UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Narrow Margin (1990) -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[plektret]

In many cases, it's too much grain resolving, way more than you ever would have seen on a theatrical print back in the day. Directors and cinematographers (more so the cinematographers, usually) at the time understood the characteristics of the film stocks they were shooting on and the characteristics of the stocks they'd be printing onto, and planned accordingly for the image that would be projected. Rarely did they expect or want a coarse coating of sandpaper-like grain visible to the audience, which is what we too often get with 4K transfers that can resolve every grain particle to the molecular level.

That's what I like personally, historically accurate or not, as I wrote in this post. I don't see the "all-grain" look as a problem.

 

[sbjork]

I get that, but I still think Hyams more often than not pushed things too far in his fetishism for natural and source lighting. Most of his movies (IMO, of course) have a very drab, dull appearance, and can be highly inconsistent in grain and black levels even from shot-to-shot within scenes, as he frequently had to push shots in the lab when he underexposed them on set.

Again IMO, this frequently works against the material he's filming, especially in 2010, which 1) has no visual consistency with its predecessor, and 2) has little visual consistency even with itself, as the dim and grainy live-action footage is butted against the much better-lit model and miniature FX shot by the 2nd Unit crew.

I haven't watched Narrow Margin specifically in many years, and may have only seen it on VHS, so I do have interest in this disc. I'd also like to support Peter Tonguette, who did the audio commentary.

Fair opinions, even though I disagree with most of them, but I am going to push back on your repeated statement that he underexposed his negatives. That's not accurate, as like RAH said about Gordon Willis, Hyams exposed what he wanted to expose, and I also don't think that the statement that he pushed shots in the lab is accurate, either. Now, it is true that some home video transfers of his films (especially older transfers) have boosted the levels of darker scenes in order to try to make them pop more on television screens, but I don't think that's fair to say of original theatrical prints of his films.

I'm going by memory, which is inherently unreliable, but I've seen most of his films theatrically going back to Capricorn One, and I've never felt that way. Different story on home video, where I haven't been happy with many transfers of his films. I saw 2010 in 70mm back in the day and never felt that way about it. Home video, on the other hand, I've never been happy with. I think that you'd be surprised what a fresh scan with better technology (and more understanding people in charge) could do with that film.

Dammit, now I'm dying to see this 4K. I'm going to have to double down on cleaning up my basement over the next couple of days.

 

[Ignacio]

I quite like Mr. Hyams' visual style. It was very recognizable during the late 70's, 80's and 90's. A mix of some photographic treats of the 70's (underexposure, pushing, low-con filters) and the stylized work of Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Adrian Lyne or even Vittorio Storaro.

He was clearly pushing Bill Butler in "Capricorn One" for a more stylized work than his usual, and "Hanover Street" (lit by the great David Watkin) is a silly, but magnificent looking film. "The Star Chamber" is amazing (he clearly shot it himself, as the DP was unknown and the film has all of Hyams' trademarks: practicals, shafts of light, smoke, low-con filters, underexposure, etc).

I've always thought that Hyams' problem was the fact that he was a producer/director/cinematographer, and sometimes went too far ("The Relic", as it has already been mentioned, is the greatest example), whereas another cinematographer, doing only that job, with less power, would have to agree a visual style with a director, production designer, producer, etc. and work in a more restrained manner. Hyams was very very daring, which can be good or bad, it's a matter of taste.

But when he did it right, and he did very often, his films were great looking, sometimes even exciting (have a look at the night train station scene in "Narrow Margin", mostly lit by practicals inside the train itself, and few other sources), and fun to watch.

 

[mskaye]

No, there's nothing wrong with the cinematography of Narrow Margin or any of the other films that Hyams shot personally (including the one that he shot for his son John, Universal Soldier: Regeneration). In fact, he's an outstanding cinematographer. He prefers natural lighting and practical light sources, and he lights things beautifully. Saying that his films are "underlit" is very much an opinion, and a fair one, but it's not a fact. If Hyams was guilty of underlighting, then so was Bruce Surtees, because their styles are very similar. (And yes, I heard people complain that Pale Rider was too dark when I was walking out of the theatre back in 1985). The Relic is definitely the darkest of his dark films, and yes, there were complaints about that, but It's a stylistic choice, not a "refusal to light things sufficiently." People don't agree about cinematography any more than they agree about directing or writing, and fair enough, but opinions still aren't fact.

My copy of Narrow Margin hasn't arrived yet (Kino appears to have shipped via Pony Express this time) but I'm looking forward to checking it out. I've always thought that it was one of his most beautifully shot films, especially in the interiors where he really leaned into practical light sources. And yes, nothing about his style lends itself toward capturing the maximum level of detail on the negative, but I still maintain (opinion) that a good 4K master can handle the grain better than Blu-ray, so I'm hopeful that this will be a satisfying release -- for me, at least. Although I do wish that they'd applied a gentle HDR grade to it -- no, the peak brightness is never going to be particularly high in this film, but on the opposite end of the spectrum, it may have been able to wring more detail out of the darker scenes.

Speaking of The Relic, I rewatched the old Blu-ray of that a few months ago, and that tired old master certainly doesn't help. A fresh scan with a judiciously applied HDR grade could help resolve more of the image without damaging Hyam's intentions. I also rewatched 2010 within the past year, which is another tired old master, and I think that an HDR grade could work wonders on that one.

Tightrope, which preceded Pale Rider, is the Clint film (directed by Richard Tuggle) that I recall got a lot of grief for how dark Bruce Surtees photographed it.

 

[JoshZ]

Fair opinions, even though I disagree with most of them, but I am going to push back on your repeated statement that he underexposed his negatives. That's not accurate, as like RAH said about Gordon Willis, Hyams exposed what he wanted to expose, and I also don't think that the statement that he pushed shots in the lab is accurate, either. Now, it is true that some home video transfers of his films (especially older transfers) have boosted the levels of darker scenes in order to try to make them pop more on television screens, but I don't think that's fair to say of original theatrical prints of his films.

If you look at a movie like End of Days, there are a number of scenes that have huge variances shot-to-shot where it very much looks like certain shots had to be pushed in the lab. Their black levels are much higher and they have much more grain even than the rest of the shots around them.

Maybe that's was a video transfer issue, but it really doesn't strike me that Universal ever gave enough of a damn about End of Days to put that much effort into it. They basically just slathered it with a little edge enhancement and called it a day on that one.

 

[Robert Crawford]

After watching the 4K/UHD of "Narrow Margin" in its entirety, I can't hardly wait to read the upcoming discussion about this 4K scan, the Hyams cinematography, and whatever else that comes up for debate. I'm reasonably satisfied with this 4K/UHD video presentation. By the way, there is no type of HDR applied with this release which means no Dolby Vision. It does average a high bit rate as I kept monitoring that throughout the film's runtime. Not a bad movie even if it doesn't measure up to the original 1952 movie. Hyams has some great camera shots in this remake.

 

[sbjork]

If you look at a movie like End of Days, there are a number of scenes that have huge variances shot-to-shot where it very much looks like certain shots had to be pushed in the lab. Their black levels are much higher and they have much more grain even than the rest of the shots around them.

Maybe that's was a video transfer issue, but it really doesn't strike me that Universal ever gave enough of a damn about End of Days to put that much effort into it. They basically just slathered it with a little edge enhancement and called it a day on that one.

Once again, differences of opinion, but there's an implication in what you're saying that I strongly disagree with. Especially since you mention a relatively late contribution to his filmography, both as director and cinematographer. Intentionally or not, it's essentially arguing that Hyams kept making mistakes in lighting on his set, over and over again, and never learned his lessons, so he had to keep fixing it in post. End of Days was his ninth official credit as cinematographer, so that's a whole lot of extra time and expense that he could have prevented, but was apparently not just incompetent, but stupid enough to fail to learn his lessons. I don't agree with that. I saw End of Days theatrically and while I freely admit that I don't remember too much about the experience, nothing stood out to me the way that you describe. It's always looked rougher than many of his other films, but it was a troubled production with boatloads of reshoots, so it's never been completely consistent on every possible level, not just the cinematography.

And yes, Universal was guilty of creating shoddy masters during that period and more than the decade that followed, but they never just set up a scanner cold, baked DNR into the results and gave up. Someone still performed color correction, however poorly or thoughtlessly. And what you describe still sounds like someone boosted the levels in the dark scenes digitally, including the inconsistent grain.

In any event, my copy of Narrow Margin finally showed up (the Pony Express rider waved as he rode away), so I'll be able to judge for myself. Even if I don't get my home theatre room put together until too late into the weekend, I'm still going to pop it in and spot-check it, because all of this conversation has me really wanting to see for myself how it looks. The cinematography in that one has always looked perfectly consistent to me, although previous home video masters have had their own deficiencies.

 

[JoshZ]

Once again, differences of opinion, but there's an implication in what you're saying that I strongly disagree with. Especially since you mention a relatively late contribution to his filmography, both as director and cinematographer. Intentionally or not, it's essentially arguing that Hyams kept making mistakes in lighting on his set, over and over again, and never learned his lessons, so he had to keep fixing it in post.

Or, he didn't consider it a "mistake." These variances in appearance within scenes were not something that concerned him, and were just part of the aesthetic he was going for - which was to shoot in natural and source lighting at all costs, no matter how dim or grainy that made the image. It's just not an aesthetic I care for, personally.

 

[mskaye]

Or, he didn't consider it a "mistake." These variances in appearance within scenes were not something that concerned him, and were just part of the aesthetic he was going for - which was to shoot in natural and source lighting at all costs, no matter how dim or grainy that made the image. It's just not an aesthetic I care for, personally.

I mean you see it in The Exorcist. I dont consider it a mistake either. I'd rather have Hyam's mistakes than anything flatly photographed and devoid of style.

 

[sbjork]

 

[Bartman]

One of my absolute favourite movies (Carolco were on a roll) even though it didn't have Marie Windsor, ha, ha! It's had a poor history on home video (I believe DVD & streams were from laserdisc transfers) so the previous Blu-ray (from the same 4K scan) was highly anticipated however, picture quality was variable & poor 5% of the time. At the time of Blu-ray release there were few complaints online, so it's interesting to read the expert comments here that confirm my original concerns.

 

[sbjork]

To be crystal clear, outside of RAH's view that there isn't 4K worth of actual detail available in a film like Narrow Margin, most of the opinions being expressed in this thread are being expressed by people who haven't seen the disc. (RC has, but he's not one of the people going into detail arguing about technical merits.) The reviews for the previous Blu-ray were praiseworthy, including RAH's own Few Words about it. As far as online complaints go, you're reading some of them right now, all but one of them not even based on viewing the disc. So if these comments confirm anything, it's confirmation bias confirming confirmation bias.

I finally put Humpty Dumpty back together again and was able to watch Kino's UHD last weekend. (I also own the previous Blu-ray based on the new scan, and never had any complaints about that). I still would have liked to see a gentle HDR grade in this case, but it's an excellent quality presentation of the same 4K scan that was used for the Blu-ray. Detail levels do vary a bit from shot to shot given the specific circumstances of any setup, but the daylight exteriors are quite sharp (if still lacking the last word in fine detail). The safety cable attached to the late James B. Sikking's right ankle that's visible as he first steps up onto the roof of the train car is visible on both the Blu-ray and the UHD, but it's clearer on the UHD. The grain looks better on UHD, too. It's not a case where the grain is unnaturally sharp compared to theatrical prints -- this isn't a Vinegar Syndrome release -- but it's just a touch clearer and more refined. Overall, it's a minor upgrade over the Blu-ray, but it is an upgrade.

And it's a beautifully well-lit and exposed film. Interior shots that are backlit or sidelit by natural lighting keep the interiors exposed while not blowing out the exteriors, and that's equally true of the practical light sources. Shots where Hyams wanted everything evenly exposed, like the scenes at the bar of the club car, are indeed evenly exposed from side to side. Shots where he wanted only part of the frame lit and everything else falling off into shadow do just that. Having shot 35mm still photography for decades without using a flash, I can vouch for the fact that you can't just point-and-shoot people with practical light sources in the frame and properly expose the faces without blowing out the light sources. The light sources in Narrow Margin are never blown out, even when the light is right next to the character's faces (like during Sikking's "business proposal" for Hackman). Hyams put thought into those setups, using the right bulbs with the right color temperature and brightness levels to achieve what he wanted. And yes, when he wasn't afraid of letting things completely fall off into shadow. The scene where Hackman and Archer talk in their compartment while they're lit by passing light sources through the window, falling in and out of shadow, is beautiful.

What worked for the likes of Gordon Willis, Bruce Surtees, and Jack N. Green worked equally well for Hyams. Fans of glossy MGM studio releases from the golden age of Hollywood need not apply.

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

Bought the 4k disc. Watched it today. Loved it. My only other copy was the poor DVD from many years ago, so this was a revelation. Always loved the look of Hyam’s films and watching Gene Hackman do his thing is always a treat.