GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES on Blu-ray - thoughts? (1 Viewer)

[haineshisway]

You went on and on how people criticize releases with claims of DVNR and such and how you are one of the only people qualified to make a judgement either way because you've used a telecine. If anyone disagrees with you, they must be fools and not have eyes.
Robert Harris has since posted that it doesn't look all that right to him also, so it isn't just me.

I don't think a single paragraph consisting of five lines is going on and on about anything. I don't see anything in this paragraph about how I'm one of the only people qualified to make a judgment because I've used a telecine. If you can find that here, please show it to me. If you're going to attack someone personally and specifically, which I was not doing in my post, do try and not make up things. You got personal in your first post and more insulting in this followup. It's not sporting, you know For your reference, here is my post:
"Awful? I must be watching a different transfer of Gentleman Prefer Blondes. First off, you can't cry DNR and then say it has detail - it's on oxymoron. This transfer is VERY sharp. I have no idea what it was taken from, but compared to The Seven Year Itch, which is brown and ugly-looking, this is a stellar transfer and looks very much like the IB Technicolor prints of that era, which were not, I repeat not, larded with grain. Singin' in the Rain, while a noble effort, doesn't look anywhere near what it should look like because it's many generations away from the camera negative. Again, you cannot have DNR and detail without shoving up the edge enhancement tools to sharpen and there is not a whit of edge enhancement in this transfer. There is a LOT of detail and it's VERY sharp."
Mr. Harris, who I consider a friend and a great guy, and I have disagreed before and I'm sure we'll disagree again. I like this transfer. You don't. Horse racing. I'm not watching via projection on a huge screen - as I said in Mr. Harris's thread, maybe that's an advantage for those of us who have tiny sixty-five inch displays.

 

[Mark B]

I saw some of it and it appears to be the old transfer, not the one used on the Blu-ray.

I watched the opening number and it was definitely sourced from the same master as the BluRay.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

I don't think a single paragraph consisting of five lines is going on and on about anything. I don't see anything in this paragraph about how I'm one of the only people qualified to make a judgment because I've used a telecine. If you can find that here, please show it to me. If you're going to attack someone personally and specifically, which I was not doing in my post, do try and not make up things.

My error about it being somewhere on this forum - it was on your website: http://www.haineshisway.com/archives/003611.html
I do hope that you are okay with me posting a link to direct people to the article on your site.
It is this long post which bothered me, and it has made me think twice before commenting on anything for fear of being seen as one of the "bunch of know-it-alls whose total sum of knowledge about Blu-ray or DVD or transfers has been gotten from discussion boards and the Internet and not from having actually seen these films projected."
You weren't specific in what website or what people you were referring to in the post, but I would think that this summation applies to most of the people on here that do give opinions and reviews, that "they haven’t worked in the film industry, they haven’t handled film, they haven’t been in a telecine room..." No, most of us haven't and never will, but the end result of that long post was the thought that only your opinion mattered.
When you post about your distaste for "Internet wags who post on Blu-ray discussion boards. These know-it-alls..." you are referring to most of us on here. That's the way I took it. If you had been more specific, well, that's something, but such a blanket statement rankled me, and I would think it might anyone who read all of what you wrote.
Granted, I never posted anything about JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S or THE TEN COMMANDMENTS on Blu-ray, but still. I do post in this forum. I don't think of myself as a know-it-all, by any means. I attend 35mm screenings, and 70mm a few special occasions, when I can, as there are many opportunities where I live. I also attend screenings to then find that, after I've paid and am seated, what appears on the screen is a projected DVD or Blu-ray. I can most definitely tell the difference immediately.
I started this thread asking if anyone else thought GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES looked off, to see if what I was observing matched what anyone else thought. I didn't jump out crying foul.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Chuck Pennington /t/322759/gentlemen-prefer-blondes-on-blu-ray-thoughts#post_3958623
My error about it being somewhere on this forum - it was on your website: http://www.haineshisway.com/archives/003611.html
I do hope that you are okay with me posting a link to direct people to the article on your site.
It is this long post which bothered me, and it has made me think twice before commenting on anything for fear of being seen as one of the "bunch of know-it-alls whose total sum of knowledge about Blu-ray or DVD or transfers has been gotten from discussion boards and the Internet and not from having actually seen these films projected."
You weren't specific in what website or what people you were referring to in the post, but I would think that this summation applies to most of the people on here that do give opinions and reviews, that "they haven’t worked in the film industry, they haven’t handled film, they haven’t been in a telecine room..." No, most of us haven't and never will, but the end result of that long post was the thought that only your opinion mattered.

Perhaps, it does to him, but everybody can make up their own mind as to which opinion is important to them. I don't know what good bringing up an article, written back in May on another site is going to do to resolve your differences with Bruce, but I prefer that your disagreement isn't escalated here. Without a doubt, some will agree with your opinion on Gentleman Prefer Blondes, but there will be others that won't, it's the vicious circle of discussion that we have on this forum every single day.






Crawdaddy

 

[Chuck Pennington]

I don't know what good bringing up an article, written back in May on another site is going to do to resolve your differences with Bruce

He asked for some reference, and that's why I posted it. I couldn't remember if I read his comments on here or his own website until I started searching for it.
Not agreeing is fine, but there is a difference when what anyone else thinks is singled out as being nothing but frivolous. When I saw that Bruce had commented in the thread, it brought back to my mind his thoughts on people who post on discussion forums. I thought I had qualified my concern about the transfer and proceeded with caution in my first post in the thread to avoid a problem, but no. I should've probably waited for someone else to say something.

 

[Nick*Z]

Overall I have to say I was NOT impressed with Fox's Forever Marilyn box set - terrible slip case cardboard packaging, no extras and no collector's packaging and/or booklets. Cheap! Not in the price they're asking, but in their content and design.
RE: Gentlemen Prefer Blondes - I will say this - the image both impressed and confounded me. Like others who have already commented herein I found the image razor sharp with good flesh tones and colors that absolutely walloped the eye. But I too found the total absence of film grain a little unsettling. I can't say the image was waxen - because it's not, but it did tend to look a tad cartoonish to me. I can't quantify the reason for this assessment. Overall, though, I have to say I was definitely NOT disappointed by the presentation.
I can't say the same for my viewing of There's No Business Like Show Business. HTF's very own Robert Harris gave this disc a radiant review. With all due respect to Mr. Harris (whose opinion I readily admire and frequently turn to for solid advice) I don't think he took a serious look at the entire movie. I own the old Diamond Collection DVD set. The scene near the beginning where Molly and Terry are waiting at a train depot with their kids and Molly complains about them needing a real home has a strange anomaly where the image inexplicably wobbles, zooms in and then out. This same anomaly is persistent in the new Blu-ray leading me to believe that the same flawed video files were directly imported by Fox and simply bumped up to a 1080p signal without a complete rescan of the original film elements. I have other reasons for thinking as I do.
First up, the ruddy flesh tones which give everyone the tanned skin look are even darker and more tanned on the Blu-ray. Also, check out the master shot that opens the Alexander's Ragtime Band number. The musicians and stylized background are horribly marred by digital noise in exactly the same areas as they were on the aforementioned DVD! Also, colors are hardly robust. In fact, I found reds to be off throughout, suffering from a slightly orange tint. Look at Marilyn's Heat Wave number - the violent purple of the background drapes is washed out and Marilyn's skin tones are severely orange. The worst part about this transfer was the contrast which is obviously way too low. The main titles are dark. I also found the exaggerated grain too grainy and occasionally gritty.
As for the rest of the films in the box set - first up, I already owned Some Like It Hot and The Misfits and have to say they both have their flaws that I will avoid mentioning over again herein. River Of No Return was pretty abysmal - its entire color palette adopting a bizarre brown/beige - blue/green saturation that I don't remember the film ever having before (I attended a screening in Hollywood during Monroe's 30th Anniversary celebration). Also found the image very waxy in spots. Overall, was NOT impressed.
The Seven Year Itch didn't do it for me either. I can't understand it. The brief clips Fox incorporated into the main menu screen look amazing. But these same clips in the film lack that pop and wow of color fidelity. I also found that several sequences in the film were suffering from vinegar syndrome, evident by their color fading. The Sherman's apartment walls - a beige color - occasionally looked like they had suddenly adopted a soft pinky haze.
Best of the bunch - as far as I'm concerned - was How To Marry A Millionaire - a bright, nicely contrasted image with good grain, and bold colors. It was also sharp. Like someone already mentioned - vintage Cinemascope had no issues with being sharp. So the overall soft characteristic of the scope movies herein is curious to down right WRONG! Again, I'm not impressed by Fox's lackluster treatment of one of their all time great stars. But given the studio's current trend for cutting corners in the hi-def market, quite frankly - I'm not a bit surprised.
PS - sorely missing Niagara, Don't Bother to Knock and Bus Stop from this collection. Niagara on DVD had a horribly mis-registered Technicolor negative so I suspect that's the reason it didn't get released this time around. Even someone at Fox knew we wouldn't stand for that in hi-def and since no one could be bothered to 'remaster' the image they simply left the film out of this anthology.
BOTTOM LINE: for something as monumental as Monroe's 50th we ought to have expected more than what we were given. I think true collectors should boycott this release in protest.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

Overall I have to say I was NOT impressed with Fox's Forever Marilyn box set - terrible slip case cardboard packaging, no extras and no collector's packaging and/or booklets. Cheap! Not in the price they're asking, but in their content and design.

I was surprised because Fox has released some TERRIFIC catalog releases on Blu-ray, haven't they? ALL ABOUT EVE and THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW are the first ones that come to mind for me. It's almost as if another division was in charge of this release.

 

[bugsy-pal]

Nick - I would have to agree with your assessments of the box set in the main. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes was one that i found a bit perplexing - the colours are right in your face but I felt detail was lacking. I don't know whether this is due to the film elements or what. There is extra detail there when compared to the DVD but it's not blatantly obvious - you have to do a close A/B comparison to see the extra resolution on the bluray.
And I think I'd agree that the 'How to Marry a Millionaire' disc looks the best of all, based on the quick scan of it that i did.

 

[Doug Bull]

+2
Nick you are spot on.
There are even more problems than those you mentioned.
I had exactly the same reaction to the bright and colorful menu on The Seven Year Itch.
Makes one wonder where the menu image was sourced from.
One can only hope and pray that Fox will spend money and do the job properly when they get around to doing any future Rodgers & Hammerstein Blu-ray set.
They certainly appear to have done it cheap with Marilyn.
At least the Australian release has better packaging and does include a small booklet, all for $20 less than the US version.
The set is still good value regardless of the imperfections.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Nick*Z /t/322759/gentlemen-prefer-blondes-on-blu-ray-thoughts#post_3958643
Overall I have to say I was NOT impressed with Fox's Forever Marilyn box set - terrible slip case cardboard packaging, no extras and no collector's packaging and/or booklets. Cheap! Not in the price they're asking, but in their content and design.
RE: Gentlemen Prefer Blondes - I will say this - the image both impressed and confounded me. Like others who have already commented herein I found the image razor sharp with good flesh tones and colors that absolutely walloped the eye. But I too found the total absence of film grain a little unsettling. I can't say the image was waxen - because it's not, but it did tend to look a tad cartoonish to me. I can't quantify the reason for this assessment. Overall, though, I have to say I was definitely NOT disappointed by the presentation.
I can't say the same for my viewing of There's No Business Like Show Business. HTF's very own Robert Harris gave this disc a radiant review. With all due respect to Mr. Harris (whose opinion I readily admire and frequently turn to for solid advice) I don't think he took a serious look at the entire movie. I own the old Diamond Collection DVD set. The scene near the beginning where Molly and Terry are waiting at a train depot with their kids and Molly complains about them needing a real home has a strange anomaly where the image inexplicably wobbles, zooms in and then out. This same anomaly is persistent in the new Blu-ray leading me to believe that the same flawed video files were directly imported by Fox and simply bumped up to a 1080p signal without a complete rescan of the original film elements. I have other reasons for thinking as I do.
First up, the ruddy flesh tones which give everyone the tanned skin look are even darker and more tanned on the Blu-ray. Also, check out the master shot that opens the Alexander's Ragtime Band number. The musicians and stylized background are horribly marred by digital noise in exactly the same areas as they were on the aforementioned DVD! Also, colors are hardly robust. In fact, I found reds to be off throughout, suffering from a slightly orange tint. Look at Marilyn's Heat Wave number - the violent purple of the background drapes is washed out and Marilyn's skin tones are severely orange. The worst part about this transfer was the contrast which is obviously way too low. The main titles are dark. I also found the exaggerated grain too grainy and occasionally gritty.
As for the rest of the films in the box set - first up, I already owned Some Like It Hot and The Misfits and have to say they both have their flaws that I will avoid mentioning over again herein. River Of No Return was pretty abysmal - its entire color palette adopting a bizarre brown/beige - blue/green saturation that I don't remember the film ever having before (I attended a screening in Hollywood during Monroe's 30th Anniversary celebration). Also found the image very waxy in spots. Overall, was NOT impressed.
The Seven Year Itch didn't do it for me either. I can't understand it. The brief clips Fox incorporated into the main menu screen look amazing. But these same clips in the film lack that pop and wow of color fidelity. I also found that several sequences in the film were suffering from vinegar syndrome, evident by their color fading. The Sherman's apartment walls - a beige color - occasionally looked like they had suddenly adopted a soft pinky haze.
Best of the bunch - as far as I'm concerned - was How To Marry A Millionaire - a bright, nicely contrasted image with good grain, and bold colors. It was also sharp. Like someone already mentioned - vintage Cinemascope had no issues with being sharp. So the overall soft characteristic of the scope movies herein is curious to down right WRONG! Again, I'm not impressed by Fox's lackluster treatment of one of their all time great stars. But given the studio's current trend for cutting corners in the hi-def market, quite frankly - I'm not a bit surprised.
PS - sorely missing Niagara, Don't Bother to Knock and Bus Stop from this collection. Niagara on DVD had a horribly mis-registered Technicolor negative so I suspect that's the reason it didn't get released this time around. Even someone at Fox knew we wouldn't stand for that in hi-def and since no one could be bothered to 'remaster' the image they simply left the film out of this anthology.
BOTTOM LINE: for something as monumental as Monroe's 50th we ought to have expected more than what we were given. I think true collectors should boycott this release in protest.

There's No Business... is the best of the bunch here. An image harvested from the Eastman OCN within the past few years. This appears to have been the least faded of the Eastman elements.

River of No Return appears to have been more faded, and it looks quite decent, considering.

Bringing up the rear, is How to Marry... I've not yet reviewed, and may not, as it didn't make me smile. Quite faded original, with lots of dupes.

Unfortunately, there is only so much that can be done with these antique productions. And I know that the archival staff at Fox struggled with them, trying to make them look as good as possible. Probably the biggest problem with these early Eastman shows, was that every print, with the exception of those that may have been printed dye transfer, were struck from the originals. Overall, not a good situation as a starting point.

RAH

 

[DavidJ]

Thanks for the information RAH. I appreciate having the context as we discuss these Blu-rays.

 

[Mark-P]

...Unfortunately, there is only so much that can be done with these antique productions... 
RAH

See that's what I thought - that people just don't take into account the condition of the surviving elements. From your few words about... about Pillow Talk I gather that Universal must have spent a small fortune to make it look as good as it did. Do we really expect Fox to spend that much on each and every Marilyn picture and still give us such a bargain on the box set? You'll note that the retail price on "Pillow Talk" is $39.99 and they still haven't offered a cheaper disc-only alternative.

 

[Robert Harris]

See that's what I thought - that people just don't take into account the condition of the surviving elements. From your few words about... about Pillow Talk I gather that Universal must have spent a small fortune to make it look as good as it did. Do we really expect Fox to spend that much on each and every Marilyn picture and still give us such a bargain on the box set? You'll note that the retail price on "Pillow Talk" is $39.99 and they still haven't offered a cheaper disc-only alternative.

With the exception of a few specific productions, restrictive budgets are in place, on top of problematic elements.

 

[lukejosephchung]

Originally Posted by Doug Bull /t/322759/gentlemen-prefer-blondes-on-blu-ray-thoughts#post_3958676
+2
Nick you are spot on.
There are even more problems than those you mentioned.
I had exactly the same reaction to the bright and colorful menu on The Seven Year Itch.
Makes one wonder where the menu image was sourced from.
One can only hope and pray that Fox will spend money and do the job properly when they get around to doing any future Rodgers & Hammerstein Blu-ray set.
They certainly appear to have done it cheap with Marilyn.
At least the Australian release has better packaging and does include a small booklet, all for $20 less than the US version.
The set is still good value regardless of the imperfections.

If "The Sound Of Music" and "South Pacific" are any indicator, the Rodgers & Hammerstein BD box set should look and sound positively amazing...I have no doubts that the R&H Estate are making sure that their remaining catalog is properly redone for HD by Fox...

 

[John Hermes]

See that's what I thought - that people just don't take into account the condition of the surviving elements. From your few words about... about Pillow Talk I gather that Universal must have spent a small fortune to make it look as good as it did. Do we really expect Fox to spend that much on each and every Marilyn picture and still give us such a bargain on the box set? You'll note that the retail price on "Pillow Talk" is $39.99 and they still haven't offered a cheaper disc-only alternative.

Get the British release (region free). $19.08 shipped.

 

[haineshisway]

My error about it being somewhere on this forum - it was on your website: http://www.haineshisway.com/archives/003611.html
I do hope that you are okay with me posting a link to direct people to the article on your site.
It is this long post which bothered me, and it has made me think twice before commenting on anything for fear of being seen as one of the "bunch of know-it-alls whose total sum of knowledge about Blu-ray or DVD or transfers has been gotten from discussion boards and the Internet and not from having actually seen these films projected."
You weren't specific in what website or what people you were referring to in the post, but I would think that this summation applies to most of the people on here that do give opinions and reviews, that "they haven’t worked in the film industry, they haven’t handled film, they haven’t been in a telecine room..." No, most of us haven't and never will, but the end result of that long post was the thought that only your opinion mattered.
When you post about your distaste for "Internet wags who post on Blu-ray discussion boards. These know-it-alls..." you are referring to most of us on here. That's the way I took it. If you had been more specific, well, that's something, but such a blanket statement rankled me, and I would think it might anyone who read all of what you wrote.
Granted, I never posted anything about JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S or THE TEN COMMANDMENTS on Blu-ray, but still. I do post in this forum. I don't think of myself as a know-it-all, by any means. I attend 35mm screenings, and 70mm a few special occasions, when I can, as there are many opportunities where I live. I also attend screenings to then find that, after I've paid and am seated, what appears on the screen is a projected DVD or Blu-ray. I can most definitely tell the difference immediately.
I started this thread asking if anyone else thought GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES looked off, to see if what I was observing matched what anyone else thought. I didn't jump out crying foul.

What I write on my website is what I write on my website. I have the longest running blog in the history of the Internet - I've never missed a day in almost eleven years. It's just a place for me to write whatever I feel like. And the comments you are referring to were directed very specifically at one website, whose name I don't need to post here. It was NOT aimed at anyone at the HTF. That's why I was very specific about which film I was talking about. It won't take much research to figure it all out

 

[haineshisway]

He asked for some reference, and that's why I posted it. I couldn't remember if I read his comments on here or his own website until I started searching for it.
Not agreeing is fine, but there is a difference when what anyone else thinks is singled out as being nothing but frivolous. When I saw that Bruce had commented in the thread, it brought back to my mind his thoughts on people who post on discussion forums. I thought I had qualified my concern about the transfer and proceeded with caution in my first post in the thread to avoid a problem, but no. I should've probably waited for someone else to say something.

Obviously we can have discourse about THIS transfer here in a civil manner. I believe my initial post here was civil. Your response was not and your subsequent responses, even after you were asked to stop have continued to be combative. What I said on my website is not of concern to you here, why would it be? As I said in the post above, those comments were not about anyone on the HTF - the people to whom they were directed on another site read them, cried foul, as if their incorrect assumptions should stand, but you know what - it stopped them. They didn't admit they were wrong, but it stopped them. Again, what has that to do with this thread? If you don't want to read an opposing view or at least an opposing view from me, then don't read my posts or ignore them. But I'm going to offer a differing opinion if I feel it's warranted, which, in this case, I felt it was.
Back to Gentleman Prefer Blondes - I'm hoping Mr. Harris will re-chime in here because I think he's viewed it again.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by John Hermes /t/322759/gentlemen-prefer-blondes-on-blu-ray-thoughts/30#post_3958726
Get the British release (region free). $19.08 shipped.

That's what I did with the final shipped price of $18.56

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by haineshisway /t/322759/gentlemen-prefer-blondes-on-blu-ray-thoughts/30#post_3958734
Obviously we can have discourse about THIS transfer here in a civil manner. I believe my initial post here was civil. Your response was not and your subsequent responses, even after you were asked to stop have continued to be combative. What I said on my website is not of concern to you here, why would it be? As I said in the post above, those comments were not about anyone on the HTF - the people to whom they were directed on another site read them, cried foul, as if their incorrect assumptions should stand, but you know what - it stopped them. They didn't admit they were wrong, but it stopped them. Again, what has that to do with this thread? If you don't want to read an opposing view or at least an opposing view from me, then don't read my posts or ignore them. But I'm going to offer a differing opinion if I feel it's warranted, which, in this case, I felt it was.
Back to Gentleman Prefer Blondes - I'm hoping Mr. Harris will re-chime in here because I think he's viewed it again.

I have.

And raised my image score by a full point.

As I note in the start of thread, this is one of those viewing size situations. The larger the monitor surface, and especially via projection, one sees that the grain is virtually gone, and what grain does remain -- look at backgrounds -- remains absolutely, rock-sold still. My thoughts are that the image harvest was quality, and something occurred in compression.

BTW, color appears correct, with rich full blacks. It has that very specific early to mid-'50s Tech look.

RAH

 

[bjwmovies]

So far, How To Marry A Millionaire is the best looking of the FOX titles...actually stunning, sparkles! More on par of what FOX can do with a Cinemascope/Technicolor film of this vintage.
Re: Seven Year Itch... I have already pointed this out on the Forever Marilyn Collection review/discussion. During the last 1/4 of the movie (after the iconic blowing dress up on subway grate)...during the scene when she is sitting in front of the air conditioner and hiding behind the chair when the janitor comes in...and then she stands up...from that point on, when all 3 actors are in the frame there is some kind of a red miss-alignment on the right side of her white dress (or anything white), a red edge shifted to the right on anything white. It remains apparent and the image quality deteriorates from that point on too, then the red edge shift disappears and the image quality comes back to the expected "sharp" quality AFTER the scene when she comes down the stairs in a white nighty. It almost looks like what we were used to seeing when we used rear projections that needed vertical alignment. Or as if this is an instance of matrices shrinkage? If that is the case, you would think you would see more evidence of it throughout. Using an Ultra Resolution process like Warners it could have been fixed. When you see what they did with titles like Singin in the Rain, you would think FOX would have given this title the same "spare no expense" process. I am sure they could have done more than just let this be. FOX gets lazy sometimes and cheap. Their Marilyn titles deserve only the best treatment. They should fix this and offer a replacement. I am surprised only a few of us are discussing this scene. Yes the rest of the print has other problems, and deserved better treatment as a whole. But this is just plain unacceptable and is a glaring jump in quality, disruptive to the flow and sloppy! Mr. Harris? Anyone?
Next Gentlemen Prefer Blondes… holding my breath after reading what has been discussed here!