John Morgan
Supporting Actor
View attachment 61866
https://arrowfilms.com/product-detail/the-far-country-blu-ray/FCD1915
Anyone have an idea what “1.0 stereo is supposed to be?
Must be a Kino release.
View attachment 61866
https://arrowfilms.com/product-detail/the-far-country-blu-ray/FCD1915
Anyone have an idea what “1.0 stereo is supposed to be?
Oh boy! From Gary's review: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.
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.
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.
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.
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:Caps look a bit better on the other site
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Far-Country-Blu-ray/250543/#Review
I think this film was originally released 2.1 to movie theaters even though it was filmed 1.85 ratio?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.
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.I think this film was originally released 2.1 to movie theaters even though it was filmed 1.85 ratio?