UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Giant -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[midvalleyguy]

The DVD was a horrible experience. I couldn't believe it came from Warner. If at all possible, I recommend you try the 4K UHD disc before you buy.

I recently borrowed the DVD 2 disc special edition (Region 4, PAL) from my local library. I was extremely disappointed to see it was totally window boxed - big black bars around a semi postage stamp size image. I gave up watching after about 10 minutes and returned it to the library.

My question is - is the previously released Blu Ray also window boxed?

I have a 4K LG TV but no player so not really interested in a 4K disc at this time, so would be keen on getting the Blu Ray.

 

[Robert Harris]

The previous Blu, like the new 4k, is 1.66 - matted on the sides.

 

[midvalleyguy]

The previous Blu, like the new 4k, is 1.66 - matted on the sides.

Much appreciate your feedback Mr. Harris .

There seems to be a few different Blu Ray versions available down here. I've now purchased here locally a new sealed copy for $14.99 AUD ( US$10.76) the 2013 release (with James Dean very large on the cover).

I haven't seen this film for many many years, but I reckon this Blu Ray will more than satisfy my needs compared to the DVD.

 

[warnerbro]

You also get a digital download with this. Everyone who saw this at the TCM screening was claiming that the dupe dissolves had been miraculously corrected and "fixed"? But from what I understand from your review, they are still just as muddy as before, just a little more shadow detail?

 

[Lord Dalek]

You also get a digital download with this. Everyone who saw this at the TCM screening was claiming that the dupe dissolves had been miraculously corrected and "fixed"? But from what I understand from your review, they are still just as muddy as before, just a little more shadow detail?

"Fixing the disolves" doesn't actually the fix problem with them. The surrounding footage goes on much longer than your average disolve cut from the era.

 

[Robert Harris]

You also get a digital download with this. Everyone who saw this at the TCM screening was claiming that the dupe dissolves had been miraculously corrected and "fixed"? But from what I understand from your review, they are still just as muddy as before, just a little more shadow detail?

The dx have NOT been fixed. They’re still extremely soft and dupey - about 10-12% better than they were.

And that’s fine.

 

[Robert Harris]

"Fixing the disolves" doesn't actually the fix problem with them. The surrounding footage goes on much longer than your average disolve cut from the era.

Correct. These not cut-in dupes can run a minute or more.

One should overlook them, as the quality of the film is extraordinary.

 

[lark144]

Correct. These not cut-in dupes can run a minute or more.

One should overlook them, as the quality of the film is extraordinary.

Yes, the ARTISTIC quality of the film is extraordinary. but many of the finest moments, for instance, those lap dissolves as Elizabeth Taylor drives into the ranch for the first time, and you see things through her eyes, and also how her perceptions and feelings change, which may be one of the greatest sequences even exposed to film, but those dupes, not just the grain but the haloing and color shifts inherent in Eastman dupe stock at the time, possibly exacerbated by the processing and printing at Warners--I recall reading that George Stevens went through scores of prints that he found unacceptable, and was never really happy with the finished product--make it difficult for me to watch.

Unfortunately, George Stevens' style of filmmaking, often finding its apotheosis in lap dissolves, and the flaws inherent in creating dissolves with Eastman Stock, where the dupes could run throughout the sequence, combine to obscure many of the film's best sequences.

Yes, you can overlook them, but by overlooking them, you're also kind of overlooking much of what's best about the film, which lies underath all that visual morass.

 

[OliverK]

Yes, the ARTISTIC quality of the film is extraordinary. but many of the finest moments, for instance, those lap dissolves as Elizabeth Taylor drives into the ranch for the first time, and you see things through her eyes, and also how her perceptions and feelings change, which may be one of the greatest sequences even exposed to film, but those dupes, not just the grain but the haloing and color shifts inherent in Eastman dupe stock at the time, possibly exacerbated by the processing and printing at Warners--I recall reading that George Stevens went through scores of prints that he found unacceptable, and was never really happy with the finished product--make it difficult for me to watch.

Unfortunately, George Stevens' style of filmmaking, often finding its apotheosis in lap dissolves, and the flaws inherent in creating dissolves with Eastman Stock, where the dupes could run throughout the sequence, combine to obscure many of the film's best sequences.

Yes, you can overlook them, but by overlooking them, you're also kind of overlooking much of what's best about the film, which lies underath all that visual morass.

I have very similar feelings but I do indeed try to overlook the parts that don't look as great. It is what it is and from what it sounds like Warner have been going above and beyond to improve on the problematic areas.

 

[lark144]

I have very similar feelings but I do indeed try to overlook the parts that don't look as great. It is what it is and from what it sounds like Warner have been going above and beyond to improve on the problematic areas.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying it's impossible to overlook them. I try. But I'd probably look at the film more often if they weren't there. And it's not transitional stuff like in some other films. Many of those dupe sections contain the essence of what makes GIANT a great film for me. But getting the essence of those scenes are very difficult, because those aberations are baked in and part and parcel of the image. So I can't really overlook something I'm focusing on. Yes, I can tell myself, oh those haloes and color surges and grit and things aren't supposed to be there. But it just isn't pleasant watching them, no matter how much I try to rationalize. Yes, there are many other wonderful things about GIANT, and they look fine, but for me, it's those lap dissolve sequences that really make the film shine. And I find them difficult to watch. It kind of ruins the film for me. Of course that's just me. I understand it's not Warner's fault.

 

[Robert Harris]

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying it's impossible to overlook them. I try. But I'd probably look at the film more often if they weren't there. And it's not transitional stuff like in some other films. Many of those dupe sections contain the essence of what makes GIANT a great film for me. But getting the essence of those scenes are very difficult, because those aberations are baked in and part and parcel of the image. So I can't really overlook something I'm focusing on. Yes, I can tell myself, oh those haloes and color surges and grit and things aren't supposed to be there. But it just isn't pleasant watching them, no matter how much I try to rationalize. Yes, there are many other wonderful things about GIANT, and they look fine, but for me, it's those lap dissolve sequences that really make the film shine. And I find them difficult to watch. It kind of ruins the film for me. Of course that's just me. I understand it's not Warner's fault.

The haloes are Mackie lines, after the photographer.

 

[roxy1927]

So from what everyone is saying it appears the film did not look all that great at its opening compared to other films of the period? There were problems with it then as well?

I just looked up Bosley's Crowther's New York Times' review of the film at its world premiere at NY's Roxy theater. It is for the most part a rave with no visual problems noted.

'And Mr. Stevens has made it Visual in staggering scenes of the great Texas plains and of passion-charged human relations that hold the hardness of the land and atmosphere. In strong swipes of outdoor realism and audaciously close-to interplay of invariably violent emotions among its lively characters, "Giant" gives an almost documentary picture of how oil exaggerated and confused the virtually feudalistic ways of living of the old Texas landowners and cattlemen. '

 

[Malcolm R]

I'm sure it looked fine projected in a movie theater with 1955 technology. It's when you try and upgrade the image to modern high-def technology that any flaws hidden by the limitations of that time become apparent and magnified.

 

[Lord Dalek]

I'm sure it looked fine projected in a movie theater with 1955 technology. It's when you try and upgrade the image to modern high-def technology that any flaws hidden by the limitations of that time become apparent and magnified.

Yeah this is why I feel 4k really is overkill for the majority of cinema made prior to 1980. You're subjecting these films to a level of visual stress they were never supposed to undergo with a level of technology noone was even dreaming of back in the day.

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm sure it looked fine projected in a movie theater with 1955 technology. It's when you try and upgrade the image to modern high-def technology that any flaws hidden by the limitations of that time become apparent and magnified.

Not really. All original prints were struck directly from the camera negative frame registered. They were beautiful direct positive prints.

 

[OliverK]

Not really. All original prints were struck directly from the camera negative frame registered. They were beautiful direct positive prints.

First generation contact prints - hard on the negative but easy on the eye, especially if we are talking 65/70mm contact prints.

 

[David Weicker]

Not really. All original prints were struck directly from the camera negative frame registered. They were beautiful direct positive prints.

I'm now confused.

I've always been under the impression that the less than stellar viewing was specifically due to the extensive (and longer than normal) use of dupes.

But that dupe usage was done for the original presentation. So that implies that the original presentation would have also been less than stellar.

But 'beautiful direct positive prints' sounds like a contradiction.


Are we now seeing a less than stellar presentation -
because that's how its always been?
Or because of new viewing technology revealing flaws?
Or because of a different print source (print vs. OCN) than what was shown the theaters originally.

 

[sbjork]

I think that it's not so much a question of technology, as it is of tropes. Viewers these days are accustomed to seamless transitions that have been generated digitally. Viewers in 1955 were accustomed to the generational loss from optically printed transitions. It's not that they weren't noticeable; it's just that they were accepted. I remember watching movies when I was young, and as soon as a dupey-looking shot started, I would think, "a dissolve or a wipe is coming!" But that's speaking as someone who already analyzed film technique, even from an early age, and they still didn't really bother me, either. Most "normal" people would maybe have noticed that something looked different, but put no thought into it whatsoever. Nowadays, they still wouldn't understand why the footage looked different, but they might complain a bit that it doesn't look as good as their favorite Netflix series.

Those of us who are fanatics about this kind of thing sometimes forget that we're a niche of a niche. Most people just don't worry about the stuff that tends to drive us batty.

Opticals are what they are. You can wish that a film was produced differently, but you can't change history. (Well, you shouldn't, anyway, even though that hasn't stopped certain filmmakers from trying.) I'm absolutely going to order a copy of this UHD. It's a wonderful film, and the non-dupe parts are going to make it well worth the upgrade for me.

 

[Carlo_M]

It's funny what people at certain points of cinema were used to/accepted. I remember wondering what those cigarette burn marks used to be, then when I learned what it was, I got a bit of a kick counting down to the reel change once I knew what to look for.

It was even explained to the masses in Fight Club...and now modern audiences will wonder what Tyler's even talking about.

 

[Robert Harris]

I think that it's not so much a question of technology, as it is of tropes. Viewers these days are accustomed to seamless transitions that have been generated digitally. Viewers in 1955 were accustomed to the generational loss from optically printed transitions. It's not that they weren't noticeable; it's just that they were accepted. I remember watching movies when I was young, and as soon as a dupey-looking shot started, I would think, "a dissolve or a wipe is coming!" But that's speaking as someone who already analyzed film technique, even from an early age, and they still didn't really bother me, either. Most "normal" people would maybe have noticed that something looked different, but put no thought into it whatsoever. Nowadays, they still wouldn't understand why the footage looked different, but they might complain a bit that it doesn't look as good as their favorite Netflix series.

Those of us who are fanatics about this kind of thing sometimes forget that we're a niche of a niche. Most people just don't worry about the stuff that tends to drive us batty.

Opticals are what they are. You can wish that a film was produced differently, but you can't change history. (Well, you shouldn't, anyway, even though that hasn't stopped certain filmmakers from trying.) I'm absolutely going to order a copy of this UHD. It's a wonderful film, and the non-dupe parts are going to make it well worth the upgrade for me.

Absolutely worth the purchase, and supports Warner to restore more of their holdings.

Keep in mind, they have to fund these things!