is 46.6 GB.
Some have suggested a separate thread to discuss these issues. I for one would enjoy such a thread and discussion. I plan on watching TAQ tomorrow and look forward to the experience.
 

Mark B

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
1,070
Location
Saranac Lake, NY
Real Name
Mark
After receiving and viewing my copy today, I am highly impressed by all aspects of this home video incarnation of a favorite film. It has never looked or sounded better. The opticals were beautifully handled; not digitally bastardized, but spruced up subtly. I introduced it to a friend who does not have any knowledge of old films, and she loved it.
 

ahollis

Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
8,864
Location
New Orleans
Real Name
Allen
I am 100% satisfied with this DVD release. The colors are great and I is wonderful to see that the green water is the refection of the trees on it. I have no complaints with the sound. I saw a screening of the film three years ago at the Loews Jersey on one of their movie weekends and was pleased in that it was the best I had ever seen the film. That is until last night at home. Thank you Paramount, you did it right.

Oh and by the way, the documentary is very interesting.
 

Stephen_J_H

All Things Film Junkie
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
7,871
Location
North of the 49th
Real Name
Stephen J. Hill
Currently watching and tapping a way on my laptop. Gorgeous. I've seen several video incarnations of TAQ (never lived close enough to a repertory theatre to catch a 35mm print), and this blows them all out of the water. The sharpness and colour are amazing by comparison, and the sound exceeds my expectations for a film of this vintage. My only wish is that some original and re-release theatrical trailers had made it on the disc, but I'm perfectly satisfied with what has. The documentary is great.
 

DavidJ

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2001
Messages
4,365
Real Name
David
Just watched this tonight and couldn't be more pleased with the presentation. I'd never seen the film in its entirety, but had caught bits and pieces of it over the years. It looks wonderful and I have no complaints with the sound.
 

Nelson Au

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 16, 1999
Messages
19,040
I watched this last night too. My first time to see this movie. I had no idea what it was about, I had seen some scenes back in the 70's on TV, but didn't really remember it, just the rapids.

I thought it was a great movie! They don't make 'em like this anymore! Not what I expected and a deserved Oscar for Bogart. I thought Hepburn was great too, she was very much a match to Bogart.

Video looked great! The only BD's I have of that era is The Day The Earth Stood Still and North By Northwest to compare with. The sound had some hiss, but I only noticed it early on when I was messing around with the settings like stereo or hall and settled on mono as it was intended.
 

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
66,558
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
Lazy Sunday afternoon lying on the couch in my Home
Theater watching The African Queen.

First saw this film 20+ years ago on VHS tape. Don't
really remember any of it so I might as well have been
watching it fresh for the first time.

I sort of fought with myself to talk about this film openly
because quite frankly, I am not as impressed with it as
many of you are. For me, watching this film was more
a task than a pleasure. It was mildly enjoyable. Think
a lot has to do with the fact that it seems somewhat dated
nearly 60 years later.

Think I will be hearing the words "Mr. Allnut" in my sleep.

However, aside from the film itself I was very impressed
with two aspects of this Blu-ray release.

The first is obvious...the transfer....which is immaculate.
Ron Smith should be very proud of his efforts here.

It was worth waiting this long to see a home video
release just for the fact that it can be viewed on
Blu-ray in high definition. The added resolution does
wonders in highlighting the beauty of this film. It also
creates problems. You can clearly see the rear
projection back screen effects. There is also a scene
involving a rash of mosquitos that looks so hideously
fake in this improved resolution that you almost wish
you were watching a dirty low-rez print that would hide
the simplistic effects work. We have talked many
times on this forum how much we love watching classic
film in high definition while needing to be forgiving of the
flaws in effects work that it brings out.

The second aspect of this Blu-ray that I was
impressed with was the included feature, Embracing
Chaos: Making The African Queen
. Have to say
that I was highly enthralled by this well-made
documentary on the making of the film. Some really
great stories about Hollywood politics at the time
(it was in the midst of the McCarthy era) and how
much of a big deal it was for a film crew (with a
huge technicolor camera in tow) to shoot in Africa.
Some great stories about John Huston's obsession
with shooting an elephant and some insight into
the personal lives of Humphrey Bogart and Lauren
Bacall. About an hour long, it's a worthy watch.

I don't need to convince any of you to go out
and buy this film. Despite the fact I was less
enthused about it doesn't mean squat. I'm
personally happy to be adding this film to my
library. You will be too.
 

Steve...O

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Messages
4,376
Real Name
Steve
This is one terrific BD all the way around. Parmount should be very proud. Absolutely no complaints here.

The film itself is enjoyable. Not my favorite Bogie or even in my top 5, but that's not bad considering nothing is going to knock Casabalanca and Maltese Falcon from the list. Still, it's wonderful watching two incredibly gifted actors carry virtually the entire film.

I know what Ron is saying regarding rear projection, etc. in his post. I noticed that too. In my opinion, it's not a major issue; mostly because I'm so used to these techniques being obvious in classic films. Hitch's films are full of rear projection, miniatures, and the like, like AQ, the acting, direction, and overall storyline are so powerful that one tends to be forgiving of these devices.
 

JoHud

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
3,215
Real Name
Joe Hudak
Yeah, rear projection was pretty much the best special effects technology possible for action scenes either too risky, costly, or deadly to emulate in actuality before CGI green screen technology, and took several decades to make seamless. Heck, even Star Wars was noticeably rear projected in many scenes. Its only more noticeable in Technicolor than B&W. I've very rarely been able to see it done seamlessly. Also, I was rather surprised how well the model African Queen was used in this film. I agree with Epstein that the mosquito scene could have used live insects, or objects that looked more like mosquitoes.

I enjoyed this one immensely, despite the story not being particularly complex or deep. The dynamic between Bogart and Hepburn, who have wonderfully develped pathos in their evolving romance, is the anchor of the film, adding to the believably hostile envoronment that the adventure pits them against, aided quite a bit by an on location shoot.

While I was initially bummed that there was just one extra feature, I found the documentary one of the best "making-of" supplements I've seen in quite some time. Lengthy and informative. Surprised there was no commentary though.
 

Rob_Ray

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
2,141
Location
Southern California
Real Name
Rob Ray
Not to throw cold water on a superlative effort, but I found the documentary, while informative, very choppy and irritating to watch. Quite often, the editor would cut away from a speaker in mid-sentence and the camera would never stay put and let us take in the photographic still being displayed on screen. The whole thing was very irritating in this regard.

But the story contained within the documentary was compelling.

And, as for the film itself -- it's never looked anywhere near this good. The picture is absolutely incredible and amazing. The texture and the detail are such that I had a hard time focusing on the story. What a terrific package, although a commentary track would have been nice to have.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,660
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top