- Joined
- Feb 8, 1999
- Messages
- 18,425
- Real Name
- Robert Harris
Marnie, at least to me, is an important Hitchcock film, and I've always found that it works.
Much of it was shot filtered, and it had a very special look to it.
While color and density on this new Blu-ray are generally outstanding, grain structure is not, and I can only surmise as to the problem.
What I'm thinking, and I'm guessing, is that the scan was taken from an IP that was produced optically, and I'm wondering if what we're seeing in the grain structure is a specular effect from the optical process.
Sit back a bit, and things get better, but should a viewer be forced away from the image in order to make it palatable? It's not a pretty picture.
Grain should be reasonably fine, as like the majority of other Hitchcock films from the era, I'm presuming that Marnie was shot in S35.
Note and Update: After reading Mr. Kimmel's comments -- I trust his eyes implicitly -- I'm going to agree with him, that something untoward is going on with why the grain structure looks as it does.
While it might partially be the optical concept as I earlier averred, much of the film does have the look of someone trying to have their digital way with it. And it's not good.
Home theater fans should not have to figure out there way around these things. Quality, especially for something that is advertised as "restored," should be near perfect.
For that reason, I'm adding Marnie to my "Recall" list, as it's unacceptable.
I don't know why Universal marketing is presenting the all of these films as "restored," when they're not. It makes the tech people look bad. And they aren't using the word "restored." They've been very up front on these titles, as to what was being performed to what.
Marnie may be exhibiting the My Fair Lady problem. And by that I mean the use of a pre-existing master, approved for 480i and standard definition DVD. Add six times the resolution, and unpleasant things begin to appear that were previously hidden.
Image - 2
Audio - 5
RAH
Much of it was shot filtered, and it had a very special look to it.
While color and density on this new Blu-ray are generally outstanding, grain structure is not, and I can only surmise as to the problem.
What I'm thinking, and I'm guessing, is that the scan was taken from an IP that was produced optically, and I'm wondering if what we're seeing in the grain structure is a specular effect from the optical process.
Sit back a bit, and things get better, but should a viewer be forced away from the image in order to make it palatable? It's not a pretty picture.
Grain should be reasonably fine, as like the majority of other Hitchcock films from the era, I'm presuming that Marnie was shot in S35.
Note and Update: After reading Mr. Kimmel's comments -- I trust his eyes implicitly -- I'm going to agree with him, that something untoward is going on with why the grain structure looks as it does.
While it might partially be the optical concept as I earlier averred, much of the film does have the look of someone trying to have their digital way with it. And it's not good.
Home theater fans should not have to figure out there way around these things. Quality, especially for something that is advertised as "restored," should be near perfect.
For that reason, I'm adding Marnie to my "Recall" list, as it's unacceptable.
I don't know why Universal marketing is presenting the all of these films as "restored," when they're not. It makes the tech people look bad. And they aren't using the word "restored." They've been very up front on these titles, as to what was being performed to what.
Marnie may be exhibiting the My Fair Lady problem. And by that I mean the use of a pre-existing master, approved for 480i and standard definition DVD. Add six times the resolution, and unpleasant things begin to appear that were previously hidden.
Image - 2
Audio - 5
RAH