Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
Blu-ray Reviews

Alfred Hitchcock: The Masterpiece Collection Limited Edition Blu-ray Review - Recommended



  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#21 of 50 OFFLINE   Charles Smith

Charles Smith

    Extremely Talented Member



  • 4,262 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 2007
  • LocationNor'east

Posted November 21 2012 - 02:08 AM

Still in transit.



#22 of 50 OFFLINE   Steve Tannehill

Steve Tannehill

    Producer



  • 5,535 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 06 1997
  • Real Name:Steve Tannehill
  • LocationDFW

Posted November 24 2012 - 04:10 PM

I received my UK limited edition set today. The first movie I spun was Family Plot. I thought it looked pretty good.

#23 of 50 OFFLINE   David Norman

David Norman

    Screenwriter



  • 2,060 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 12 2001
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted November 25 2012 - 10:35 AM

Still sitting in Scotland. Not transiting at all on Day 15 after shipment. Only 6 more days and I can ask for a re-shipment.

#24 of 50 OFFLINE   Craig S

Craig S

    Producer



  • 5,513 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 04 2000
  • Real Name:Craig Seanor
  • LocationLeague City, Texas

Posted November 25 2012 - 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Steve Tannehill 

I received my UK limited edition set today. The first movie I spun was Family Plot. I thought it looked pretty good.


Ditto on Family Plot. I mean, it's not a reference transfer by any means, and there are several problematic shots (especially rear-projection). But overall it's a long way from what I would call unwatchable. Now, to level set, I don't have the trained eyes of our friends here in the industry, and my room-dictated setup (sitting 12 feet from a 60 inch screen) helps hide a lot of transfer flaws. I have no doubt the problems others are seeing are there. Just saying those of you with less-than-ideal HT setups may find this OK for non-critical viewing.


I also looked at The Trouble With Harry. In a word - spectacular. It's like looking out a window at the most perfect New England fall day one could ever imagine.

Mine is the UK limited set (#2436), which I also received yesterday. Mine survived the perilous journey across the pond in really good shape - even the outer box was undamaged. All the right discs were in all the right places. The outer case is striking, and will make a nice display piece; the book with the discs slots in nicely next to my Bond 50 box on the shelf. All in all, it's a really nice set. Here's hoping that it shows up soon for those of you still waiting.


Three truths about movies, as noted by Roger Ebert:

 

* It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.

* No good movie is too long, and no bad movie is short enough.

* No good movie is depressing, all bad movies are depressing.


#25 of 50 OFFLINE   WadeM

WadeM

    Supporting Actor



  • 906 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 11 2006

Posted November 26 2012 - 02:16 AM

I Next I looked at "Marnie." Now I get what the complaints are about for this one. It's got a lot of soft-focus, diffused photography which gives the impression that this is not HD, but a lot of knowledgable people have stated that this is the way Hitchcock shot the movie, so what is there to really complain about? .

I was able to see the Marnie blu-ray and I disagree, One of the complaints was about the video noise. Look at the opening credits and compare them to the closing credits. Big difference. What you see on the opening credits is visible throughout most of the film. It IS something to complain about. Frankly, I think it should be recalled.

#26 of 50 OFFLINE   Scott Calvert

Scott Calvert

    Supporting Actor



  • 885 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 1998

Posted November 26 2012 - 02:35 AM

Ditto on Family Plot. I mean, it's not a reference transfer by any means, and there are several problematic shots (especially rear-projection). But overall it's a long way from what I would call unwatchable. Now, to level set, I don't have the trained eyes of our friends here in the industry, and my room-dictated setup (sitting 12 feet from a 60 inch screen) helps hide a lot of transfer flaws. I have no doubt the problems others are seeing are there. Just saying those of you with less-than-ideal HT setups may find this OK for non-critical viewing.

The problems with the Family Plot transfer have nothing to do with rear projection shots. Those shots are what they are and should not be considered a transfer problem anyway. The problem is the wacked-out, almost pixellated look of the entire film, that at times appraoches something like bad youtube compression. It is the worst transfer in the set hands down. People need to understand that the complaints about Marnie and Family Plot have nothing to do with photography. It's a problem with bits and bytes.

#27 of 50 OFFLINE   Craig S

Craig S

    Producer



  • 5,513 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 04 2000
  • Real Name:Craig Seanor
  • LocationLeague City, Texas

Posted November 26 2012 - 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert 

The problems with the Family Plot transfer have nothing to do with rear projection shots. Those shots are what they are and should not be considered a transfer problem anyway.


Understood  - should not have mentioned the process shots in my comments.



Quote:
The problem is the wacked-out, almost pixellated look of the entire film, that at times appraoches something like bad youtube compression. It is the worst transfer in the set hands down.
People need to understand that the complaints about Marnie and Family Plot have nothing to do with photography. It's a problem with bits and bytes.

Again, understood. The disc clearly has problems. I support any efforts to get it fixed. All I'm saying is that at my viewing distance (much farther out that the 1.5-1.6 screen-width distance which is often cited as optimal) these problems are not visible most of the time.

Three truths about movies, as noted by Roger Ebert:

 

* It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.

* No good movie is too long, and no bad movie is short enough.

* No good movie is depressing, all bad movies are depressing.


#28 of 50 OFFLINE   Steve Tannehill

Steve Tannehill

    Producer



  • 5,535 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 06 1997
  • Real Name:Steve Tannehill
  • LocationDFW

Posted November 26 2012 - 06:54 AM

I don't see the pixilated "youtube compression" look in Family Plot.

#29 of 50 OFFLINE   Mike_Richardson

Mike_Richardson

    Supporting Actor



  • 639 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 11 2002

Posted November 26 2012 - 08:29 AM

I don't see the pixilated "youtube compression" look in Family Plot.

I don't either. Looks to me like Universal put on a bit too much DNR during the rear projection shots. Scenes that don't have opticals seem to be less affected. Either way, while it is not "pristine" by any means, it's not anywhere close to the all-out disaster some proclaimed it to be on various message boards. But this also won't be the first time people went berserk over something, blowing it out of proportion!

#30 of 50 OFFLINE   Scott Calvert

Scott Calvert

    Supporting Actor



  • 885 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 1998

Posted November 26 2012 - 09:11 AM

What the heck are you guys watching this on where it looks anything close to acceptable? Steve, you've been around a while. I'd assume you would know what film looks like. Family Plot ain't it.

#31 of 50 OFFLINE   Charles Smith

Charles Smith

    Extremely Talented Member



  • 4,262 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 2007
  • LocationNor'east

Posted November 26 2012 - 09:22 AM

Looked at some of this one yesterday.  On my 50" plasma the pixellating (whatever the correct word and its spelling) in Barbara Harris's face in the opening scene is outrageous.  YouTube indeed.  Chapter-stopping my way through further, some scenes would look pretty normal and acceptable for a few moments (probably the brightest, most evenly lit outdoor ones), then there'd be a shot of Bruce Dern standing back a little in the scene, that looked like he had cockroaches crawling all over his face.  Shocking quality standards.



#32 of 50 OFFLINE   Professor Echo

Professor Echo

    Screenwriter



  • 1,569 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 28 2008
  • Real Name:Glen
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted November 26 2012 - 10:21 AM

Geez, I'm so out of it lately and haven't been getting my daily HTF injections that for who knows what reason I invented the scenario in my head that this set was completely fixed. Thus I was about to list all my SD Hitchcocks for sale today to put toward the Blu release as a Christmas present for myself. I just happened to mention this to my brother and he said, "What the hell are you doing? It hasn't been fixed!" So I came here for the details and am so glad. What a mess.



#33 of 50 OFFLINE   Scott Calvert

Scott Calvert

    Supporting Actor



  • 885 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 1998

Posted November 26 2012 - 10:22 AM

Looked at some of this one yesterday.  On my 50" plasma the pixellating (whatever the correct word and its spelling) in Barbara Harris's face in the opening scene is outrageous.  YouTube indeed.  Chapter-stopping my way through further, some scenes would look pretty normal and acceptable for a few moments (probably the brightest, most evenly lit outdoor ones), then there'd be a shot of Bruce Dern standing back a little in the scene, that looked like he had cockroaches crawling all over his face.  Shocking quality standards.

It is quite possibly the worst BD in my (sizeable) collection. I don't think it's hyperbole to say that. And that's coming from someone who thinks the pre-60's films look great for the most part, even TMWKTM which has been savaged on these boards.

#34 of 50 OFFLINE   Mark-P

Mark-P

    Screenwriter



  • 2,366 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted November 26 2012 - 07:51 PM

I was able to see the Marnie blu-ray and I disagree, One of the complaints was about the video noise. Look at the opening credits and compare them to the closing credits. Big difference. What you see on the opening credits is visible throughout most of the film. It IS something to complain about. Frankly, I think it should be recalled.

Okay I took a second look, and what I see is erratic grain that varies from shot to shot. On my Panasonic projector it's much less noticeable and looks like natural film grain but on my Panasonic plasma screen it really stands out. I really don't get all that worked up over grain. Sure a ground-up restoration could have reduced and evened out the grain, but I'm happy with it as is.

#35 of 50 OFFLINE   Yorkshire

Yorkshire

    Screenwriter



  • 1,314 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2009

Posted November 26 2012 - 08:15 PM

Again, understood. The disc clearly has problems. I support any efforts to get it fixed. All I'm saying is that at my viewing distance (much farther out that the 1.5-1.6 screen-width distance which is often cited as optimal) these problems are not visible most of the time. 

Hi Craig. I've been round more 'seating distance' discussions than I care to mention. For all the disagreements, for people with projectors almost everyone seems to sit somewhere between 1.0 and 1.5 x screen widths away. I think most cinemas have a back row that's between 1.5 and 2.0 x screen widths away and a front row of maybe 0.75 x screen widths away. Something like that. In short, if you sit over 1.6 x screen widths away, then I can understand why there are things others are seeing which you can't - this is in no way a criticism, you sit where you feel comfortable. Steve W
Correct a fool and he will hate you, correct a wise man and he will thank you.

#36 of 50 OFFLINE   WadeM

WadeM

    Supporting Actor



  • 906 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 11 2006

Posted November 27 2012 - 12:16 AM

Okay I took a second look, and what I see is erratic grain that varies from shot to shot. On my Panasonic projector it's much less noticeable and looks like natural film grain but on my Panasonic plasma screen it really stands out. I really don't get all that worked up over grain. Sure a ground-up restoration could have reduced and evened out the grain, but I'm happy with it as is.

I don't have a problem with grain. This doesn't look like grain to me.

#37 of 50 OFFLINE   Scott Calvert

Scott Calvert

    Supporting Actor



  • 885 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 1998

Posted November 27 2012 - 01:47 AM

I don't have a problem with grain. This doesn't look like grain to me.

It might have started out as film grain but whatever transfer methods and processing they applied has turned it into an electronic mess that is something else entirely. This is definitely not a case of grain-o-phobes being turned off by poor opticals.

#38 of 50 OFFLINE   Worth

Worth

    Screenwriter



  • 1,178 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 17 2009

Posted November 27 2012 - 02:15 AM

It doesn't look like grain to me, either. Grain makes up the image - this looks like noise floating on top of the image.
Sealed with a curse as sharp as a knife. Doomed is your soul and damned is your life.

#39 of 50 OFFLINE   Bryan Tuck

Bryan Tuck

    Screenwriter



  • 1,537 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 16 2002

Posted November 27 2012 - 01:24 PM

I'm still trying to decide whether or not to get this. I'm glad most of the films look great, but it's disappointing some have been handled so poorly.
"Flying a plane is no different from riding a bicycle; it's just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes."

#40 of 50 OFFLINE   Matt Hough

Matt Hough

    Executive Producer



  • 11,575 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 2006
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted November 27 2012 - 02:27 PM

I found the time to watch Shadow of a Doubt tonight, my first dip into the box. Though the credits looked a bit soft and there was a scratch here and there, the image mostly looked grand with nice and inky black levels. Very pleased with my first taste of the box's contents.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Blu-ray Reviews

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users