What's new

cineMANIAC

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
2,823
Location
New York City
Real Name
Luis
Exactly why I don't visit that other site, which is ruled with an iron fist by king Geoff, and his frenzied disciples.

He has some sort of industry background and acts as a consultant on loan to various labels but comes across as a know it all who isn't shy about suggesting people are idiots because they're not as knowledgeable as he is. That kind of attitude doesn't fly well with me. I've had a run-in with him in the past. He also comes across as a hermit who would probably be perfectly comfortable if he were one of the last 5 remaining people on Earth :)
 

tenia

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
236
Location
France
Real Name
Rémy
To quote RAH himself (it was about Liberty Valance's UHD) :
The problem is that those in the future watching some of these films won’t be able to see them as they were meant to be seen. Something will be wrong, or missing, or added, but they won’t be aware. Part of a film’s beauty has been erased, by executive decision.

Or, to sum it up :
I can't wait for some reviewers to discuss the beautiful "organic grain..."

If this is a DNR disaster, I want more of it!
Good news : if the industry starts implementing structurally those practices with DNR and fake grain instead of proper respect of the original grain-field and film texture, some people won't even notice the shift ! (like with the couple of Turbine's UHDs whose fake grain that still got reviews mentioning "a thin layer of natural grain throughout" or, as Germans wrote, "man muss filmischen Look mögen" - "one must like filmic looks"). Not that I ever talked of a "DNR disaster" (that'd be Wake in Fright).

Joke aside, I'm not blaming any viewer for it : that's how we got decades of HD masters egregiously filtered by DNR and/or EE that many still found to look good, and also why we still have the occasionnal processed-looking restoration popping up here and there (or why some markets think Europeans are dinosaurs with obsolete restoration philosophies, what with their "keeping the grain intact").

But that's why I tend to be rather worried (some might say "take too much to heart", which would be fair enough) when people are so positive despite such processes having been applied, since that's what allowed, and still allows, for tools like DNR or EE to be used here and there in fashions giving us Liberty Valance or To Catch a Thief. And allows the people using them thinking "that's not a problem to use them like this" : because it means their tricks work.

So again, all the best to people enjoying this look : may they enjoy their releases as breathtakingly breathtaking.
But those who restored the movie this way better not think this is a free pass to restore more movies like this.
 
Last edited:

Peter Neski

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
1,206
The few extras not included in this set ,but were on their DVD(maybe last Blu Ray?) a nice locations now thing,a very young filmmaker's 16mm version, which he couldn't finish because of Weir's film being greenlighted. A video of stills
 

tenia

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
236
Location
France
Real Name
Rémy
The few extras not included in this set, but were on their DVD (maybe last Blu Ray?) a nice locations now thing, a very young filmmaker's 16mm version, which he couldn't finish because of Weir's film being greenlighted. A video of stills
It's indeed missing :
* Hanging Rock & Martindale Hall : Then And Now
* Still and poster gallery - An extensive library of images accompanied by an excerpt of the novel read by Helen Morse
* The Day Of Saint Valentine - The first screen adaptation of Joan's novel, made in 1969 by 13 YO schoolboy Tony Ingram, with commentary from the director (this extra actually has as sole audiotrack the audio commentary)

These were on Second Sight's previous Blu-ray.
 
Last edited:

jayembee

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2020
Messages
7,087
Location
Hamster Shire
Real Name
Jerry
My copy is in-hand and I spot-checked the disc last night. In a word: breathtaking. I braced for cringe based on reports here and other forums and what I got instead was a picture so beautiful my jaw dropped to the floor. One scene in particular really blew my mind: the two young blokes (sorry, gentlemen) sitting under a shed bathed in a late afternoon sun, chatting. The shadows in this scene were so lifelike it was like looking through a window. If this is a DNR disaster, I want more of it!

I look forward to revisiting the film again in the near future. Thank goodness I'm not easily swayed by message board outrage.

Just received mine today. Looking forward to watching it. I did skim through some of the essays in the included book. It was interesting to read about how the "18th Chapter" of Lindsey's book was left out of the book when published -- shades of A Clockwork Orange! -- and was eventually published after Lindsey's death. It kinda sorta explained what happened...at least what happened in Lindsey's narrative. While the gist of it was described in the essay, it was frustrating that the included copy of the novel doesn't have Chapter 18 in it.
 

garyrc

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
79
Real Name
gary
Well, we don't have 4K, BUT:
  • Thanks to the discussion here, we just streamed Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) on HBOmax. I don't know what kind of source they used, but it was sharp, clear, and detailed, with facial pores and strands of hair well resolved, with contrast appearing to be in the normal range. I would never call such images "soft." Different scenes had different subtly executed color casts that fit the moods (and also the great music) well.
  • Although IMDB said it was in mono, it was in stereo, with surround channels, all subtle -- unless someone did a truly magical job of creating 5.1 from a mono track, but as Arthur C. Clarke said, "a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
  • It was probably 1.78:1-ish. Since previous posters specified, we have a 2.35:1, 130" wide projection screen and 1.85:1 always leaves an approx 1" of blank space at the top, where 1.78:1 fills the screen from top to bottom, as did this. It looked too wide for 1.66:1.
  • So, the image was 55.3 inches high (4.6 feet) and probably about 98.4 inches wide (8.2 feet). The center seat of our viewing area is 13 feet from the screen. Excellent subjective resolution and acutance, better than many.
  • I agree with RAH; I, too, am about the age of Peter, Robert, Steven, and George, and I can hear and see fine, thank you.
 
Last edited:

tenia

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
236
Location
France
Real Name
Rémy
I’m referencing Some Like it Hot, 12 Angry Men et al. Same base scans as Criterion, with the Criterion final 2k result being more film-like.
Coming back to this : Some Like It Hot UHD vs BD definitely look close to each other, but 12 Angry Men UHD looks like a new 4K master from the OCN vs a much older master, either HD or 2K, most certainly from a scan performed on a DataCine-type scanner, possibly from an intermediate element (from what I'm reading from the booklet, that's indeed it : "high-definition digital transfer was created on a Spirit 2K from a 35mm fine-grain master positive" for the Criterion, "NEW 4K RESTORATION OF THE FILM FROM THE ORIGINAL CAMERA NEGATIVE" for the Kino UHD), not even accounting for the Criterion BD not even properly encoding such a thick source that shouldn't be that hard to encode in x264 (MGM did it better, but that's also simply what was happening when Pixelogic weren't prioritising the main feature over the extras and Criterion didn't care).

As it is from a PQ point of view, the winner is quite clear. It's a shame that its audio is heavily filtered, though (I guess you really can't have it all).
 

Lord Dalek

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
7,130
Real Name
Joel Henderson
Thank you for posting this. It was interesting to listen to Gene's thought originally and then years later. I'm surprised Roger didn't call him out on it.

Man, I miss those two.
Well you gotta remember 20 years had passed and Gene was kinda...you know...dying.
 

Wayne Klein

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
629


I agree with Roger Ebert regarding this review. Gene Siskel was great too though.

I agreed with Roger at the time and still do. What’s more terrifying is NOT knowing what exactly happened To them and how they turned on the girl who survived. Now where is The Last Wave in 4K?
 

JoshZ

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
2,413
Location
Boston
Real Name
Joshua Zyber
Thank you for posting this. It was interesting to listen to Gene's thought originally and then years later. I'm surprised Roger didn't call him out on it.

I think the both of them had plenty of examples of movies where they turned around in opinion over time. It's the nature of the business.
 

Bryan^H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
9,605
I think the both of them had plenty of examples of movies where they turned around in opinion over time. It's the nature of the business.
Especially when it comes to a film that one of them clearly liked, but one aspect of the film left them cold. Gene Siskel's initial admiration for this fine film was obvious.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more







You will only receive emails from us. We will never sell or distribute your email address to third party companies at any time.

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
357,780
Messages
5,143,011
Members
144,480
Latest member
originalamit
Recent bookmarks
0
Top