What's new

'To Catch a Thief' - any reviews yet ? (1 Viewer)

Rich Malloy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
3,998
Matt, you can pretty much rest assured that DVD REVIEW's reviews are always gonna be more glowing than those of their counterparts. I'm not saying it's unjustified in any given instance - though many times it is, IMO - but it's certainly something I've noticed over the years.
 

Matt Lucas

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 22, 1999
Messages
178
Rich, I've noticed the same thing myself. I mentioned the DVDreview.com review only because this thread started with someone asking if there were any reviews of To Catch a Thief online.

Has anyone found any others?

I'd love to read a more---ahem!---balanced view. [And I certainly can't bash DVDreview---every once in a while, I end up saying nice things about mediocre DVDs, if only because I love the film so much!]

mattl
 

DeeF

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
1,689
Who's we ? I've been in theatres and projection since 1979 and have *never* heard that term used. It only started being used after Fight Club made it up. They are called "changeover cues" or "cue marks" or "reel change marks". The first set is the "motor start" and the second is the "open & close shutter".
I first heard this term when I saw Hearts and Minds at the Brattle Street Cinema in Cambridge, MA, about 1974. I queried the director of the film (I was in the 9th grade) about those funny holes, and the entire audience laughed. The director (Paul Davis?) replied, "those are cigarette burns." (again, the laughter) Then he explained about the reel changes.

It wasn't made up for Fight Club.
 

Randy A Salas

Screenwriter
Joined
Apr 25, 2002
Messages
1,348
The cue marks one sees on Notorious were probably built into a dupe negative, if not the original.
Thanks, Robert, and others, for the explanation. My point remains that they can--and should be, in my opinion--removed as part of a restoration for DVD. There are a variety of ways. Saying that it re-creates the theater experience is focusing on a negative (to me) aspect of seeing movies. I don't want them on a DVD anymore than I want a re-creation of the people talking behind me in the rear channel, out-of-focus presentations or improper framing.
 

Martin Blythe

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 18, 2001
Messages
271
I think many of you give Paramount credit for excellent transfers. It is no different with To Catch a Thief. I thought Guido's review was accurate and appropriate. Certainly we are very proud of it. Films are not all the same, they have their personalities and characters and Vista Vision titles represent specific technical challenges that we feel we met. Transfers are designed to bring out those features, not eliminate them. This transfer was from the original YCM separations via 4 perf negs and was transferred in high def with the best colorists in the business. To say it "needs a restoration" is simply inaccurate. It has been restored and you now have the chance to see and hear it.
 

DeeF

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
1,689
Martin,

As I've previously stated, I have never seen To Catch A Thief in the movie theater, let alone in its original VistaVision state. I wasn't born until 1958, and I didn't really become a big movie goer until college in the 70s.

I first saw this movie on television, some time in the 80s, in a panned-and-scanned version. It has always seemed faded and dull, my least looked-forward-to Hitchcock movie, despite the presence of Cary and Grace.

Then a newer version appeared on AMC a few years back, with more vibrant colors, and at least one time, the entire widescreen image was shown. I liked the movie a lot more, and after I became a home theater enthusiast, I looked forward to having the movie in my own collection, to watch many times for my own pleasure. The DVDs of Vertigo and North by Northwest with their restored luster only added to my anticipation of this DVD.

Now I've bought the movie and watched it, but I probably won't watch it all the way through again. It may be representative of the actual movie (which I haven't seen) but for technical reasons, it wasn't a pleasurable experience for me on my home system. I point no fingers, and I'm trying not to be critical of the movie itself, just the DVD quality.

My home system: a 50" Fujitsu plasma monitor, a Panasonic RP-82 DVD player, and a Boston Acoustics surround-sound system.
 

DeeF

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
1,689
I don't mind the reel change markers, but I do often get confused about them: why they are some DVDs, but not others, and why I continue to see them on very big movies, like Lord of the Rings, in the movie theater. I thought all these recent movies were on some kind of electronic timer, lights, curtains, everything. I saw Lord of the Rings at a big Loew's Theater, in New York, and it had the reel change marks.
 

Scott Shanks

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 10, 2001
Messages
380
Location
Louisville, Ky
Real Name
Scott Shanks
Films are not all the same, they have their personalities and characters and Vista Vision titles represent specific technical challenges that we feel we met. Transfers are designed to bring out those features, not eliminate them. This transfer was from the original YCM separations via 4 perf negs and was transferred in high def with the best colorists in the business. To say it "needs a restoration" is simply inaccurate. It has been restored and you now have the chance to see and hear it.
I personally can't wait! :)
 

DeeF

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
1,689
I'm feeling a little guilty, since out of everybody posting here, I'm the only one who's seen this DVD.

I ran home tonight, and turned it on. By altering my normal settings, I'm able to make the picture quite acceptable.

I think the DVD's picture is oversaturated, shadowy, and contrasty. So I turned the brightness way up, and contrast way down. Then I turned all "sharpness" off (I normally keep this quite low, say, -4, but now I've turned it to -16).

These steps serve to make the picture quite soft, but much more stable -- less dancing pixels, less shadowy areas, and the color is still good.

To repeat: this DVD's video isn't as good as some other Vista Vision's I've seen, but if you're patient, it's certainly an enjoyable movie.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,598
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
I'll have my copy tomorrow and I will watch it without changing any of my settings and then determine whether the dvd presentation is lacking in any way.




Crawdaddy
 

Thomas T

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
10,288
Browsing through the postings here I am once again disturbed by by the comments that expect a DVD to go beyond its theatrical incarnation. If there is grain in the film, they want it eliminated from the DVD, if there is a reel change mark, they want it eliminated from the DVD, if the film is too dark looking (Panic Room comes to mind), even though it represents the theatrical experience, they complain it's an inferior transfer (of course they didn't bother to see it in a movie house) and want a "cleaner" transfer.
A classic case of the tail wagging the dog!
 

Randy A Salas

Screenwriter
Joined
Apr 25, 2002
Messages
1,348
I'm feeling a little guilty, since out of everybody posting here, I'm the only one who's seen this DVD.
Well, no you're not. I've been watching the DVD all week, and I've been trying to imply, gently, that folks need to look at this themselves before they dismiss the title. It amazes me that people post that this is one of their favorite movies and then cancel preorders and lambaste the DVD based on what just a few people have said.

Why is the opinion of the two people (DeeF and the moviepoopshoot.com columnist) who don't like the transfer valid, but the one who does like the transfer (Guido) is not? Maybe it's somewhere in between?

On my display--I have a 36-inch Sony with anamorphic enhancement--it looks fine. It's not the best image quality, but it's certainly good enough to enjoy this classic movie. Saying that this DVD is barely better than the pan-and-scan VHS is simply ludicrous.
 

Tim Glover

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 12, 1999
Messages
8,220
Location
Monroe, LA
Real Name
Tim Glover
As good as Cary Grant and Grace Kelly were and what may be one of the best on screen kisses in film, I'll take this dvd in a second. :b
 

Peter D

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 16, 2000
Messages
232
I can only speak for myself, but these early 'warning signs' will just make me hold off until I can read more reviews from folks like Ron & Peter Bracke. I'd sure like someone to give Robert Harris a copy so he could weigh in as well, as I'm sure he has an excellent sense of how it should look.
 

Nelson Au

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 16, 1999
Messages
19,040
Thanks to Martin Blythe for jumping in here. I agree with earlier posts, see the disc before dismissing it based on 2 reviews.

And thanks to Paramount for getting this film out to us. I look foreward to it.

Nelson
 

Peter Apruzzese

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 20, 1999
Messages
4,894
Real Name
Peter Apruzzese
I don't mind the reel change markers, but I do often get confused about them: why they are some DVDs, but not others, and why I continue to see them on very big movies, like Lord of the Rings, in the movie theater. I thought all these recent movies were on some kind of electronic timer, lights, curtains, everything. I saw Lord of the Rings at a big Loew's Theater, in New York, and it had the reel change marks.
Virtually all theatrical prints old and new have changeover cues, they are necessary for theaters that do not have platters and do reel-to-reel projection. Today's rant: start timers are one of the worst things to ever happen in a booth - they mean that no operator need be present when a film starts - allowing for lots of out-of-focus, mis-framed presentations and film damage.

You don't see cue marks on DVDs of modern films (except, maybe, for some independent and foreign films) because they aren't transferred from theatrical prints (or pre-print material).
 

Mark Anthony

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 25, 2001
Messages
457
To quote the section of the article linked above:

I asked restoration expert Robert Harris what could have been done to make TO CATCH A THIEF look better: "There are two ways to make this film look great," he said. "One would be to color correct the original VistaVision negative as best as possible, and create a VistaVision interpositive. Then transfer this to digital tape and then digitally correct it for fading and loss of information. This would provide a beautiful transfer, but only for video uses.

"The other way would be to use the 8-perf separation masters," he explained, "and from these produce a VistaVision dupe color negative through contact printing -- not optically - and then transfer from this."

The digital transfer on the THIEF disc was done in 1999, initially for TV broadcast purposes. "They could have fixed this film and done it right for not a lot of money," says Harris. "I just don't get it


I was wondering what Mr Blythe's specific comments were on this, and why it was transfered from 4 perf rather than 8 perf original elements?

I shall be purchasing the DVD regardless as I am a huge fan of Hitchcock's "golden period" of filmmaking, usually Paramount's dvd's on the whole are fantastic - and I hope that one of my favourite Paramount catalogue titles's doesn't let me down...

M
 

Joe Caps

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2000
Messages
2,169
The interesting thing is that several people have mentioned what I did some time ago - the poor quality of Marnie DVD. One of the cable channels ran it last week ltx with good color and sound. Sadly, this is not what is on the DVD with its pale fuzzy colors and horrible noise gated sound. awful!!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,551
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top