- Joined
- Feb 8, 1999
- Messages
- 18,411
- Real Name
- Robert Harris
Updated;
This is a difficult one.
After sampling a number of sequences for Rear Window, I'm of the opinion that it could have been better. Even using the dupe negative that we prepared in 2000, would have gotten things to where they are in most cases, with less expense. The work done here seems like a bit of a waste of digital energy.
Or alternatively, recreating what we had done in the analogue world, but now digitally, would have yielded a far more highly resolved image in the dupe sections.
There are things that disturb me with this project. We worked very hard to make Grace Kelly's initial appearance in the film to work properly from faded elements. Our final negative could have been used, but it appears that something else has been done.
And it's left tracks.
Look at the background of the sequence in question, and horizontal banding is all too obvious. It shouldn't be there. Is this a problem of bits? I'm not certain.
Grain reduction has massaged the opening credits, leaving some odd digital artifacts in the background.
Flesh tones, which have always been a problem, should have been better, along with the tracking of the color of Mr. Stewart's pajamas, which on this Blu-ray is done well.
Bottom line is that for the casual viewer, this may be a beautiful presentation, but my eye is probably the wrong one to be viewing it. I could have been far happier if things had been performed differently -- and better.
Again, and to be fair, I believe that most people will love the look of Rear Window on Blu-ray.
One very interesting technical point.
Those of you familiar with early 1950s Eastman Color productions, will be all too aware of cut-in printer functions. You'll notice that these look beautiful, as though the dupes are perfectly hidden.
In this case, they aren't.
All of what would have been printer functions, in this case, the fade in and outs, were all shot as original in camera.
Image - 4
Audio - 4.5
RAH
This is a difficult one.
After sampling a number of sequences for Rear Window, I'm of the opinion that it could have been better. Even using the dupe negative that we prepared in 2000, would have gotten things to where they are in most cases, with less expense. The work done here seems like a bit of a waste of digital energy.
Or alternatively, recreating what we had done in the analogue world, but now digitally, would have yielded a far more highly resolved image in the dupe sections.
There are things that disturb me with this project. We worked very hard to make Grace Kelly's initial appearance in the film to work properly from faded elements. Our final negative could have been used, but it appears that something else has been done.
And it's left tracks.
Look at the background of the sequence in question, and horizontal banding is all too obvious. It shouldn't be there. Is this a problem of bits? I'm not certain.
Grain reduction has massaged the opening credits, leaving some odd digital artifacts in the background.
Flesh tones, which have always been a problem, should have been better, along with the tracking of the color of Mr. Stewart's pajamas, which on this Blu-ray is done well.
Bottom line is that for the casual viewer, this may be a beautiful presentation, but my eye is probably the wrong one to be viewing it. I could have been far happier if things had been performed differently -- and better.
Again, and to be fair, I believe that most people will love the look of Rear Window on Blu-ray.
One very interesting technical point.
Those of you familiar with early 1950s Eastman Color productions, will be all too aware of cut-in printer functions. You'll notice that these look beautiful, as though the dupes are perfectly hidden.
In this case, they aren't.
All of what would have been printer functions, in this case, the fade in and outs, were all shot as original in camera.
Image - 4
Audio - 4.5
RAH