A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Bridge on the River Kwai-- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert

I guess it's just that we don't understand your point. It's not a scene that you will show off to demonstrate bluray quality, therefore.......what?

Because I have a couple of buddies that like classic war films so this is a disc I would show them about the benefits of Blu-ray and with that scene being the first one, right after the credits it will contrast with the rest of the disc. That's all, nothing for anybody to get that excited about as my point was a very small one.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

The point is simply that while the shot looks "perfect" in one sense, in another sense it doesn't look "good."

 

[JohnMor]

I think many of us got your point, Robert, and agree with it. It's funny to see the replies though. Ah, the internet. Sigh.

 

[Robert Harris]

The fact that the shot was not only a blow-up, but also distorted, having gone directly from 1.33 to 2.35 via an unsqueeze, and left an eagle that looked rather corpulent and ungainly, led DL to consider replacing the shot back in 1989 with a better source, if one could be located. I'm pleased that no change ever occurred.

RAH

 

[bugsy-pal]

Re the shot of the eagle... I seem to remember a similar thing occuring near the beginning of "Mister Roberts", where a shot of battleships at sea was stretched out to fill the scope width. I only noticed it when I recently watched the Warners DVD.

 

[Paul Penna]

A couple shots of whales breaching in "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" are also obvious 16mm blowups stretched out to Cinemascope AR.

 

[Robin9]

I watched this BRD last night and I understood exactly Robert Crawford's point. A wonderful BRD of a wonderful film. One of my all-time favorite movies on one of the best discs in my collection.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I also noted some image "popping" in fade transitions, likely the result of dupe sections of the harvested element. Am I correct?

 

[haineshisway]

If there's what you call "popping" it's most likely because the opticals were cut in short - which some people did to make the optical as short as possible.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

That's definitely what I'm seeing. There's an appreciable, though not severe, loss of resolution as the shot crossfades, then it returns to normal.

 

[Douglas R]

That's definitely what I'm seeing. There's an appreciable, though not severe, loss of resolution as the shot crossfades, then it returns to normal.

If you are talking about the change in picture quality before and after a dissolve, then that was present in every color film of that era. It was simply an effect of how the dissolve was created in post production - although no doubt someone can explain the exact technicalities. In the '50s i always noticed the change in picture quality and thought to myself "Here comes a dissolve".

 

[rsmithjr]

If you are talking about the change in picture quality before and after a dissolve, then that was present in every color film of that era. It was simply an effect of how the dissolve was created in post production - although no doubt someone can explain the exact technicalities. In the '50s i always noticed the change in picture quality and thought to myself "Here comes a dissolve".

There is more to this story. Films of that era that were printed in dye-transfer Technicolor often had the negative configured for "A/B rolls" or later "autoselect". This allowed the dissolves, fades and other functions to be done in the printer when the 3 matrices were made for dye-transfer printing. The result is a beautiful dissolve without the "here comes" change in quality. Look at the Paramount VistaVision films to see how it was really done correctly. With non-dye-transfer printing, the negative is configured with "dupe" sections that contain the dissolves. These were at least a generation or two down from the negative, and hence were grainier and often exhibited a color shift. Most Fox CinemaScope films were quite obvious about this.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by rsmithjr
There is more to this story.
Films of that era that were printed in dye-transfer Technicolor often had the negative configured for "A/B rolls" or later "autoselect". This allowed the dissolves, fades and other functions to be done in the printer when the 3 matrices were made for dye-transfer printing. The result is a beautiful dissolve without the "here comes" change in quality. Look at the Paramount VistaVision films to see how it was really done correctly.
With non-dye-transfer printing, the negative is configured with "dupe" sections that contain the dissolves. These were at least a generation or two down from the negative, and hence were grainier and often exhibited a color shift. Most Fox CinemaScope films were quite obvious about this.

Kwai was a British production, cut and conformed for dye transfer printing.
RAH

 

[tns49]

With the new 4k release now announced., the question is whether its a completely new scan. And of the HDR will stick to closely reproducting the original look or greatly change its appearance.

 

[Jimbo64]

Still a favorite blu-ray of mine after all these years

 

[willyTass]

Sony UK have quietly slipped in the original mono audio on re-pressings of the 4k.

It’s 2 channel Mono