No buzz/reviews for the 9/30 Warner classics yet? (1 Viewer)

[Tim RH]

Matt, please do post those screenshots if you could. I think it would be helpful for some of the members (including myself of course). Thank you.

 

[Jean-Michel]

In response to Jean-Michel's comment about placating a review simply to keep the free DVD's coming in...

It wasn't my comment.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Or maybe, RAH hasn't seen the dvd yet????????????

 

[Terry H]

Or maybe, RAH hasn't seen the dvd yet????????????

Certainly possible. I guess we'll know for sure when and if he comments on the disc.

 

[Randy A Salas]

The movie doesn't really suffer because of this minor transfer problem.

I'm not entirely convinced that it's the transfer at fault. But it definitely is minor; we're talking about a shot that lasts a whopping 11 seconds, after all.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Thanks for the screen capture Randy. I viewed that scene recently on the MGM/UA Laserdisc release of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and that banding is definitely not present on my LD copy.

- Walter.

 

[Bill Burns]

Eh ... um ... I'm pouring over that screen capture, and all I'm seeing is a differential in focus and lighting. Does the camera move during that eleven seconds, or is it locked? If the entire scene plays out as seen in those captures, I'd have to side with someone earlier who suggested this was a lighting or focus issue, a photographic issue on the set. The scene looks perfectly natural to me, with firelight (or studio lamps approximating it) illuminating the middle ground, the bottom of the frame out of focus near the camera and the distance a backdrop or rear screen projection that naturally wouldn't match the contrast or grain structure of the "live" photography.

I'll know more when I've viewed the disc, but I'm not at all worried based on those screen captures. Thanks for posting them, Randy.

 

[Tim RH]

I'm definately not an expert on this sort of thing, but is it at all possible that they just had to use two or three different film sources for that particular scene because there was irreversable damage on parts of one or more of the prints/negatives used?... assuming they did in fact use more than one of course.

Sorry if my ignorance of these types of issues is obvious. :b

 

[DeeF]

Thanks for providing that capture, Randy, which is indeed what I see on my plasma.

For those of you that can't see it, the "stripes" are geometric, and not at all a lighting or blurring issue.

It did occur to me that this could be a matter of using the top of certain sources, the middle of others, and the bottom of others. Was this movie ever edited for a widescreen release? That could be the "source" of this problem.

The scene is only 11 seconds long, with a stationary camera, and it would be easily fixable in the digital domain.

It doesn't hurt the overall film. But whatever way it came about, it is an error, nonetheless, and quite obvious on all my systems.

 

[Randy A Salas]

Was this movie ever edited for a widescreen release? That could be the "source" of this problem.

Well, now, that's an interesting observation. I just used an imaging program to crop the screen capture at the lines of contrast. It leaves a middle portion that has a proportion of 2.35:1. Really.

 

[TonyDale]

From the keyboard of BruceKimmel:

I suppose your last post was really directed at me.
I'm 45, and I know what I'm looking at, as well as you.

and my $.02:

It is a generality, to be sure, BUT, one not without its merits. Hardly addressed at one person in particular, since BruceKimmel's statement is radically right on the money.
A good percentage of the so-called "reviewers" on the net appear to be people whose knowledge of film (as a medium) begins with STAR WARS (1977), or possibly even later.
These are the MTV-babies, and quite a few of their reviews of major film classics reflect their upbringing. It is a statement with back-up, if you surf the major and minor dvd review sites: many "reviewers" try to be film critics with their reviews of the dvds, and to them I say, "Leave the film criticism behind, and tell us about the dvd." I have taken to the reviews here at the HTF (especially those by the extraordinary DAVID BOULET) while practically giving up on most of the other sites, which I frequent now mainly for the news of upcoming releases, interviews and such ephemera.
There are quite a few classics that I don't get (somebody please explain to me the appeal of EASY RIDER, for example), and my age falls somewhere in between Mr. BK's and Mr. DeeF's.
I was lucky enough to have been around for Road Show Presentations, the birth of theatrical Dolby Surround, the rise of the repertory house and the birth of BetaMax.
A great deal of my leisure time was spent as one of Norma Desmond's so-called, "people out there in the dark;" seeing everything available on B-I-G screens from ALPHAVILLE to ZARDOZ.
The internet has spawned a legion of newfangled critics, who often cannot even construct a sentence who will take whatever opportunity given them to foist their own negative-laced biases (sans erudite opinions)upon unsuspecting readers. We all of course have our own biases in regards to these new voices in criticism; there are very few which I will read for their learned opinions, while there are many more whom I will read when I need a good laugh. As their audience, I also feel the need to address any factual wrongs which may have occurred (for whatever reason) in their writings, ergo, many of these critics have received kindly worded emails from me.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Was this movie ever edited for a widescreen release?

No.

It looks like the banding is some sort of defect in either the element or the transfer. It's not been on any of the 35mm or 16mm prints I've seen, nor, as Walter noted, on the LD.

 

[DeeF]

As I originally mentioned, I think this is a transfer problem as well (or at least, a digital problem which was never rectified before making the disks).

As to the question of online reviewers being young and inexperienced, there are plenty of older reviewers who have seen plenty of movies in the theater and still don't know what they're looking at.

I like the reviewers on this site a lot, particularly David Boulet, and Ron Epstein's reviews are missed. I also like to come here for Robert Harris's calm words of wisdom. (I think Mr. Harris is over 50.)

The other reviewer I really like is DVD Savant, who is a real film editor and a fantastic writer and over 50 (I think).

And let's not forget the Cinema Laser guy, who posts around here (Derek?).

Cheers to all these reviewers!!

 

[TonyDale]

I heartily raise my voice in CHEERS to those cited reviewers!

 

[Bill Burns]

Mark Zimmer and many of his fellow reviewers at Digitally Obsessed are among the most exhaustive and reliable disc reviewers on the internet. A few of the aforementioned are also high on my personal reference list, others less so (a matter of personal taste) ... and to the list I should also add Barrie Maxwell at The Digital Bits, Herb Kane here at the HTF (and all of the official reviewers, who are donating their time and doing good work) ... oh yes, and the young but always entertaining Peter Bracke at DVDFile. His review of the T2 EE (that's Extreme Edition, not Edge Enhancement edition ) HD version was the most extensive and detailed single review (as opposed to multiple-participant threads) of that release I've found.

I often disagree, sometimes passionately, with film critique -- that's unavoidable when you care about film as an art form, and I've been overdosing on it for more than a decade of active collecting and weekly theatrical outings (TCM was a daily must before a move that necessitated a change in providers). Roger Ebert's television show has persisted for years, first with the late great Gene Siskel, and then, after his untimely death, with Richard Roeper (who's doing a fine job in his own right, but follows in the steps of a giant), on the fundamental principle that disagreement, and indeed strong disagreement, is inevitable, however informed and well-viewed a critic may be. But parameters of home video transfers are much more tech facts (presence or lack of EE, presence or lack of video noise, quality of fine detail/color dileniation, sound mix activity/clarity, etc.) than they are tech opinions, and to the above and other unnamed reviewers who make a point of emphasizing these facts -- . They provide an important service to home video enthusiasts.

 

[Bill Burns]

I should add, regarding Treasure, that the element, even if a single element, may have been damaged after the creation of the previous home video transfer (and previous round of exhibition prints), and rectifying that damage might have proven too costly or time consuming for the budget afforded this release (particularly if the problem affects only one shot, and remains difficult to perceive at smaller screen sizes). Another, less likely, possibility is that two or more elements for the same shot were combined digitally (I don't think that would be possible, with reasonable results, photochemically -- w/o digital intervention, you'd have to print several elements together in successive exposures, and on individual frames it seems that would look fairly ugly, with "seams" visible, varying grain structures/brightness, etc. -- but Robert Harris may wish to comment on that, as I'm only speculating) to replace severe damage in one place on one of the elements and another on the other. That seems fairly unlikely, though (in other words, it's common to take various shots/scenes from the best surviving elements and create new preservation elements -- bringing the best sections of several elements together into one complete element, that is -- but I can't recall reading of any restorations in which individual frames were recreated from multiple sources).

I know that one or two of the Fox Studio Classic releases have revealed damage and/or print anomalies reviewers have found to be absent from previous home video incarnations (Gentleman's Agreement and The Ghost and Mrs. Muir come to mind), and we're left to assume these have now appeared due to further deterioration of the elements (or mastering errors, of course).

There are many possible reasons for the problem being described here. While I can see a bit of trouble at the bottom (some fuzziness that begins along a rough line indicated by Randy's divider, but also extends above it -- note the rock in the foreground to Bogart's left; this might be an artifact of the capture, rather than the transfer? The horizontal fuzziness of which I'm speaking can be seen above and below Randy's divider here), the top section, on further examination, reveals the biggest problem in that screen capture -- the dark middle section extends past the hilltops and then abruptly ends in the line indicated by the divider, with the sky above it notably brighter (or of a different visual character, anyway). It almost looks like a mask of some sort.

Oh well -- no point in speculating (why have I, then? ). Hopefully we'll hear from someone in the know soon. I'll have a better sense of how distracting this proves when the disc arrives (even though the shot is short, of course), but it sounds as if we're all in agreement that this should not stop anyone from buying the disc?

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Chud's review of Yankee: http://www.chud.com/chudvd/reviews/yankeedoodle.php3


Gordy