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

[Robert Harris]

I do not believe that there is any large format derived video master for Big Country.

 

[Brandon Conway]

It is truly astonishing that MGM did not know of this anamorphic 'stretch problem

Well, another possibility is that there are new people in charge since the MGM release, and those new people were unaware. That release was in 2011, after all.

 

[john a hunter]

So I guess the verdict then....Not Guilty by existing elements. I still think the mythical 70mm print is either in hiding or just an urban legend.

Mythical indeed as there was never a 70mm print of this film.
The first Technirama 70 print was Sleeping Beauty.

 

[RMajidi]

Well, another possibility is that there are new people in charge since the MGM release, and those new people were unaware. That release was in 2011, after all.

You may be right. That is a possibility.

If you are right, then that paints an even worse picture.

As evidenced above, Messers Furmanek and Pickard have unearthed meticulous printed documents from some 60-odd years ago about this film.

Now, in this heyday of information technology, what kind of major enterprise entrusts its corporate knowledge to hand-me-down word of mouth?

You mean no one at MGM attached a simple file-note to the release records of The Big Country? Something along the lines of...

November 25, 2011:

That rabble's restless again. Not good enough that we gave them the film on disc, now they're clamouring for correct A/R.

I don't see what the big deal is. Peck is still thinner than Ives, so what gives?

Oh well, just in case we ever come to release this again (hah, as if that's ever gonna happen) then I guess we'd better get Jack to quit horsing around with that concave mirror setting and the psychedelic sky-flicker effect.

Now let's get back to Skyfall.​

Seems that note never happened, and so while fans of this great classic greeted Kino-Lorber's news of a re-release with one voice: "Has that stretchy thing been fixed?", the owners of the film claim not to have the foggiest.

As Gregory said earlier, the good news is that Kino has brought this to MGM's present-day attention, and since KL presumably means money to MGM, they might actually take note this time.

 

[Dave B Ferris]

November 25, 2011:

That rabble's restless again. Not good enough that we gave them the film on disc, now they're clamouring for correct A/R.

​

File-note is required only upon verification that rabblers have armed themselves with pitchforks. Absent pitchforks, it's just another day in the office at MGM (without file-notes, of course).​

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I get such a schizoid feeling from Kino. Their release schedule would suggest they care about film history and their customers; yet their representative often appears to hold both the films and the customers in disdain. It's hard to reconcile those two things sometimes; I never know how to feel about that label.

I've held off on the previous release because of the picture issues. If the reviews are better for this version, I may consider it for a blind buy.

 

[Stephen PI]

Another issue I have with the transfer, and the fact that it hasn't been discussed on here proves that either nobody notices or if they do it doesn't bother them, and that is the vertical framing.

It appears, at least on this particular transfer, that there is enough vertical information in the Technirama frame for vertical adjustment within the 2.35 ratio.

Below I have reproduced several screengrabs that illustrate to me that the image should be vertically adjusted by just a small amount, which would make a significant improvement, to reduce the excessive headroom and correct the vertical composition (this is from an HD broadcast, so I assume it is the same as the blu ray, which I don't have).

This particular issue is not uncommon and has plagued transfers for years.

The first screengrab you can see the wind gag poking into the frame at the top (the frame line of this vertical element is literally just outside the matte as a screengrab lower down will show.



The frame below, as I mentioned above, has tiny hairs poking in at the top of the frame that indicate that the frame line is just barely hidden.
(Lacking knowledge in this area, with the awareness that the ON is 8-perf horizontal, those hairs were obviously introduced in the lab, either back in '58, or when a 4-perf element was created for this transfer).


Lastly, another close-up of Peck from the beginning of the film and you might say, by his expression, that he is saying "too much headroom!!" (laughter!):



A few extra screengrabs:



I am convinced that this is not how the camera operator saw it this way in his viewfinder.

I need to add, specifically on the close-ups as a guide - a point of reference. Putting an imaginary horizontal line across the center of the frame and then vertically adjusting the shot with the line running between the nose and upper lip (when I've had the opportunity to supervise transfers this is what works for me and generally everything else mostly falls into place).
I may have made a mistake using the shot of Peck looking up at his hat, as most people would likely argue that it was deliberately composed that way but I would disagree.

 

[RMajidi]

I may have made a mistake using the shot of Peck looking up at his hat, as most people would likely argue that it was deliberately composed that way but I would disagree.

I'm completely out of my depth on technical matters, and wouldn't presume to know. Nevertheless, I'd have thought that if any close-up in this film needed to be vertically shifted, then the one with the hat would be it.

That scene was all about mocking Peck's choice of hat, and what better way to accentuate the 'fish-out-of-water' aspect, than to tilt the shot's bias into the hat's favour?

 

[RMajidi]

I get such a schizoid feeling from Kino. Their release schedule would suggest they care about film history and their customers; yet their representative often appears to hold both the films and the customers in disdain. It's hard to reconcile those two things sometimes; I never know how to feel about that label.

Glad I'm not alone in feeling this way, Josh. That thread reminds me of a UK comedy series that I love, called Black Books. If you've never seen it, I'd urge you to seek it out some time.

Very happy that Kino will be releasing The Big Country, as it increases the chances of MGM fixing it up.

 

[Stephen PI]

I'm completely out of my depth on technical matters, and wouldn't presume to know. Nevertheless, I'd have thought that if any close-up in this film needed to be vertically shifted, then the one with the hat would be it.

That scene was all about mocking Peck's choice of hat, and what better way to accentuate the 'fish-out-of-water' aspect, than to tilt the shot's bias into the hat's favour?

Fair argument. I should have picked another screengrab. I hoped with the rest of the samples that you and others would recognize the error. I repeat that this example is far from an isolated case. At the same time I realize that I was taking a chance with bringing up this subject again (I did some time ago with little support as a result) on this forum.
For some reason, having established the correct aspect ratio, vertical composition varies - particularly with older pre-SMPTE titles. Camera operators (when exposing the entire frame, but intended for wide-screen) added extra headroom protection and then when the SMPTE chart is applied in telecine, this problem is introduced. Not so much in later years when SMPTE introduced standards, so as a result the mattes aligned correctly over the frame.

 

[RMajidi]

Fair argument. I should have picked another screengrab. I hoped with the rest of the samples that you and others would recognize the error. I repeat that this example is far from an isolated case. At the same time I realize that I was taking a chance with bringing up this subject again (I did some time ago with little support as a result) on this forum.
For some reason, having established the correct aspect ratio, vertical composition varies - particularly with older pre-SMPTE titles. Camera operators (when exposing the entire frame, but intended for wide-screen) added extra headroom protection and then when the SMPTE chart is applied in telecine, this problem is introduced. Not so much in later years when SMPTE introduced standards, so as a result the mattes aligned correctly over the frame.

To be clear, it was just that one shot I was referring to. That wasn't in any way intended to defeat your point, which was well made with the remaining shots, and which I found quite educational.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

To Stephen Pi ... I think your second screen-shot in particular illustrates why I find this horizontal stretching so abhorrent. I know there are many members here who just don't notice it ... but this image in particular brings the problem right home!
I'm amazed that there has been no word yet from KL on whether this problem is going to be addressed!

 

[Stephen PI]

To Stephen Pi ... I think your second screen-shot in particular illustrates why I find this horizontal stretching so abhorrent. I know there are many members here who just don't notice it ... but this image in particular brings the problem right home!
I'm amazed that there has been no word yet from KL on whether this problem is going to be addressed!

I hope it is resolved because the horizontal stretching was holding me back from purchasing the blu ray.

 

[Stephen PI]

Another MGM mastering ("DOCTOR BLOOD'S COFFIN"). This time it is horizontally squeezed. I couldn't correct it. Nice transfer otherwise. Good color photography by Stephen Dade ("ZULU").