A Few Words About A few words about...™ To Catch a Thief -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[ShellOilJunior]

 
Hi Jeff - welcome to the forum!  Just curious, has it been confirmed that Universal is not releasing RW this year?  There is a Hitch BD set known to be coming later this year but the titles are still the subject of speculation.  Did I miss a posting somewhere that cleared this up?  Incidentally, I agree with you that this film is top notch Hitchcock.  I've seen this projected via 35mm several times (the RAH restoration) and it looked wonderful on the big screen.
 

I'd be surprised if we didn't see it this year. Ideally, they'd release it in the summer. It's one of those films that goes so well with a hot summer evening.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce /t/318618/a-few-words-about-to-catch-a-thief-in-blu-ray/120#post_3911160
Apples and oranges. However in many cases an original 4k digital image, from a camera like the Red Epic or Sony CineAlta F65, can often exhibit greater detail in your neighborhood movie theater, than the average 35mm release print. Is it better or worse? That is a very subjective question, but I have seen some amazingly beautiful images coming from digital sources, and I've also seen some pretty ugly images coming from film.
A digital cinema camera is just a tool. I think the quality of the images is really more a matter of who's hands the tools are in.
For example, principal photography for Super 8 was done on 4 perf 35mm film with Anamorphic lenses. However all of their re-shoots (and that turned out to be almost 1/4 of the film) were shot on the Red One. I defy you to spot the difference. That has more to do with the skill of cinematographer Larry Fong than the format on which it was shot.
Doug

I viewed a test shoot a couple of years ago, comparing 35/4 to data, and aside from the overall stability of the data image, the two were so close that most people would not see a difference. As Douglas correctly notes, it is all in who is behind the camera -- in this case it was Allen Daviau -- and how the images are post-processed. Take either, or both through a DI, and they gain a virtual equality. The one thing that film continues to give us, is a far more sturdy archival base. With data, comes danger of loss or corruption. One of my favorite phrases relates to "the data archive," which to me is an oxymoron.

As to Rear Window, It's also one of my favorite films, for which we were lucky enough to have the ability to use dye transfer at Technicolor. Researching early notes, and going through tests, we found that the original concept was to shoot the apartment complex across from Mr. Stewart's vantage point as VVLA background plates, for which tests were shot. It was decided to go the live route for production. Beyond that, I'm unable to discuss anything that might be occurring.

RAH

 

[Douglas Monce]

I viewed a test shoot a couple of years ago, comparing 35/4 to data, and aside from the overall stability of the data image, the two were so close that most people would not see a difference.  As Douglas correctly notes, it is all in who is behind the camera -- in this case it was Allen Daviau -- and how the images are post-processed.  Take either, or both through a DI, and they gain a virtual equality.  The one thing that film continues to give us, is a far more sturdy archival base.  With data, comes danger of loss or corruption.  One of my favorite phrases relates to "the data archive," which to me is an oxymoron.
As to Rear Window, It's also one of my favorite films, for which we were lucky enough to have the ability to use dye transfer at Technicolor.  Researching early notes, and going through tests, we found that the original concept was to shoot the apartment complex across from Mr. Stewart's vantage point as VVLA background plates, for which tests were shot.  It was decided to go the live route for production.  Beyond that, I'm unable to discuss anything that might be occurring.
RAH
 

From the cinematographer's point of view, digital requires you to be much more careful with exposure. With film you can let the shadows fall off, and know that there will still be an image there if you want to see it. With digital, if you want to see something in the shadows, you have to light it. Ratios between key and fill light have to be much more carefully controlled. In some respects I suspect it might be a little like going back to the film stocks of the early Eastman color days of the 50's, though I'm sure Mr. Harris would know that better than I. I've shot 16mm 7291, 7292, 7248 and 7296. Compared to that, some ways digital is easier. You know instantly what you are getting. In other ways its much harder.
Doug

 

[Richard--W]

From the cinematographer's point of view, digital requires you to be much more careful with exposure. With film you can let the shadows fall off, and know that there will still be an image there if you want to see it.

Yes, which is another reason why film is superior to digital. But one has to be careful with exposure no matter which medium.
For example, Gordon Willis exposed for light and shadow so that viewers could see into the darkness without brightening it up. He knew now to capture light with exactitude and precision. His brain was his emulsion and his eyes were his mathematical meter. Or maybe it was the other way around. His mastery of light and shadow and contouring never fails to astonish me. There is no doubt in my mind that he would be unable to achieve the same results that you see in The Godfather trilogy because of the limitations of digital technology. Only photochemistry can deliver that.

With digital, if you want to see something in the shadows, you have to light it. Ratios between key and fill light have to be much more carefully controlled.

But this was true of analog video as well. I have found that there is more latitude in digital. But the ratios between key and fill always had to be carefully balanced.

In some respects I suspect it might be a little like going back to the film stocks of the early Eastman color days of the 50's, though I'm sure Mr. Harris would know that better than I. I've shot 16mm 7291, 7292, 7248 and 7296. Compared to that, some ways digital is easier. You know instantly what you are getting. In other ways its much harder.
Doug

One knew instantly what one was getting in analog video as well. I don't know how to describe the difference exactly. Digital sees differently. It's dimmer and softer, yet it sees more texture. Without the luminosity of a monitor, digital like analog video is worthless. On a flat matte screen, one might as well stay home.
Movies used to be projected on screens that had an aluminized surface. The "silver screen" was the literal truth. Starting in the early 1960s, or maybe it was late in the 1950s, theaters converted to flat matte screens. Why and how come, I don't know. Film still looked good, but not as bright and sharp and glowing as it used to. I wonder if digital would look brighter and sharper on aluminized screens. Evidently not, because digital projection in cinemas is on flat matte screens.
If TO CATCH A THIEF or NORTH BY NORTHWEST had been shot on analog or digital, they would not have the same aesthetic, would not be the same story. It would not meet the eye the way dye transfer and 35mm film do. They would be diminished.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Movies used to be projected on screens that had an aluminized surface. The "silver screen" was the literal truth. Starting in the early 1960s, or maybe it was late in the 1950s, theaters converted to flat matte screens. Why and how come, I don't know. Film still looked good, but not as bright and sharp and glowing as it used to. I wonder if digital would look brighter and sharper on aluminized screens. Evidently not, because digital projection in cinemas is on flat matte screens.

Without addressing the meat of your post, many theaters that project digital have moved back to proper silver screens in recent years. The reason is 3D; the flat matte screens don't work with polarized projection.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Yes, which is another reason why film is superior to digital. But one has to be careful with exposure no matter which medium.
For example, Gordon Willis exposed for light and shadow so that viewers could see into the darkness without brightening it up. He knew now to capture light with exactitude and precision. His brain was his emulsion and his eyes were his mathematical meter. Or maybe it was the other way around. His mastery of light and shadow and contouring never fails to astonish me. There is no doubt in my mind that he would be unable to achieve the same results that you see in The Godfather trilogy because of the limitations of digital technology. Only photochemistry can deliver that.
But this was true of analog video as well. I have found that there is more latitude in digital. But the ratios between key and fill always had to be carefully balanced.
One knew instantly what one was getting in analog video as well. I don't know how to describe the difference exactly. Digital sees differently. It's dimmer and softer, yet it sees more texture. Without the luminosity of a monitor, digital like analog video is worthless. On a flat matte screen, one might as well stay home.
Movies used to be projected on screens that had an aluminized surface. The "silver screen" was the literal truth. Starting in the early 1960s, or maybe it was late in the 1950s, theaters converted to flat matte screens. Why and how come, I don't know. Film still looked good, but not as bright and sharp and glowing as it used to. I wonder if digital would look brighter and sharper on aluminized screens. Evidently not, because digital projection in cinemas is on flat matte screens.
If TO CATCH A THIEF or NORTH BY NORTHWEST had been shot on analog or digital, they would not have the same aesthetic, would not be the same story. It would not meet the eye the way dye transfer and 35mm film do. They would be diminished.

I'm not sure that film is superior to digital, just different. I am sure that Mr. Willis could match his work on The Godfather with digital equipment, he would simply have to light slightly differently to get the same effect.
Add to that, digital cinema cameras are getting better and better. The new Red Epic has far more latitude than the Red One did. Getting into the neighborhood of film like latitude. Add to that the fact that it records to a raw format, means that it can be endlessly manipulated in post production.
I recently saw Red Tails projected 2k on a 50 foot screen. The film was photographed on the Sony CineAlta F35, and the Canon 7d consumer DSLR. It looked beautiful. Did it look like North by Northwest? No, but a film shot on film doesn't look like North by Northwest anymore either.
Doug

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Red Epic with HDRX activated has more dynamic range than film (up to 18 stops). It has a higher MTF than 35mm film as well. In the colour department there are difference, and also with motion rendition, so in these areas film can still compete or be ahead, depending on one's view point. But the sensor in Red Epic is already old in this rapidly evolving environment. At NAB in April Red will announce their new sensor which is even higher resolution and has likely native dynamic range like film without HDRX. 35mm will have a tough time competing with this sensor on any level.

 

[Jeff1954]

Hi Jeff - welcome to the forum!  Just curious, has it been confirmed that Universal is not releasing RW this year? 

Thanks! As far as I know only "The Birds" was confirmed indeed. But I can be wrong - I would be more than happy to get a BD of Rear Window!

Incidentally, I agree with you that this film is top notch Hitchcock. I've seen this projected via 35mm several times (the RAH restoration) and it looked wonderful on the big screen.

Same here. Also saw the RAH restoration in a private screening of a 35mm copy - it was just wonderful. Based on that I am sure a BD could look quite good - and I personally think also the DVD could've looked better (I don't own the latest one Universal released though, over here in germany we only have the old version from 2002(?) which is not really good).

 

[dana martin]

for those needing a rear window fix here is a little something, time lapse of only shots thru the window

http://jeffdesom.com/hitch/

has a good making of as well

 

[ShellOilJunior]

for those needing a rear window fix here is a little something, time lapse of only shots thru the window
http://jeffdesom.com/hitch/
has a good making of as well

That is really cool. Thank you!

 

[Carlo_M]

Just to take a quick detour from the film v. digital conversation and to bring it back to this Blu Ray of To Catch A Thief...
I had the pleasure of viewing this film for the first time ever on Blu Ray last night, and have now caught up reading this thread (didn't want to ruin the movie experience for me). Aside from the moire pattern on Mr. Grant's shirt at the beginning of the film (something that tends to happen with patterns like that and movement in video, I'm all to familiar with it as a photographer and my Canon 7D which takes stellar 1080p video also exhibits that problem) I found the video to be absolutely breathtaking. Yes NxNW with its proper restoration is superior to some degree but TCaT is a marvelous transfer considering it did not get the restoration treatment!
As I age (nearing forty now!) I find myself going backwards in film history (kind of like a Benjamin Button film watcher) and am discovering many classic films and actors. Is it weird that I think I've fallen in love with Grace Kelly?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Carlo, I had that same reaction. I thought the BR was outstanding!

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by Carlo Medina /t/318618/a-few-words-about-to-catch-a-thief-in-blu-ray/150#post_3915052
Is it weird that I think I've fallen in love with Grace Kelly?

Um...not at all, Carlo! Not at all.

 

[dpippel]

Originally Posted by Carlo Medina /t/318618/a-few-words-about-to-catch-a-thief-in-blu-ray/150#post_3915052
Is it weird that I think I've fallen in love with Grace Kelly?

Totally understandable! I fall in love with Eva Marie Saint every time I watch North by Northwest...

 

[Carlo_M]

Good to know I'm not alone in my sickness!
Some additional observations: it's clear how much Hitch loved the Riviera by the way he shot the outdoor scenes in the film. What surprises me the most is, having been there twice (one week in 2006 and another week in 2011) not only do I recognize the places where the film was shot, but I'm amazed at how relatively little the place has changed in the nearly sixty intervening years!
In America, especially in big cities like L.A. and New York, we're so used to seeing a city completely transform itself in 60 years that I'm actually glad the Riviera cities have stayed so close in terms of looks and spirit to what they were in 1955. L.A. in 1955 looks nothing like what it does now.
Actually that film makes me want to go back there yet again (despite the fact that the SO and I have said we need to target a non-French destination for our next big vacation).
Oh and the last trip in 2011 took us to Monaco for a day, and it's clear how much that city loved her. It seemed like 1/3 of the sites/monuments/buildings there are named after Princess Grace!
And of course Prince Albert II had just gotten married and his wife was a stunner as well. Ah, to be of the Grimaldi line...apparently you can just get the most beautiful women in the world as your wife!

 

[Jeff1954]

On a side note: In a TV magazine over here, "Rear Window" and "Vertigo" will also be released this year. But I am not sure how valid this information really is. It was a special about upcoming BluRay releases of classic Hollywood movies and it explicitly mentions "To Catch A Thief" (with it's release date which is in may over here) - and also "Rear Window" and "Vertigo" among others, but without a specific release date. So, there's hope we will indeed get it this year.

 

[Robin9]

On a side note: In a TV magazine over here, "Rear Window" and "Vertigo" will also be released this year. But I am not sure how valid this information really is. It was a special about upcoming BluRay releases of classic Hollywood movies and it explicitly mentions "To Catch A Thief" (with it's release date which is in may over here) - and also "Rear Window" and "Vertigo" among others, but without a specific release date. So, there's hope we will indeed get it this year.

Thank you, but where is "over here?"

 

[Jeff1954]

Thank you, but where is "over here?"

In Germany, in TV Magazine "TV Digital".

 

[AnthonyClarke]

re having to target another holiday destination for the next big trip .... my wife and I recycle our two favourite destinations ... S of France and Northern Italy -- and it's easy to combine a quick flit across borders to sample both in the same trip!
Our last trip (Oct Nov last year) took us first to the exotic USA to visit a daughter who lives and works in a strange city called New York, then we flew off to civilisation in Venice, then down to Rome, then a handful of days in an almost-deserted beach village in Crete. Then back to Australia.
And re Grace Kelly -- I fell in love with her the first time Isaw High Noon .. which must have been 50 years ago!
Anthony in Woodend Vic Australia

 

[Nelson Au]

It's a shame she never got to do more films with Hitchcock.