Touch of Evil soft picture? (1 Viewer)

[Steven_M Grimes]

I just picked up TOE (with the lower MSRP) and am shocked by how soft the picture is. It is almost to the point of looking out of focus. I bring this up because none of the reviews I read on this disc noted this. In fact, a couple reviews commented on the SHARPNESS of the image. I caught some of the movie on TCM a couple of months ago, and what I saw on TCM was much better than the DVD.

I'm a little confused over this. Is it even possible that a bad pressing could result in a soft image?

The disc is almost unwatchable and I'm considering returning it. If anyone has any thoughts on this, I'd appreciate hearing them.

Thanks

 

[Jon Robertson]

Unwatchable? Admittedly it is spread pretty thin over a single-layer disc, but it's not abnormally soft. Certainly, there is a better transfer to be wrung out of the source materials (the contrast looks a little soft), but I have no great beef with the current disc.

 

[Steven_M Grimes]

I am concerned that the disc is defective. My question was whether or not a transfer can be made to look soft as a result of improper manufacturing.

The opening minutes are comparable to VHS resolution, with NO detail apparent on any face until the camera frames a medium shot. I have a pretty good idea of what "looks" right, and this doesn't. If someone else chimes in and says that their copy looks slightly out of focus too, then I'll shut up about it.

I haven't watched it all the way through yet, so maybe in context it won't seem so bad, but I doubt it.

 

[richardWI]

I've rented the DVD and found it to be a low contrast, muddy, nightmare. The fake letterboxing doesn't help either. (It was obviously composed for 1:33.)

The laserdisc is high contrast and sharp. I've been considering making a webpage of screengrab comparisons, but haven't gotten around to renting that unwatchable version again!

 

[Damin J Toell]

The fake letterboxing doesn't help either. (It was obviously composed for 1:33.)

Obvious to whom? The 1.85:1 framing always looked fine to me, and Welles certainly knew that Universal would be showing the film 1.85:1 theatrically.

DJ

 

[richardWI]

Obvious to whom? The 1.85:1 framing always looked fine to me, and Welles certainly knew that Universal would be showing the film 1.85:1 theatrically.

Then how is it possible that the globe logo at the begining is cut off on the DVD? Didn't Universal know it would be shown in 1.85? Name any other Universal movie where the globe is cut off.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Name any other Universal movie where the globe is cut off.

I don't believe I have a very large collection of flat late 50s Universal films for comparison. Perhaps that presentation of the logo was standard practice by Universal at the time. If you turn up any flat films from the same time period that present the Universal logo differently, please share your findings.

DJ

 

[Steven_M Grimes]

I've rented the DVD and found it to be a low contrast, muddy, nightmare.

Ok, then. Then I was simply expecting too much. Thanks for the response.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Is it even possible that a bad pressing could result in a soft image?

Not with DVD. It's a digital medium. Pressing defects typically result in discs that lock up during playback or breakup of the image or sound (or both).

M.

 

[Scott Kimball]

Hmmm...

This was on my "To Buy" list.

It's been removed.
Too bad. Great film.

-Scott

 

[Michael Reuben]

You may want to reconsider. I'm delighted with my copy. Far from being "unwatchable", it's the first time I've enjoyed the film as more than a technical exercise (due, in no small part, to Walter Murch's re-edit using Welles' memo to the studio).

M.

 

[Steven_M Grimes]

Not with DVD. It's a digital medium. Pressing defects typically result in discs that lock up during playback or breakup of the image or sound (or both).

This is what I thought. It was just that to my eyes the disc looks pretty bad and the reviews I read didn't reflect this.

The disc was released 3 years ago, and I suppose that I've become a little spoiled in the meantime with spiffy new digital restorations. It's still a great movie, but I hope it's remastered someday for DVD.

 

[ShaunS]

I just went and checked out the opening of the film again (one of those draw dropping cinematic moments every film fan must see) and I hardly think it is "unwatchable". It may not be as sharp as a knife's edge, but the print is beautifully clean. I did notice that the top/bottom of the Universal globe is cut off by the black bars though. Not sure if that runs through the entire film. I'm more than pleased with the disc and the film is film noir at its strangest (Charlton Heston as a mexican!).

ShaunS

 

[Michael Reuben]

spiffy new digital restorations

In the case of Touch of Evil, the critical restoration was not of the image but of the movie itself from the butchery that the studio inflicted on it. Having put up the dough for that effort, Universal can hardly be faulted for not making a further investment in some sort of digital restoration for a catalogue title that could only be expected to sell in limited numbers to film enthusiasts. Maybe someday, but until then the current disc is, IMO, a real treat.

Screenshot comparisons to the LD would be interesting, but it's mostly an academic exercise. We each have our own definition of "unwatchable", and mine includes the studio cut of the film that was used for the LD.

M.

 

[Scott Kimball]

Well... I may reconsider.

I currently have it on my PVR from one of TCM's airings... it's been running on TCM the last couple of months.

Until I need to clear some space there, I've got a decent copy I can watch.

-Scott

 

[Michael Reuben]

Until I need to clear some space

I know the feeling. It's part of why I got a DVD recorder.

M.

 

[Scott Kimball]

I know the feeling. It's part of why I got a DVD recorder.

Yep... that's on my "buy" list, as well. So much to buy, so few dollars...

I don't even want to talk about how much I spent September 2 on DVDs.

-Scott

 

[Steven_M Grimes]

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, so I will drop this after this:

I wish I had a way to post screen captures, because I am not totally convinced that we are talking about the same things here. Has Universal switched manufacturing plants recently?

I am aware of the film's history, which is why I wanted to see the revised edit. I have a pretty good idea of how a 35mm film from this era should look, even without extensive restoration. What I'm trying to say is that taking all that into account, the image on the DVD I just bought this week is BLURRY. It literally looks like a faulty laserdisc pressing, which is why I asked the original question. The blurriness varies throughout the film. I've tried it in three players and the image is about the same in all. I just can't get over how dire the disc looks.

I guess I am not convinced that there is not something faulty with the disc in some way, if not the pressing then something else in the process. If anyone else buys a NEW copy (one that may have been manufactured more recently) I'd like to hear their thoughts on the quality.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Steven, you're not alone. I have the Touch of Evil disc, and while I'm very happy to have it, the contrast is terrible. It's not unwatchable, but I sure wish it looked better.

 

[richardWI]

Screenshot comparisons to the LD would be interesting, but it's mostly an academic exercise.

The contrast and cropping problems go way beyond academic interest. The previous print inspired many cinementographers as shown in the "Visions of Light" doc, and was a prime source for the look of "Twin Peaks". But future generations.. post LD/VHS generations are never going to get to see it.