A Few Words About A few words about... The Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection (1 Viewer)

[John Hodson]

I'm sure this will have been posted before in another thread, but here is a listing of the full contents of the set and extras at DVD Times.

 

[Matt Stieg]

I find this to be very condescending and feel Will Ryan should apologise. Mr. Harris has never "dictated" to anyone what they should or should not buy.

As for his "expertise," his expertise involves RESTORING films. This is the man who not only restored, but virtually saved from oblivion such classics as Vertigo, Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus and My Fair Lady among others. So I dare say he knows a little more about transfers than you, Mr. Ryan.

If you don't want to read what Mr. Harris has to say about a certain DVD release, fine, but that's no reason to be disrespectful.

 

[pitchman]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if all of the supplemental features from the original single discs is included in this set or do we need to hang on to the originals?

 

[Kevin M]

Yeah, I wish someone would offer...I dunno...a link or something that would list all of the content on these new discs....if only someone would do that.....

 

[Craig Beam]

You beat me to it, Kevin.

 

[John Hodson]

 

[pitchman]

Not to be obtuse, Kevin, but I saw the link (thanks, John!) and viewed the list of extras posted there. I just wanted to make sure there are no surprises like we've had in the past with Universal discs. Field of Dreams and Apollo 13 come to mind as examples where isolated scores were removed from the remastered editions. THAT is what I was asking about... Pardon me for being so stupid.

 

[Kevin M]

Now don't get upset Gary, I was just giving you a slight poke in the ribs. All of the currently available info regarding this set is contained in John's link, at least until it is released in two days & we all start hearing the "in the field" minutia reports from our fellow members.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

I have really been on the fence about this set ever since it was announced. I have now decided not to purchase it. The general treatment of the films is lackadaisical, it seems to me. Decent transfers, good/great extras, but most of that work was done years ago and from what I read, there is a minor improvement the previous releases.

What was Universal's motivation for this new package? Why aren't these discs available seperately? Why was the AFI documentary cut from 100 minutes to a skanky 15 minutes? Were new, HD transfers created? Should commentaries have been added to all or most films for added value? Will the current (or 'old') single releases of the films remain in print? There are many nagging questions about this release.

I'd love to own the anamorphic, mono Vertigo disc most of all. It looks like the 'new' Psycho 'remaster' is being released in the UK soon. Will it be a 2-disc? The artwork is awful, but that is - for the most part - par for the course these days. Will Vertigo with its mono track and 'new' transfer also be released in due course?

Too many questions, I know. I was expecting all-new, HD remasters from prime elements that really blew away the previous transfers, but that isn't the case overall. Compared to the recent Val Lewton box from Warner, this release from Universal of more famous, popular, often landmark films, does not seem of a high enough quality to me, regardless of price. I'd glady pay say, $150-200 for this Hitchcock set if the picture and sound were of optimal quality and were packaged seperately in keepcases.

Phew! Is anyone still awake?!

 

[Craig Beam]

In their defense, Universal never promised this. Their press release advertised "digital remastering," which seems (for the most part) to be the case. Given the ridiculously low price, it was pretty obvious from the beginning that the films WEREN'T getting the full HD treatment. I wish like hell that they were; however, I don't feel misled in the slightest, since nothing was promised that isn't being delivered.

I'm not disappointed. At least four of the discs in this set are highly desirable (IMHO): The anamorphic mono Vertigo, the anamorphic Psycho, the greatly improved Saboteur, and the much-improved The Trouble With Harry. Had they released those four individually at $20 each, I'd be spending more than I'll be spending for the entire set. Plus it'll take up less space on my shelf.

 

[Patrick McCart]

How exactly do we know that HD transfers were not involved? Most Universal DVD's seem to be transfered extremely well, with little digital artifacting and tons of detail. Check out how crisp DVD's are for Hell's Angels and My Little Chickadee, just for starters. Same thing for the 16x9 remaster of Smokey and the Bandit and even the somewhat old American Graffiti. While I'm sure straight NTSC origin transfers can look great, I suspect that DVD's with that much fine detail intact are more likely HD-based.

For all we know, they've used HD transfers for all 14 films and simply made brand new NTSC downconversions with more care put into them. The HD originals could be absolutely beautiful, but while making new NTSC masters for DVD, they can perform manual digital restoration and additional color correction. This is really obvious on Universal's new editions of The Bank Dick (previously Criterion) and Duck Soup (previously Image). Both have a lot less dirt and scratches (not to mention Duck Soup was likely a new transfer altogether, since Universal performed a traditional on-film restoration between the 1997 Image DVD and the 2004 Marx Bros. box set).

We even know that just re-compressing NTSC masters can improve quality. The original single-disc My Fair Lady and the 2-disc SE use virtually the same video master, yet the newer edition has less digital artifacts and better compression.

 

[pitchman]

No harm. No foul. I thought I was asking a sincere question, but perhaps I should have phrased it better. For a minute there I felt like everyone was ganging up on me.:b

 

[JPCinema]

Having just received my "boxset", one of the frustrating things is that once the plastic wrap is off the individual "overcrowded" disc sets, it is extremely difficult to slide them back into the box compartments. This caused the corners to bend and causing damage.
Its very poorly designed considering the cost of the set. Not good.

 

[RichardCrowther]

Not if the comparison shots on DVDbeaver are accurate, no. The new R1 is framed exactly the same as the R2, and the R2 was perfect (you could clearly see the thug reaching for his gun and Robert Shaw looking for his wallet).

 

[RichardCrowther]

Not if previous Universal R2 releases have been anything to go by - both the recent Jaws re-release and the PAL release of Duel have jettisoned the original mono mixes. Don't hold your breath if you expect the R2 version of Vertigo (should it even get a re-release) to be any different. Who was it on here who said Universal are pulling their socks up?


And, while I'm here what's all this business about putting the "original" in "original mono mix" in quotation marks, which everyone seems to be doing? It doesn't matter how many generations down from the original source it may or may not be, or how degraded the sound might be as a result, it's still the original mono mix, isn't it? Battered, and far from perfect, to be sure, but at least someone, somewhere, listened and did their best.

 

[Mark-P]

What I'm wondering is why Vertigo is different from any other of the Hitchcock soundtracks from that era? Does that mean that all the other original mono mixes were properly vaulted and preserved but Vertigo's original mono mix was thrown out just because they made a new multichannel remix? What I'm really asking is if Vertigo is the only film in this set whose mono soundtrack is sourced from a print that is several generations down?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Every picture "has" a story and Vertigo is no exception. It's mono track was not junked "because" a new multichannel mix was made. It was junked before the multichannel mix was made. For what it's worth, the audio for the previous edition of Marnie was no great shakes either (I haven't heard the new one). There was at least one particularly terrible instance of tape stretching distortion in addition to general mediocre fidelity throughout.

Regards,

 

[Robert Harris]

Both "Vertigo" and Rear Window were sourced from used prints.

To the best of my memory either Harry or Man Who Knew survived as a Vista printing negative, ie. 180 fps.

 

[Kevin M]

Robert, do you mean that the audio on Rear Window was sourced from an optical print? You guys must have cleaned it up fairly well because it sound's pretty good to my ears (if that is what you meant).

 

[Robert Harris]

Rear Window is actually sourced from different parts of several prints.

The original 35mm optical track negative had been defectively recorded, with the inside audio impulse being out of focus.

The current track is based upon half of the track which normally would have been heard.

RAH