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

[ScottHM]

I got mine yesterday and viewed about 10-15 minutes of it, and while it is an order of magnitude better than the DVD I'm still a bit disapointed in it. It's difficult to complain about a Blu-ray that looks so much better than the DVD, yet I was hoping for a bit more. Overall it looks a little flat and seems to be lacking in contrast. ---------------

 

[JoeDoakes]

I was doing my best to explain what this film looks like, and came away empty. Now I realize what was disturbing me in a general sense. Unlike dye transfer prints of the era, which had a lush, velvety look, Olive's 4k work leaves the image devoid of that beauty.  In its place what we get is something that appears gritty, hard and unfortunately, unpleasant.  Then, allow your eye to move away from the central image, and you're hit by mis-registration.  I can't image why Olive made the decision to move all the scanning and post gear into their own facility, and have a go at it.  Possibly hardware was shipped without the requisite training wheels. I'll accept all the useless covers in the world, for a quality image.  That's fair.  Surely. RAH

Any guess what would cause something like that?

 

[JoeDoakes]

Yes, there are whole threads with page after nauseating page about the slipcovers. They are a complete waste of a studio's time and money to do them, frankly - that money could be better spent elsewhere.

When you have releases that are put in display shelves at places like Walmart, the cardboard covers can make them more eyecatching and may help increase sales. The Quiet Man might make Walmart but none of Olive's other releases have, so I can understand the use of the slipcover on this release.

 

[OliverK]

From what I've read on various boards, I was expecting the second coming from this transfer. However, once you understand the game, that all those people making with the pronouncements haven't actually seen the transfer in motion but are basing their comments on a handful of screen captures, one learns to stop taking that nonsense seriously. Because it is very simple to find one FRAME of a film that looks excellent - it's simple to find ten FRAMES of a film that look excellent (unless one is deliberately trying to find frames that show problems - which happens a lot). They are just what they are: FRAMES, and can never ever be representative of watching a MOTION picture. So, I must completely agree with Mr. Harris on this, because it is not the second coming and it could have been lots better. It is, of course, a MIRACLE compared to the abominations that have come before it on home video - those were simply not even watchable. For me, the contrast is too milky, and, as Mr. Harris states, there are obvious registration problems. But even with those caveats, one is so very grateful to have a Blu-ray that at least approximates the beauty that is The Quiet Man. Buy without fear, but know had a little more TLC been given, this could have been one for the Blu-ray ages.

The screencaps over on Blu-Ray.com look rather strange and not like the second coming, they are rather in sync with what you and RAH have to say about the disc. The reviewer who gave it a 5 out of 5 is somebody whose opinion about the picture quality of a movie I would never trust as he has been far off more often than once and he is also remarkably insensitive to even the most obvious examples of grain/noise reduction.

 

[haineshisway]

The screencaps over on Blu-Ray.com look rather strange and not like the second coming, they are rather in sync with what you and RAH have to say about the disc. The reviewer who gave it a 5 out of 5 is somebody whose opinion about the picture quality of a movie I would never trust as he has been far off more often than once and he is also remarkably insensitive to even the most obvious examples of grain/noise reduction.

Haven't seen the caps - try never to look at them. I was just reporting on the reaction to them on various boards, which is that they thought it was the second coming or something. It does look like the second coming when compared to any previous home video release - that's what fools people. But the contrast is way too milky and light to be representative of dye transfer Technicolor.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by JoeDoakes
Any guess what would cause something like that?

Scans handled incorrectly.
RAH

 

[Ruz-El]

It's kind of sad that a transfer that seems to at best be described as decent and not terrible will get me to finally buy this film and watch it for the first time. Thanks for the words once again Mr. Harris!

 

[Joel Fontenot]

I am going to get this, even if it's not the absolute best it can be - it seems to be miles ahead of my old Artisan DVD release. Hopefully, the interest may spur a better future effort. I will say that the screen caps I've seen do tend to illustrate some of the issues that Mr. Harris describes. You can see some of the registration problems as you move out from the center of the frame. Still, the general definition in the colors looks so much better than before.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Joel Fontenot
I am going to get this, even if it's not the absolute best it can be - it seems to be miles ahead of my old Artisan DVD release.
Hopefully, the interest may spur a better future effort.
I will say that the screen caps I've seen do tend to illustrate some of the issues that Mr. Harris describes. You can see some of the registration problems as you move out from the center of the frame. Still, the general definition in the colors looks so much better than before.

Color on three-strip is simple, as everything that was there in 1952, is there is 2013. Silver halide crystals do not fade, and perfection is attainable.
With our current technology, there is no reason to have any of the problems that I'm seeing on this film
RAH

 

[JoHud]

I recall some of the early press on this title state it was going to be "restored," yet none of the advertising or description on the front of back cover art of the disc state such. Did they back out of such an endeavor, or am I misremembering? Edit: Checked the press release and it was indeed advertised as "remastered" like it is on the release packaging. It must have been from before the disc was officially announced by Olive Films.

When you have releases that are put in display shelves at places like Walmart, the cardboard covers can make them more eyecatching and may help increase sales. The Quiet Man might make Walmart but none of Olive's other releases have, so I can understand the use of the slipcover on this release.

I'm curious on whether this would happen, even with Olive's new and upcoming John Wayne titles. A deal with Wal-Mart (or other major department store) for in-store shelf space would be a huge boost in sales or business in general, especially for a small outfit like Olive. However, I find it somewhat unlikely. Did Criterion's Stagecoach ever make it to Wal-Mart shelves? I only ever recall seeing it at Best Buy. Though I haven't visited a Barnes & Noble store lately, I had never even seen an Olive title sold there either, and they specialize in getting shelf-space on some of the more niche home video releases. However, you are right in that is generally the purpose of those sleeves on single-disc cases. Universal used them for many of their 100th anniversary blu-ray and DVD releases with the same sort of sleeve Olive is using for the some purpose of on-the-shelf marketing. I'm with RAH on the uselessness of this sort of sleeve in general. At least the Kino sleeves and other similarly designed sleeves hold the disc inside without it slipping through the top or bottom.

 

[haineshisway]

While getting in Walmart might "seem" like a huge boost in sales, you can bet your boots that Walmart would not be ordering more than a handful of copies for most stores and they'd be doing so at a HUGELY discounted rate and then, if they don't sell, they can return every one of them. And is it available there? Because for my money it would be silly of Olive to put it in Walmart considering the downsides.

 

[Persianimmortal]

When you have releases that are put in display shelves at places like Walmart, the cardboard covers can make them more eyecatching and may help increase sales. The Quiet Man might make Walmart but none of Olive's other releases have, so I can understand the use of the slipcover on this release.

You might have to explain to me how any cardboard slipcover, which is usually just a mirror of the case artwork in most instances, makes a blu-ray any more-eye catching on a shelf. I can understand special lenticular (3D-like) or shiny embossed covers may get more attention, but the majority are standard slipcovers I've been getting with a range of my blu-rays (and which end up in the bin moments after I take them off) - they aren't anything worth wasting resources on. I admire Twilight Time for not going down the slipcover path, and I hope Olive quickly reverses its decision to do so. Put the money into something more productive please.

 

[Ruz-El]

Sli

Originally Posted by Persianimmortal
You might have to explain to me how any cardboard slipcover, which is usually just a mirror of the case artwork in most instances, makes a blu-ray any more-eye catching on a shelf. I can understand special lenticular (3D-like) or shiny embossed covers may get more attention, but the majority are standard slipcovers I've been getting with a range of my blu-rays (and which end up in the bin moments after I take them off) - they aren't anything worth wasting resources on.
I admire Twilight Time for not going down the slipcover path, and I hope Olive quickly reverses its decision to do so. Put the money into something more productive please.

Slip covers typically allow for a slightly larger front graphic and definitely larger text on the spin since the bluray case is skinny and rounded on the sides, and has that dumb blue plastic above the clear plastic sleeve that the insert slips into forcing smaller front graphics. That would be my guess as to why they are so common and more eye catching then those without. That said, I stand by my opinion that what makes Criterion Collection cases so beautiful on and off the shelf is their lack of using the dumb blu-ray standard cases or slipcovers on single title releases.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Watched this last night and I am very pleased considering what has come before and that Olive is a pretty rinky-dink outfit (IMO). Yes the blacks aren't the best ever in a lot of scenes (I assume this is what is meant by "milky") and there are some registration issues. But it looks pretty much like film and the colors are great. I'd probably give it a four out of five.

 

[Robert Harris]

Watched this last night and I am very pleased considering what has come before and that Olive is a pretty rinky-dink outfit (IMO). Yes the blacks aren't the best ever in a lot of scenes (I assume this is what is meant by "milky") and there are some registration issues. But it looks pretty much like film and the colors are great. I'd probably give it a four out of five.

You're far too kind and forgiving.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
You're far too kind and forgiving.

Or you're too critical.
Crawdaddy

 

[JParker]

The magnificent Ms O'Hara, will be 93 in August.  We can only hope that she's well, and enjoying what will hopefully be her middle years. RAH

http://www.johnwaynebirthplace.org/index.html#2013JWBC

 

[JParker]

I was doing my best to explain what this film looks like, and came away empty. Now I realize what was disturbing me in a general sense. Unlike dye transfer prints of the era, which had a lush, velvety look, Olive's 4k work leaves the image devoid of that beauty. In its place what we get is something that appears gritty, hard and unfortunately, unpleasant. Then, allow your eye to move away from the central image, and you're hit by mis-registration. I can't image why Olive made the decision to move all the scanning and post gear into their own facility, and have a go at it. Possibly hardware was shipped without the requisite training wheels. I'll accept all the useless covers in the world, for a quality image. That's fair. Surely. RAH

First, I look forward to seeing this Blu-ray and suspect, despite the flaws discussed, it's still a "quantum leap" from the prior Artisan DVD. At the risk of unintentionally provoking ire, if I may pose a question to anyone who has an answer. Mr. Harris wrote here: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/323399/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-in-blu-ray

Best thing to do was to go to the source, which in this case is the team responsible for restoration and mastering at Paramount. A conference call was arranged with Andrea Kalas, VP of Archives, Laura Thornburg, Exec. Dir, Restoration and Preservation, Archives, and Jeff Cava, Supervising Librarian, Restoration and Preservation, Archives. Jeff is an old friend, who had overseen the audio work with Walter Murch, updating and cleaning the original tracks for the 2007 restoration of The Godfather(s).

Couldn't Olive had made use of this talent at Paramount? Did they really do this restoration themselves? If it were a little better, I suspect The Quiet Man could serve as a demo for the 4K OLED technology recently screened at CES. http://www.extremetech.com/computing/145155-oled-tvs-at-ces-2013-the-wait-is-nearly-finally-just-about-over-probably Just a question of a hobbyist, as it were; I'm not in "the trade" and there's no potential personal benefit, other than seeing a superlative version of this great film. I realize Olive isn't Paramount, I've no idea why Paramount didn't release or do the Blu-ray themselves, but it's too bad, if Mr. Harris is right, that the Blu-ray doesn't reach the potential inherent in the extant film elements and the film itself.

 

[JimMiller]

Watched my copy today. Comparing it to my DVD, it is much, much sharper. 30% of the shots look absolutely perfect. The rest will do. If this is the best it will look, I can live with it. This is one of my favorite films. I'm not sure if it's because it represents a way of life that was (or maybe never was) but the occasional tear creeps into the eye when I watch it. And thanks, Robert. I always look forward to your reviews and insight.

 

[Robert Harris]

Or you're too critical. Crawdaddy

The reality of the situation is that what viewers are seeing, is the typical 600% increase in image quality, along with the difference between an archaic and horrific transfer, and a new high resolution image harvest, used to create a highly flawed final product. This Blu-ray is far from what it has the potential for being, buts shines in comparison to even its best representation on DVD. Unfortunately, for accuracy in reporting and discussion, that is an irrelevant comparison, that continues to be made. The only true and accurate comparison, should be vs. an original 35mm dye transfer print. RAH