Press Release Paramount Presents! Press Release: To Catch a Thief (1955) (4k UHD) (1 Viewer)

[Glenn C.]

They don't have Apple in Europe? Renting a movie on Apple isn't expensive.

 

[tenia]

They don't have Apple in Europe? Renting a movie on Apple isn't expensive.

Is this post for me ?

If so :
I've never rented anything digital. I have 0 interest in anything (S)VOD, even less so through renting only.
Furthermore, if other people already bit the bullet, I'm pretty certain it's quite fine, and even an added value for this board, for them to provide this kind of feedback ! It's like any review : they serve so that readers don't have to pay to get a sense of what they're going to get, so the answer cannot be "why don't you pay these 4€ and see for yourself ?"

 

[cda1143]

Is it different also outside of the color grading ? A massive issue of the 2020 release is that it also was smoothed to oblivion. If they at least fixed the grading and the framing, part of the fixes are done, but if it's still smooth like a baby's butt, it'd mean a non-negligible issue hasn't been fixed, and that it might mostly be a color-corrected version of the 2020 presentation (ie, not enough of a retooling).

I took a brief look on my flat panel last night. Yes it is dramatically different from the most recent iTunes and Blu - especially in terms of detail. The obscene smoothing (the most egregious issue with the previous version) is nowhere to be found.

As mentioned above, the framing is tighter than the 2012 Blu. I have no idea which is more correct. As far as grain goes, I'll check tonight on my projector, but there is far more detail than the previous version.

The day for night is more green than blue. I've no idea which is more correct. The actual mistake with the day for night on the previous version - the one or two shots which they printed as day rather than day for night, is now corrected to day for night.

From my brief spot checks, the overall color grading is somewhere in between the previous version and the 2012 Blu - and improvement over the Blu IMHO. Again I don't know which is more correct. We'll wait for RAH on all of these issues.

The big takeaway is that it seems like Paramount has done the right thing and corrected the mistakes of the previous release. I feel this is a far superior version. Although I own the iTunes, I'm pre-ordering the disc to give Paramount credit where it's due.

Taking a look at this last night gives me hope they will eventually correct Godfather I & II.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I took a brief look on my flat panel last night. Yes it is dramatically different from the most recent iTunes and Blu - especially in terms of detail. The obscene smoothing (the most egregious issue with the previous version) is nowhere to be found.

As mentioned above, the framing is tighter than the 2012 Blu. I have no idea which is more correct. As far as grain goes, I'll check tonight on my projector, but there is far more detail than the previous version.

The day for night is more green than blue. I've no idea which is more correct. The actual mistake with the day for night on the previous version - the one or two shots which they printed as day rather than day for night, is now corrected to day for night.

From my brief spot checks, the overall color grading is somewhere in between the previous version and the 2012 Blu - and improvement over the Blu IMHO. Again I don't know which is more correct. We'll wait for RAH on all of these issues.

The big takeaway is that it seems like Paramount has done the right thing and corrected the mistakes of the previous release. I feel this is a far superior version. Although I own the iTunes, I'm pre-ordering the disc to give Paramount credit where it's due.

Taking a look at this last night gives me hope they will eventually correct Godfather I & II.

It looks great on my end, and I'll let others judge it for themselves.

 

[AlexNH]

It looks great on my end, and I'll let others judge it for themselves.

How does the framing look to you? Bill Hunt said that it's a "corrected aspect ratio."

 

[Robert Crawford]

How does the framing look to you? Bill Hunt said that it's a "corrected aspect ratio."

I don't know what the framing is supposed to look like, so I have no comment.

 

[Trancas]

I don't know what the framing is supposed to look like, so I have no comment

You really think the filmmakers wanted to include the glass birdseed feeder on the cage in preference to the top of Cary's head?

 

[Robert Crawford]

You really think the filmmakers wanted to include the glass birdseed feeder on the cage in preference to the top of Cary's head?
View attachment 227436

I don't know and I refuse to be drawn into another framing argument. I'm very happy with this latest 4K digital and that's all I'll say on the matter.

 

[plektret]

Taking a look at this last night gives me hope they will eventually correct Godfather I & II.

Yes, please Paramount

 

[Robert Harris]

How does the framing look to you? Bill Hunt said that it's a "corrected aspect ratio."

What might be a “corrected aspect ratio?”

 

[AlexNH]

What might be a “corrected aspect ratio?”

1.85:1?

 

[Robert Harris]

1.85:1?

From 1.78? Either is fine. As is 1.66.

2.35 might be pushing things, but it's certainly within the VVLA wheelhouse.

I've never been offended by a film that purportedly ran theatrically in 1.85, being run in 1.78.

Because the film would have hardly ever been seen at 1.85.

It's all illusory.

 

[Mark-P]

Yes. The aspect ratio is different on this new release. It is now 1.85:1 whereas the the last release was 1.78:1. When I have some time I’ll compare my 4K iTunes to screencaps from the Blu-ray release to see what is different in framing,

Update: I just did a quick comparison, and the difference in framing is just that they cropped a little bit off the top and bottom to frame it at 1.85:1.

 

[Robert Harris]

Yes. The aspect ratio is different on this new release. It is now 1.85:1 whereas the the last release was 1.78:1. When I have some time I’ll compare my 4K iTunes to screencaps from the Blu-ray release to see what is different in framing,

Update: I just did a quick comparison, and the difference in framing is just that they cropped a little bit off the top and bottom to frame it at 1.85:1.

Moot.

 

[haineshisway]

You really think the filmmakers wanted to include the glass birdseed feeder on the cage in preference to the top of Cary's head?
View attachment 227436

Have you ever seen a movie in 1.85? Depends on how the cameraman framed - but as always, someone has cherry picked a frame in a panning shot. In the end, who cares. If you've never seen the top of a head cropped at the top of a frame, then you've never seen a movie because it happens in scope, it happens in 1.85, 1.78, and Academy. What's next? The rule of feet? (For those who remember THAT bit of business)

 

[Osato]

Based on just viewing this newest iTunes 4K/Dolby Vision scan, I just placed my preorder. This 4K/UHD release will be very popular with many of the general public.

Great news. Thank you!

Update: I placed my preorder.

 

[Brian Husar]

Perspecta stereo???

 

[tenia]

I've never been offended by a film that purportedly ran theatrically in 1.85, being run in 1.78. Because the film would have hardly ever been seen at 1.85.

A AR can be kept and the framing being very different anyway, and the difference between 1.78 and 1.85 is negligible, so it's indeed, in the end, a very limited issue in practice.

However, hat do you mean by "hardly ever been seen at 1.85" ? That this exact ratio isn't always respected in theaters ?

If that's so, and that is the supposed OAR, not respected it then doesn't mean the the irrespect has to keep on (especially for a 1.78 ratio that is a modern digital thing that bears no relevance for most catalogue movies). If anything, it'd be the opportunity to have it properly shown !

 

[Glenn C.]

Is this post for me ?

If so :
I've never rented anything digital. I have 0 interest in anything (S)VOD, even less so through renting only.
Furthermore, if other people already bit the bullet, I'm pretty certain it's quite fine, and even an added value for this board, for them to provide this kind of feedback ! It's like any review : they serve so that readers don't have to pay to get a sense of what they're going to get, so the answer cannot be "why don't you pay these 4€ and see for yourself ?"

Did you ask others to rent it? Zero interest in streaming, hmm. Anyway, people that already bought this digital have been posting stuff about To Catch a Thief on this board for years and I suspect that will continue going forward.

 

[tenia]

(I supposed it was for me, then)

Did you ask others to rent it? Zero interest in streaming, hmm.

Since others already either rent or bought it, why would I ask them to do another purchase of it ?
I'm just curious about the updated stream, as it'll most likely be an indicator of the upcoming physical release, which is what I'm interested into ultimately. Some people already have the goods, I merely asked for additional info in the tech feedback they already started to provide.

past this, it shouldn't be surprising for a member of a tech-oriented home video board, mostly focused on catalogue movies, who has been a BD tech-reviewer for a decade now, not to have any interest in using (S)VOD.

Anyway, people that already bought this digital have been posting stuff about To Catch a Thief on this board for years and I suspect that will continue going forward.

Robert Crawford wrote last Thursday, the 4K iTunes has been updated more recently than that, so I'm unsure what good those years of talk will do us if the stream has changed since.