My Fair Lady SE

Discussion in 'DVD' started by DeeF, Jan 27, 2004.

  1. DeeF

    DeeF Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    1,683
    Likes Received:
    11
    I received mine tonight. I put the movie in, but I don't see any difference in the transfer (from the original DVD). Does anyone know if it was altered, beyond perhaps giving it more bitrate overall?
     
  2. Gordon McMurphy

    Gordon McMurphy Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it's exactly the same transfer, apparently. Which isn't a bad thing is it? It was restored on film to exceptionally high standards and looks amazing.

    So, seeing as Warner is keen to revist titles like this, it would be great to see a remastered edition of The Wild Bunch.
     
  3. oscar_merkx

    oscar_merkx Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    7,626
    Likes Received:
    1
    thanks for the update about the transfer. I will now order the title
     
  4. DaViD Boulet

    DaViD Boulet Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 1999
    Messages:
    8,800
    Likes Received:
    3
    Wait a minute folks...

    While the *transfer* of the first DVD may be fine, the *compression* and digital DNR noise was HORRIBLE at times. There are moments on my disc where fine detail "vanishes" and reappears in what looks like the DNR algorithm is getting confused between "noise" and actual picture information. The effect is distracting on any large-screen.

    Compression is also very bad in some scenes.

    So...does this new disc offer any improvements in the *digital compression* even if the same transfer is used? Anyone with a large-screen system able to see a difference???

    -dave
     
  5. DeeF

    DeeF Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    1,683
    Likes Received:
    11
    My system isn't particularly large (50" plasma monitor). But I do see the same problems I saw on the original disk. Though I'm happy for the extras, which I originally saw on the videotape set which came out in 1994, I am a little disappointed that more work wasn't really done to the feature itself.
     
  6. Enrique B Chamorro

    Enrique B Chamorro Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 1999
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    0
    David,

    If you are quick about it, you could email Gary Tooze (see[​IMG]

    http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...&pagenumber=16

    with the time in the movie that has the compression problems
    (he may get captures of the old & new DVD at that time for
    his new comparison he is working on of My Fair Lady)
     
  7. george kaplan

    george kaplan Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,063
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well it may not exactly be a bad thing, but as far as inducing me to upgrade, if there's no improvement in picture quality, then I'll be passing.
     
  8. Joe Caps

    Joe Caps Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2000
    Messages:
    1,977
    Likes Received:
    47
    Just went back to watch the old dvd and realised why I don't watch it too often. Don't like most of the transfer too much. Especially all of those dark early scenes outside covent garden that just look dark and dingy.
    The sound to me is a disaster. The original six track is gone so this is from a printing master. That means the high end is kaput. Insteadof compensating for lack of high end, just the opposoite is done and fake upper bass is added. Much reverb has been added to all the songs ( who original surrounds are gone) making every song sound like one of those bad old Columbia records soundtrack albums - except the original Columbia records LP doesn't have reverb and sounds a lot better than the dvd.
    The new dvd also hads the hour long restoration documentary from the old laser and THAT uses a different source for the clips from the film- with better color and better sound.
    To my mind, there are now two Lerner and Loewe musicals that are very poor on DVD - My Fair Lady and camelot which has great picture but a completely screwy 5.1 remix that is an atrocity.
    it is a little disturbing that on this forum, the feeling is all you have to do is some kind orf restoration or send the thing to Lowry Digital and, voila, good film transfer!! Not so - the thing will certainly be cleaner, but it doesn't mean the damn thing looks good!!
    example - Disney spent a fortune to have all of the optical dirt taken out of Mary Poppins. Now its very clean but the colors are all off. The sound has been equed with a horribla upper midrange peak, guaranteed to give you a headache in minutes. God knows what we are going to get when Disney releases a special editoin later this year. Still hoping we get the original, never released pre-screenOverture and I hear we are getting the Intermission but put in the wrong place.( it originally came at the end of the song, "Stay awake")
     
  9. Greg_M

    Greg_M Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2000
    Messages:
    1,189
    Likes Received:
    0
    DVD Town's review states the new DVD has a higher bit rate then the first DVD. It is a pretty good and long review of the two disc set.


    "You need a star"
    "I've got no voice"
    "You've got no choice - Dub me!"
    "Never do I ever want to sing another song"
    "There isn't one, I won't sing wrong"
    "Anyone who's ever heard me sing will tell you that"
    "My talent's wearing a hat!"
    "Dress me in gowns"
    "But when I speak"
    "You're up a creek - Dub me!"
    "Dub me, and while you dub, mix and erase"
    "Put someone else in my place"
    "Dub - my face!"
     
  10. Enrique B Chamorro

    Enrique B Chamorro Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 1999
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    0
    The very same video tranfer data can have different bitrates
    driven my the audio tracks. A DTS track can effective add
    +1 to the same video bit rates, so a bigger bit rate does
    not always mean a better transfer.
     
  11. DaViD Boulet

    DaViD Boulet Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 1999
    Messages:
    8,800
    Likes Received:
    3
    Good point about audio affecting bit-rate.

    Let's be accurate in our use of the term "transfer" as in this thread it's used almost as generally as the term "restored" is in DVD marketing literature...

    "Transfer" refers to the process by which the analog film elements are digitally sampled and converted to an electronic format. These days that usually happens (major studios) at the 1920 x 1080 24P resolution.

    That's the transfer.

    The process by which that source (usually high-res) transfer is then color-corrected, noise-filtered, processed for scratch-removal, grain-removal, and down-resed to the 720 x 480 resolution and MPEG-2 compressed for DVD, is part of video *mastering*.

    The same "transfer" can look very different given varibables in the subsequent mastering. Of course, if there are problems inherent in the source transfer (such as iaccurate color timing or use of a poor-quality film element), *or* if various electronic artifacts were introduced at the time of the transfer and are now an inherent part of the high-res digital master (the EE in the HD master of Lawrwnce of Arabia or general loss of detail from many older standard-definition transfers), then improvements would be gained by a bran-new transfer.
     
  12. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    9,621
    Likes Received:
    5,857
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    David Boulet has made a superb and important point and I'd be most interested in hearing his thoughts once he's had a chance to contrast and compare the two releases on monitors of differing sizes.

    While I was planning on remaining somewhat mute in regard to this release (Its rather like reviewing one's own children) I have had the opportunity to view the new DVD of My Fair Lady on a number of monitors, and while not nirvana, it stands head and shoulders above the previous effort, which had major problems with electronic enhancement. This was, after all, one of the early DVDs.

    The new release has gone back to the original transfer and removed
    much of the problematic enhancement.

    It should be noted that the original transfer was not in HiDef, which means that this release is not a down-conversion.

    Viewed on screens up to about 50 - 60 inches, the new release holds up
    beautifully, only showing the age of the original transfer when projected in a much larger range, ie. 80 - 110".

    To me, the difference between the two releases in terms of image quality is major.

    Would I have liked to see a new transfer based upon the newest technologies and from a 65mm element?

    Certainly.

    Whatever problems still may exist are based almost wholly upon the age of the original transfer, however, and not the element. By this I mean that going from a 65mm image source would not have affected the final DVD in any major way, especially for a non-HiDef DVD.

    The source of the transfer is an extremely expensive and extremely high quality 35mm anamorphic interpositive derived directed from the 65mm restoration negative.

    It was produced with the edges matted left and right to properly accord the original aspect ratio of the film, and is therefore a picture element which finds it main, and possibly only use, as a transfer element.

    The price to produce this element was over $65,000 in 1994.

    Not a small sum, which I believe speaks well of the intent of those behind the release to reach a high quality level.

    All of that said, we not apt to see anything better until a true high
    definition release comes our way.

    In the meantime, one might wish to give the old release to a friend
    who is not quality intensive and enjoy the newest incarnation.

    RAH
     
  13. DeeF

    DeeF Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    1,683
    Likes Received:
    11
    Thank you so much for chiming in here, Mr. Harris, because obviously, your word on this means a lot.

    I guess I have a lot of learning to do, about what constitutes a transfer, etc.

    You have said that this is the same transfer, a high-definition transfer that hasn't gone through "down-conversion."

    But it seems to me all digital transfers must go through some down-conversion, to fit on a DVD at the proper resolution and 480 scan lines. I don't know what they could have done this time, that they didn't do in 1999 or whenever they worked on this last.

    Since this seems to be the final version we'll see on this technology, until HD-DVD comes, I'm a little disappointed that they didn't return once again to the original sources, to ring a little more quality out of the process. Perhaps it wasn't commercially feasible to do that.

    David, when you have done a comparison, perhaps you could elaborate scenes which have improved on the new disk. I can't see them, myself, but as has been suggested, my system is only 50", not small, but not very big either.
     
  14. Carlo Medina

    Carlo Medina Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 1997
    Messages:
    10,426
    Likes Received:
    630
    Thanks for your input, as always RAH.

    Not that I needed your opinion as a selling point, since my original DVD suffers from DVD Rot, but having heard what your experience was I will most certainly pick this new DVD version up.
     
  15. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,363
    Likes Received:
    896
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    Dee:

    This is the *same* film-to-digital transfer (I assume done at standard DVD resolution), but has been remastered and reauthored to give a higher-quality picture than the original DVD release. This will be the best *until* there is a high-def transfer.
     
  16. Eric Paddon

    Eric Paddon Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2001
    Messages:
    1,166
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have always preferred the LD version to the DVD but even with all the LD extras being duplicated at last, I have to admit I'm reluctant to get this for one reason. When I watch the movie on LD my preference is to use the analog tracks so I can hear Audrey Hepburn's vocals in the context of watching the entire film and not as a mere extra. This feature (also present for Ava Gardner's vocals on the boxed LD of "Show Boat") is frankly one that I wish would be available on DVD and if this doesn't have it, as I assume it doesn't, my inclination is to pass for now.
     
  17. Josh Steinberg

    Josh Steinberg Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    6,387
    Likes Received:
    4,162
    Real Name:
    Josh Steinberg


    A HiDef transfer would need to be downconverted before being compressed and authored to DVD.

    It is my understanding that a standard def transfer wouldn't need to be downconverted. It would just need to be compressed and authored as any DVD would.
     
  18. Matt Stieg

    Matt Stieg Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just got the DVD last night, and on several of the extras on disc 2 there's a counter in the upper-left-hand corner. It says TCR then the hour, minute, second, and milliseconds. It appears on these extras:

    Audio of George Cukor directing
    Posters & Lobby Card Gallery w/Harrison audio (the picture quality on this extra seems to be curiously mediocre)
    LA Premiere footage
    Rex Harrison's Golden Globe acceptance speech
    37th Annual Oscars
    the two brief interviews with Scorsese and Webber

    The thing is, I didn't see this mentioned in the DVD Town review and it hasn't been mentioned here.

    One quick question; I thought the film's aspect ratio was 2.20:1. While the old widescreen VHS showed the film in this ratio, both DVD releases have been in 2.35:1. What gives?
     

Share This Page