Robert Crawford

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
48,877
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
I don't like the look of the screen captures, and as this is far from a favourite of mine, will give it a miss.
Oh boy! From Gary's review:

The image still has some unsavory softness, more realistic (warmer) skin tones and looks significantly improved in-motion. I like the film-like heaviness and it suits the HD presentation.
 

PatrickDA

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
315
It looks really THICK in those screen caps. Certainly the OCN can't look like that? But maybe it does. It's always had that look on DVD, so maybe there's inherent issues with the source materials. I can only hope his "looks better in-motion" comments are true.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
13,096
Real Name
Robert Harris
It does not appear much better in motion. While the set is imperfect, it is extremely unlikely that we’re going to see anything better for budgetary reasons. The potential audience for this film is limited.

For that reason, if you love the film, the actors, the filmmakers, best grab a copy of the Arrow release.
 

Josh Steinberg

Film Editor
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
18,765
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Yeah, I’m totally in. I rewatched the DVD not long ago and just about anything would be an improvement. It’s my favorite Stewart western, but also a film that’s not hugely popular today - I understand that budgetary limitations aren’t going to provide for a six or seven figure restoration here and I’m very comfortable with the likely result. My preorder was in place on day one and I’ve seen nothing here to dampen my enthusiasm.

My big problem is that there aren’t enough hours in the day to watch it right away!
 

OliverK

Cinematographer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
4,385
My first thought was that somebody should please adjust the scanner that was used for this to quote Arrow
"Brand new restoration from the original camera negative by Arrow Films". On top of that it has that kind of dated look that is not usually found in recent scans even when detail is lacking.

The caps looked so mediocre to me that I compared them to an older HD recording to see if there is any significant improvement compared to that version and I was very surprised to see not that many differences between the two. Without that quote from the Arrow website I would have been certain that the same (old) master has been used for both judging by the screencaps I have compared so far.

Not sure what went wrong as certainly with a fresh and recent scan from the OCN they should be able to do better, even in 2k.
 

Keith Cobby

Effects Supervisor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
2,682
Location
Kent "The Garden of England", UK
Real Name
Keith Cobby
To those of us who are fairly ignorant regarding the remastering/restoration process, comments such as 'brand new 4k restoration from the original film elements' are misleading and about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
 

smithbrad

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 12, 2013
Messages
1,352
Real Name
Brad
I remember having this ordered through Germany, probably at least two years ago, along with other new Stewart western blu-ray releases. Far Country continued to receive delay after delay, until finally being removed. The word was issues with the elements.

I was glad to hear it was finally going to be released by Arrow to the US a few years later. While I was hoping all concerns about elements would disappear, I am not entirely surprised by the news.
 

OliverK

Cinematographer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
4,385
To those of us who are fairly ignorant regarding the remastering/restoration process, comments such as 'brand new 4k restoration from the original film elements' are misleading and about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
Usually this will mean that detail and textures are improved not only over the previous DVD's but also over existing HD versions.
Unfortunately things can go wrong in a variety of ways so it is always better to seek out reviewers you trust before you buy. If you can put them into perspective you may also want to check some properly done screenshots. They are very good for showing certain things but not quite as good for others.
 

Thomas T

Cinematographer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
4,601
It would seem that having The Far Country in its original aspect ratio (actually choice of ratios: 1.85 or 2.1) for the first time would be reason enough to pick this up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B-ROLL

B-ROLL

Effects Supervisor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
2,639
Real Name
Bryan
pre-ordered as part of the Target B2G1 sale...
 

OliverK

Cinematographer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
4,385
It would seem that having The Far Country in its original aspect ratio (actually choice of ratios: 1.85 or 2.1) for the first time would be reason enough to pick this up.
While those caps dampened my enthusiasm the Blu-ray will also have substantially better detail than all DVD version regardless of aspect ratio and on top of that the extras are quite extraordinary and look like a must-have for fans of Tony Mann and the Mann/Stewart collaborations:

https://www.arrowfilms.com/product-detail/the-far-country-blu-ray/FCD1915
 

Trancas

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
141
Real Name
Eric
I'm not sure what the point of including a second disc with a 2.1 cropping of the film is. The above review has a series of matching screen caps from the two versions. Looking at this for what it is: a very traditionally shot 1954 vintage film; I don't think the 2.1 ratio does anything good for any of the included caps:
Ruth comparison.jpg

Poor Ruth - chopped at the head and chopped at the hand.

Arrow says: "The original 35mm camera negative was scanned in 4K resolution at NBC Universal's Studio Post facility. The film was graded and restored at Silver Salt Restoration, London."
The caps shown on Blu Ray and Beaver don't look like a 4k scan from the original 35mm camera negative. They seem to be from a duplicate negative or even a generation worse. All those soft edges and that blotchy irregular grain.
 

Robert Crawford

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
48,877
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
I'm not sure what the point of including a second disc with a 2.1 cropping of the film is. The above review has a series of matching screen caps from the two versions. Looking at this for what it is: a very traditionally shot 1954 vintage film; I don't think the 2.1 ratio does anything good for any of the included caps:
View attachment 64883
Poor Ruth - chopped at the head and chopped at the hand.

Arrow says: "The original 35mm camera negative was scanned in 4K resolution at NBC Universal's Studio Post facility. The film was graded and restored at Silver Salt Restoration, London."
The caps shown on Blu Ray and Beaver don't look like a 4k scan from the original 35mm camera negative. They seem to be from a duplicate negative or even a generation worse. All those soft edges and that blotchy irregular grain.
I think this film was originally released 2.1 to movie theaters even though it was filmed 1.85 ratio?

I'm looking forward to watching this Blu-ray after reading so many complaints about the stills. The video presentation might not be pristine, but, I'm afraid this might be the best we ever get on physical disc.
 

Trancas

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
141
Real Name
Eric
I think this film was originally released 2.1 to movie theaters even though it was filmed 1.85 ratio?
Just because the original marketing idiots botched the release of this film doesn't mean that it looks good that way. That's like approving of what MGM did to Gone with the Wind when they re-re-released it with the top and bottom of the picture chopped off.
 
Last edited:

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
344,490
Messages
4,711,923
Members
141,267
Latest member
Vicious-Poodle