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

[Ken Volok]

Has anyone mentioned the shot in the cab with Kirk Douglas? I always remind myself of that shot when I'm not entirely satisfied with one of my own. In all past incarnations of The Fury , that shot has been the mother of all grain. Anybody have a screen capture of that shot?

 

[Jari K]

RAH has already given the TT version a 5 (and I have no reason to doubt that grade).

I guess mr. Harris haven't seen the Arrow release yet. Sometimes something feels great at the time - until some better comes along (at this case the time frame was short, but still). This has happened many MANY times over the years with the different "home video" releases.

I don't fully understand why the master from Fox (what TT is apparently using) should be the best master of this film? Again: There are many releases "out there" from Fox, MGM, WB, etc etc and some of those are far from perfect.

 

[OliverK]

Looking at the screencaps the arrow looks more natural and less sharpened.Lidenbrock is of course right that sharpening has been applied to the TT disc, the issue here is that some think a little less could have been used not that it shouldn't be used at all - leave a little headroom and let buyers sharpen some more if they need to.I tried to sharpen the Arrow and it does not go up to the level of detail in the TT version as there simply is more detail in the TT caps. No idea if it is the caps or the way they were done but I would think that the elements for the digital masters that these Blu-rays are based on were different. Possibly arrow had an element to work with that was a generation away from the element that TT used, would be nice to hear about that (negative vs interpositive maybe?)Also interesting: In one comparison the whites are more blown out in the arrow disc and in the other in the TT disc, rather interesting.

 

[John Hodson]

Oliver; do not rely on screencaps to tell you the whole story. There's information on the release on this page by lyris1 aka David Mackenzie who performed the encode.

 

[Robert Harris]

But you know as well as I that IF this same comparison were being done and it wasn't a Twilight Time release, everyone, and I mean EVERYONE would be comparing screen shots and crying DNR, in the same way they cry it for Zulu. Because I don't care how fine or not fine the grain is, how can you explain the extreme and I mean EXTREME loss of detail in the facial features of that last cap - ALL the lines on the forehead are literally gone. I certainly understand the possibility that the Beaver's caps may be incredibly incorrect, which is why I'll wait until I see the Arrow release before making with the pronouncements. I highly recommend you do the same.

Agreed. I was unaware of this discussion before receiving an email from James White.Two things occurring.First, Arrow has chosen to have a new transfer produced by Fox. I have yet to see the final result and precisely how it compares to the TT.Second, I'm not seeing any viable grabs on line that compare one to the other.I had no problems with the TT release. The new image harvest would probably have been performed on different equipment, which could yield a different look. Is the older transfer a bit more specular when it comes to grain? Possibly.But keep something in mind. Digital cleanup aside. Modern film stocks do not add grain. They create a slightly more velvety image, having removed the extreme edges of the grain.Does a newer transfer warrant importing a region locked example from the UK? Possibly, if one is a huge fan of the film. Personally, I'm happy with the TT, but I may not be the consummate audience for this film.A final point. There is no contest between TT via Fox and Arrow. Each entity is doing there own thing. I would not allow rather confusing frame grabs to be the basis of discussion.I'm actually more interested in words, such as irregardless. A favorite, as few people seem to know the meaning, even if they choose to use it, is penultimate.RAH

 

[Robert Harris]

Looking at the screencaps the arrow looks more natural and less sharpened.Lidenbrock is of course right that sharpening has been applied to the TT disc, the issue here is that some think a little less could have been used not that it shouldn't be used at all - leave a little headroom and let buyers sharpen some more if they need to.I tried to sharpen the Arrow and it does not go up to the level of detail in the TT version as there simply is more detail in the TT caps. No idea if it is the caps or the way they were done but I would think that the elements for the digital masters that these Blu-rays are based on were different. Possibly arrow had an element to work with that was a generation away from the element that TT used, would be nice to hear about that (negative vs interpositive maybe?)Also interesting: In one comparison the whites are more blown out in the arrow disc and in the other in the TT disc, rather interesting.

To make any judgment, one is best to examine the dpx files. Short of that Blu to Blu. Also, TT does not affect transfers. They do not sharpen. On would have to examine the film elements(s), scanner settings, etc to find out if something has been sharpened or if the look is specular.Not quite as easy as visiting one's local purveyor of frame grabs.RAH

 

[Robert Harris]

One more bit of info. Scan was performed at deluxe LA from the OCN. James White viewed test scans before approving the full feature scan, which should be the norm.Dpx files sent to London for all finishing work. All grading, clean-up and conform done at deluxe London.RAH

 

[OliverK]

Thanks to RAH and John Hodson for the added information.Of course I have neither access to both Blu-rays (the TT version is obviously out of print) nor to the dpx files although that would surely be something.So I commented on what in my opinion were incorrect observations regarding the screencaps (i.e. the TT version not havingmore detail when in fact thre is more detail - and more sharpening).I am sure that someone who compares the actual Blu-rays will find something to like in both of them.

 

[Robin9]

I'm actually more interested in words, such as irregardless. A favorite, as few people seem to know the meaning, even if they choose to use it, is penultimate.RAH

Penultimate means second from last. An even better word - which I never dare use because it's so esoteric - is antepenultimate.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

As far as I know the TT release had no clean up work performed and was released as it was received from fox. Again as far as I know the Arrow releases is a new scan overseen by James White & David Mackenzie so by definition your going to get a much better release than has been previously available.
This is not knocking the TT releases, just that this one has had some of the very best working on it and going of their previous work this will look very good indeed.

 

[bujaki]

Penultimate means second from last. An even better word - which I never dare use because it's so esoteric - is antepenultimate.

Both common words in Spanish.

 

[Robert Harris]

Penultimate means second from last. An even better word - which I never dare use because it's so esoteric - is antepenultimate.

Many people hear the word, and feel it means the best of the best.

Which reminds me of a film fest that my partner, when I was in distribution, went to decades ago. I believe it was
the Sinking Creek Fest.

The end of the evening comes and the host announces the aware for Best Film of the Festival. Applause. Nice speech. And before the delighted winner is back to their table, the announcement is made...

"And now for the Very Best Film..."

The word I would use is crestfallen.

RAH

 

[Richard Gallagher]

Thanks to RAH and John Hodson for the added information.Of course I have neither access to both Blu-rays (the TT version is obviously out of print) nor to the dpx files although that would surely be something.So I commented on what in my opinion were incorrect observations regarding the screencaps (i.e. the TT version not havingmore detail when in fact thre is more detail - and more sharpening).I am sure that someone who compares the actual Blu-rays will find something to like in both of them.

It technically is out of print, but TCM still has copies which are going for $34.95 plus shipping.

The Fury (Twilight Time)

 

[haineshisway]

As far as I know the TT release had no clean up work performed and was released as it was received from fox. Again as far as I know the Arrow releases is a new scan overseen by James White & David Mackenzie so by definition your going to get a much better release than has been previously available.
This is not knocking the TT releases, just that this one has had some of the very best working on it and going of their previous work this will look very good indeed.

This is what I'm most interested to see. The only signs of non-cleanup I saw in the Twilight Time disc was dirt printed into the opticals. That dirt has ALWAYS been there in all the theatrical prints - it happens all the time with opticals and I'm interested to see if that's been cleaned up - whether one agrees with the cleanup of something that's always been part of the film is another discussion for another day. Because while I'd have to watch the Twilight Time again, which I will do as soon as I have the Arrow disc, I don't recall any dirt other than that printed into the very long opticals (and even the short opticals).

It's amusing - I'm being taken to task at the criterion forum, for being a Twilight Time apologist or some such idiotic thing. Of course, it's perfectly okay for them to be Twilight Time haters, that's fine, that's dandy. A little delusional, but it's the Internet. They do neglect to mention the posts wherein I specifically say that once I've seen both transfers I will weigh in with my thoughts and if I like the Arrow better that I will state that clearly. Yes, they ignore that because it doesn't fall in line with their theory. They also ignore that Mr. Harris felt exactly as I did about the Twilight Time transfer. Funny that. I'm very anxious to get the Arrow disc, but obviously ordered it from amazon rather than Arrow, and therefore it doesn't ship until street date. It's fascinating that street date means something on one site but not on another.

 

[FoxyMulder]

They also ignore that Mr. Harris felt exactly as I did about the Twilight Time transfer.

Even experts get it wrong from time to time and i say that as someone who respects the work of Mr Harris greatly, indeed he is the reason i signed up for this site as i enjoy his posts.

 

[Robert Harris]

Even experts get it wrong from time to time and i say that as someone who respects the work of Mr Harris greatly, indeed he is the reason i signed up for this site as i enjoy his posts.

Quite correct. There are so many layers to what needs to be achieved and so many people involved, that there's always something that could have been done better.

RAH

 

[haineshisway]

I think the point here is that even someone who has worked for Arrow has said the Twilight Time transfer was fine - it looked like the prints did in the theater because it was off an internegative. Now we have one off the camera negative and the reports are good, the caps aren't really good because at least some of them have little detail, which we're told may just be the caps themselves, and those who are aware of how I feel about caps know that I don't put any stock in them, so I'm just waiting patiently. Mr. Harris wasn't wrong with his grade just as I and many others weren't wrong in saying it was an excellent transfer that reflected what the film looked like in theaters.

It's the same with CD reissues. One comes out, apparently definitive. Then someone finds tapes that are closer to the source or are just handled in a different way and suddenly the definitive release isn't so definitive and the new one is. I put out Poltergeist II on CD recently - completely redone from the analogue rather than digital masters. There had been three previous releases, and everyone was fine with each - until they heard our new version, which has gotten universal praise from everyone, with everyone saying it is far and away the best presentation and sound this score has ever had. But here's the difference: Does it mean people come on message boards and bellyache about the previous releases not being up to snuff? No, because until ours they WERE up to snuff for what they were. But that's not the case with Twilight Time - the negativity towards this label is unprecedented - yes, in the scheme of things it's only coming from, what, twenty or thirty of the same people on the same boards ad nauseum - half of it would go away if the price was cheaper - that's what this little hobby is about for most people - what coupon can they use in conjunction with what sale so they can get something for five bucks - it's a total game and all one has to do is read the boards to see that. Or they'll just be patient and wait till it's ten bucks, but then they'll wait some more till it's five bucks, and even then a lot of these people don't buy it. The bottom line is, why make 100 posts about the same thing? You have a choice - buy or don't buy. That's really the end of the story, isn't it? But they can't stop - not only can they not stop, they take sheer and utter delight in it, whether it's personal sniping at Nick or anyone who likes Twilight Time, or just the same tired crap over and over and over again. Don't these people have lives? Don't they have movies to watch? I do realize that many of them are content with just looking at the screen caps of films without ever actually purchasing the films And then, when Nick has the temerity to call these people on it, he's childish or ranting - sorry, if you have the ability to post the endless sniping then you should be able to take it when it's dished back. But they can't. They get wounded and play the victim. Why should Nick not comment on cretinous behavior and call it out? Why is that terrible but their behavior isn't?

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

It's the same with CD reissues. One comes out, apparently definitive. Then someone finds tapes that are closer to the source or are just handled in a different way and suddenly the definitive release isn't so definitive and the new one is.

That's why I tend to stay away from using the word "definitive", a lesson learned twenty years with a particular laser disc box set.

 

[haineshisway]

That's why I tend to stay away from using the word "definitive", a lesson learned twenty years with a particular laser disc box set.

Exactly. Although no one said the Twilight Time transfer was definitive. They said it was excellent, which it was and is. Now we apparently have something better from the camera negative - we shall see all too soon.

 

[Jari K]

That's why I tend to stay away from using the word "definitive", a lesson learned twenty years with a particular laser disc box set.

It's true. There's really no such a thing as "definitive". And at the end of the day the word means slightly different thing to different people. You can always add more extras, you can always create a new transfer (if e.g. better elements are found), you can always fine-tune the audio (e.g. create new mixes/lossless audio) and even the director can go back and create an alternate cut of the film.

Then again for many the original look, original cut and the original audio track is already "definitive".