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

[Ken_McAlinden]

The contrast looks artificially lowered to me, which causes a lot of other problems. This is frustrating, but for a film that has never looked remotely passable in any video or broadcast incarnation I have seen (which is most of them since the mid-1980s), I'll take it. Previous releases looked like recordings of video artifacts that occasionally coalesced into hints of Academy Award winning cinematography. I took my father and oldest daughter to go see a vintage print of it at The Redford Theater in Detroit last March which was sublime. This at least resembles the same film.

 

Since I have never seen, nor owned this, I'm not waiting any longer for a better version to come out. I'm getting this and will hopefully enjoy the story and the characters. That is the most important thing to me.

 

[Filmgazer]

MIght the "resgistration problems" to which you refer be because the original three-strip Technicolor elements weren't used for the video transfer? Olive Films proudly states on the Blu-ray case that the transfer is "Newly re-mastered in HD from a 4K scan of the original camera negative". Well, shouldn't that read "negatives" if they, in fact, used the original three-strip elements? Someone on another website hypothesized that Olive Films may have only had an older composite negative from years ago with which to work. I'm certainly grateful that this great film has been released on Blu-ray in a form that's far superior to the previous DVD. But until some company like Criterion gets hold of the original three-strip Technicolor elements, this is the probably the best that the film will look on home video. Your thoughts?

 

[ScottHM]

One thing I can say about this new Blu-ray is that the level of detail is quite revealing...

---------------

 

MIght the "resgistration problems" to which you refer be because the original three-strip Technicolor elements weren't used for the video transfer? Olive Films proudly states on the Blu-ray case that the transfer is "Newly re-mastered in HD from a 4K scan of the original camera negative". Well, shouldn't that read "negatives" if they, in fact, used the original three-strip elements? Someone on another website hypothesized that Olive Films may have only had an older composite negative from years ago with which to work. I'm certainly grateful that this great film has been released on Blu-ray in a form that's far superior to the previous DVD. But until some company like Criterion gets hold of the original three-strip Technicolor elements, this is the probably the best that the film will look on home video. Your thoughts?

I watched this tonight on my projector. The registration problems were really of no consequence to me, very minor. The biggest issue to me is the milky black level of so many scenes. A lot of scenes are fine and the detail is excellent. It seems to me just simple contrast, gamma, and brightness adjustments to these scenes would have made it much better. It is still much improved over previous versions.

 

[OliverK]

Where does this leave The Quiet Man, as a film, if original and asset protection elements are used incorrectly, and no new viable digital elements are produced? There is little rationale for additional future work to be performed, as this is only going to get done once. Do we really see The Quiet Man being a part of a 4k release?  The reality is that it's an ugly stepchild, and surviving under the Viacom umbrella. The library is best sold to some entity that cares, and has the funds to see that it survives. This is a film that won the Academy Award for Best Color Cinematography in 1952, and deserves far better treatment than it is getting. There are no excuses. RAH

You are very correct about all of this and beyond having at least a decent Blu-Ray (which imo cannot really be said for the other titles I mentioned) there remains the question of future work that would have to be done and how to generate revenue when everybody is happy with what is already out in the limited Blu-Ray market. So it leaves the consumer in a more satisfying position than the film itself.

 

[OliverK]

Sli 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.

This is oh so true. Standard Blu-Ray cases look dumb and they are NOT neutral and due to that distract from most original movie artwork and twisting the artwork toward blue to make it more in sync with the color of the case makes things even worse. Why would I want to have a bluish influence in the cover of every movie I own on Blu-Ray? Looking at classic movies and their covers there is rarely much blue in it so the creepy translucent blue of the standard Blu-Ray case is an insult to anybody who has respect for original movie artwork imo.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Alright, my BD finally arrived yesterday afternoon due to some bad weather delaying its delivery. However, I decided not to watch this BD until early this morning because I wanted to be well rested and fully alert when viewing it. During my viewing I did notice the concerns RAH and Bruce have noted here. With that said, I am still happy with this BD release as it's the best presentation I've seen of this film. No doubt, it could've look better with darker blacks. However, considering my worse fears prior to this BD release, it's not only passable, but for the most part, an enjoyable presentation of one of my favorite films of all-time. I highly recommend this BD for anybody that really loves this film. Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
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

The problem is most people of today haven't viewed the original 35mm dye transfer print so for them I don't think they care enough, if it's a true and accurate comparison as long as it looks and sounds good on their HT setup. It's only a true and accurate comparison for those of us that believe in the following excerpts taken from HTF's mission statement. I believe in it, but I'm also a realist when it comes to today's home video industry in which compromises are made which affects the overall quality of the final video product. Such deficiencies should be noted here in the hope that the industry will one day correct them so that any future video format release will become as close to the original film as possible.

We the members of the forum are interested in the film product to be recorded and reproduced as closely as possible to the way the original creator(s) of that particular film intended. We respect the integrity of all artists involved in creating the original film as well as those who helped bringing the product to a form suited to be used in a home theater environment.

Currently we acknowledge DVD and Blu-ray as the main, most advanced and most important media for films and TV shows to be (re-)presented in our homes. We certainly will not exclude other suitable media from our discussions, however. We strive for the highest achievable quality (video and sound) to be recorded on disc, to be sold and/or rented in a form free for consumers to use in their homes. We want to advance films and TV shows to be represented as complete as possible and with their full image and soundtrack, as intended by the original creators, intact. We want the best soundstage obtainable in a home environment.

 

[Robert Harris]

The problem is most people of today haven't viewed the original 35mm dye transfer print so for them I don't think they care enough, if it's a true and accurate comparison as long as it looks and sounds good on their HT setup.  It's only a true and accurate comparison for those of us that believe in the following excerpts taken from HTF's mission statement.  I believe in it, but I'm also a realist when it comes to today's home video industry in which compromises are made which affects the overall quality of the final video product.  Such deficiencies should be noted here in the hope that the industry will one day correct them so that any future video format release will become as close to the original film as possible. 

True. Reminds me of the small number of Oldsmobiles (or were they Pontiacs) delivered to customers with a 6 rather than 8 cylinder engine. Apparently all the correct badging was in place on the exterior. Slowly, people found out about the error. They had no idea. Some weren't troubled and graciously agreed to a refund for the cost differential. Others, not so pleased. With The Quiet Man, we have a perfect example of Sony's recently discussed 4k scans toward higher quality home software. In this case, however, in the wrong hands. In the end, presuming the scans are good, they may be able to serve as the basis of something better for the future. But for the present Blu-ray, the 4k marketing, along with the resultant post work, are of little real value. Most people have not seen the UCLA composite of the same elements, which sits in a vault. Outside of some registration problems, most likely due to shrinkage, it's a quality job by Mr. Gitt and his team. It was created in the analogue realm, on a special three-headed optical printer, at full film resolution. A 4k scan of that element would probably have served as the basis for a more film-like presentation than Olive has created via their digital scanning. At a 67% cost savings in scanning. Digital is not always better. That point made, the public should expect a Blu-ray product, which has garnered as much hype, pre-release publicity and marketing to live up to the promise of both HD as well as BD marketing for those playback platforms. What was it? "The look and sound of cinema" In this case, we have an acceptable, not terribly pretty, take on classic three-strip Technicolor. That isn't. Unfortuntely, if the consumer is unaware of what that should look like, no one will be the wiser, or more importantly, understand what was so special about the cinematography of this film, that set it apart from all the others in 1952, and gave it an Academy Award. RAH

 

[John Weller]

Sli 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.

My issue with Criterion's boxes is the disc holder seems a tad too tight, not as comfortable as the Amaray case

 

[Keith Cobby]

If you want to see how good Maureen O'Hara can look in Technicolor I recommend the German release of Against All Flags. This is one of the very best catalogue Blu-ray's I have seen. Regarding Olive releases, I have several of these and I assume that they are films which Paramount would not be releasing on Blu-ray and this is our only opportunity to have them. I guess that Paramount will eventually release (through Warners) their best titles, including those on VistaVision. It seems to me that whilst we all want our favourite titles to be restored to look their absolute best on Blu-ray, the fact is we are going down the DVD route. Some titles are given appropriate care and attention based on perceived importance, likely sales and the personal favourites of studio executives. I am grateful to Olive and Twilight Time for their efforts.

 

[Rob W]

Paramount is now offering a dcp of this title for theatrical exhibition - it will be interesting to see if it looks any different than the Olive transfer.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Rob W
Paramount is now offering a dcp of this title for theatrical exhibition - it will be interesting to see if it looks any different than the Olive transfer.

The bigger it is, the worse it will look.
RAH

 

[JoHud]

Just watched it, and I just have to say it is definitely one of the better Olive releases and the picture clarity and detail are great with hardly a spec of dust. I watched on a 50" set, so some of the more inherent flaws weren't really noticeable to me except maybe some of the colors looked a little off. However it didn't stick out as much as the West Side Story blu-ray, which I had more of a problem with in that regard. I can also see the issues issues Bruce and others mention regarding the light/milky contrast, which seems incorrect for this feature.

 

[Peter Neski]

when you say dcp does that mean 4K??

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

when you say dcp does that mean 4K??

Not necessarily. DCP's can be 2K or 4K, but that doesn't tell you what the original source file may or may not be, resolution-wise. There have been "2K" DCP's of some repertory titles that only have a 1080p version on them.

 

[Eastmancolor]

I have a Panasonic digital projector and though I usually keep the brightness setting at around +2 for most films, I found that if I dropped it down to -10, as well as set the contrast at around +15 that the new blu-ray comes over looking more "Technicolor-y" with stronger black levels and more saturated colors. Opticals and some stray shots (mainly exterior long shots) are a tad "harsh" looking, but overall I enjoyed the presentation. As RH mentioned, it's much better than what we're used to with previous home video versions, it's just too bad they didn't knock it out of the park.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Eastmancolor
I have a Panasonic digital projector and though I usually keep the brightness setting at around +2 for most films, I found that if I dropped it down to -10, as well as set the contrast at around +15 that the new blu-ray comes over looking more "Technicolor-y" with stronger black levels and more saturated colors.
Opticals and some stray shots (mainly exterior long shots) are a tad "harsh" looking, but overall I enjoyed the presentation. As RH mentioned, it's much better than what we're used to with previous home video versions, it's just too bad they didn't knock it out of the park.

Weren't you blowing out whites a bit?

 

[Eastmancolor]

Weren't you blowing out whites a bit?

There are some intermittent shots where the sky is a bit blown out, but at least on the Panasonic projector +15 is a lower contrast setting and so most of the whites were fine. Setting the brightness down to -10 took a lot of the milkiness out of the blacks, making the image much richer looking than it would be at the normal "out of the box" settings. Of course you can only go so far before you start losing detail, but I found that taking it down to its lowest tolerable setting actually gave the blu-ray a good Technicolor look. Blacks were much less hazy and color saturation increased. Perfect? No. Better? Yes.