Thursday, November 5, 2009

BD impressions: North by Northwest

3:48 PM / BD Impressions / Comments17 Comments

BD Impressions
Blu-ray

I first came across North by Northwest many years ago, when staying up past 9 PM was a novelty. I happened to dip into an already underway TV broadcast of it, and my first introduction to Roger Thornhill was of him attempting to snag a railway ticket to Chicago while simultaneously evading the police. I had to go to bed shortly after this (it was a school night), and this being in the days before on-screen programme guides I never did find out which film this way. The sequence stuck in my mind, though, and years later, while taking a Media Studies class in my final year of school, I was glad to finally put a name to it when my teacher decided to give us a crash course in the cinema of Alfred Hitchcock.

Over the years, North by Northwest has emerged as one of my all-time favourite films. I'm not sure that it's Hitchcock's best work per se, but it's certainly one of his most gripping. It's one of those films that has a little of everything - humour, melodrama, action, suspense, intrigue, you name it - and as a result somehow feels like a remarkably complete package. Hitchcock supposedly told screenwriter Ernest Lehman to write "the Hitchcock film to end all Hitchcock films", and in my opinion he succeeded. While "Hitchcock" will conjure up different images for different people (correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect most will probably think of the shower scene in Psycho or the bell-tower sequence in Vertigo), North by Northwest is always the first thing that comes to mind whenever I hear the Mster of Suspense's name mentioned. And no, it isn't the cornfield sequence or the climax atop Mount Rushmore. It's Cary Grant trying to buy a ticket to Chicago. Funny how memory works, isn't it?

Image quality: Here's where, in a shock twist that I'm sure no-one was expecting, my opinion diverges slightly from the general consensus, which is that Warner's BD of North by Northwest is an immaculate presentation that could not be bettered. Let me make it clear that I don't wish to make any claims as to what the film originally looked like, as I have only ever seen it on VHS, DVD and now BD. I do, however, feel that I have encountered enough noise reduction to know what it looks like, and on occasions what I saw in North by Northwest seemed suspiciously akin to NR. I'm aware that this film shouldn't exhibit much grain, and therefore it's not the fact that the BD isn't smothered in a blizzard of the stuff that makes me suspicious but rather the waxy nature of skin and other textures and the manner in which what little grain is present seems to "drag" on occasions. This is inconsistent, and many scenes have a very natural, pleasing appearance. Others, however, look rather artificial, with the sequence in which Thornhill and his mother visit "Kaplan's" New York hotel room coming off worst. (See Example 7.) Incidentally, this sequence also showcases heavier grain (or should that be "remnants of grain"?) than any other point in the film. Perhaps it was taken from an inferior source and "cleaned up" digitally in an attempt to bring it more in line with the rest of the material?

With all that said, North by Northwest on BD is a revelation compared to what came before it. The DVD release, from 2000, was highly praised at the time of its original release, but I doubt anyone would do so now - well, at least not any of the sane reviewers. While superficially slick-looking, it was completely scrubbed of grain and thus looked unsettlingly like digital video rather than film. Colours are also noticeably different, with the neon green of the MGM logo on the DVD release a far more pleasant hue on the BD. True, Cary Grant looks rather orange, but that's nothing new. In addition, blacks are deeper and richer on the BD. Of course, by far the most striking improvement is as far as detail is concerned. While not a "sharp" film by any stretch of the imagination, North by Northwest has a natural diffuseness to it - that diffuseness that Hitchcock liked so much. Needless to say, regardless of my reservations, this is a far more satisfying presentation of the film than I have ever seen before.

I've seen this disc described elsewhere as "reference", and while it is surely the best the film has ever looked outside of theatrical projection, I don't really feel comfortable applying that label to something that looks suspiciously like it has been at least partially toyed with digitally. Perhaps it would be fair to say that parts of this disc attain reference status. As a whole, though, I'm inclined to err on the side of caution and suggest that this release, while very good, is far from "perfect" treatment of a catalogue title. 8/10

North by Northwest
studio: Warner; country: USA; region code: ABC; codec: VC-1;
file size: 31.9 GB; average bit rate (including audio): 33.55 Mbit/sec

North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest North by Northwest

 
17 Comments

1. FoxyMulder said:

This one was scanned in 8k using the original Vistavision negative wasn't it ?

The average bitrate is high and Warner always seems to take extra special care of it's classic releases. I just finished watching The Wizard Of Oz and i was extremely pleased with the image quality and presentation. I have this one coming through the post. ( hopefully soon )

Regarding screenshot seven - Is it possible this is inherent to the original photography as i note the right side shot of the woman's face appears a smidgeon sharper than Cary Grant's. Indeed considering Warner's history with their classic titles could it be possible no grain reduction has been applied but rather the look we have on Blu Ray is all inherent to the VistaVision original cinematography.

I ask the above as so far i have been very impressed by Warner with their classic titles and the average bitrate tends to suggest no need to reduce grain thus it has me asking if perhaps what we have on this disc is representative of the source material ?

Hopefully i'll get a chance to watch it soon and see for myself what it looks like.

(Posted on Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 8:55 PM)

2. Author Profile Page Michael said:

Well, like I said my theory is that the sequence in question was taken from an inferior quality source and grain reduced in an attempt to bring it more in line with the rest of the film. The smearing affects the whole sequence, not just that shot.

(Posted on Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 9:20 PM)

3. Marcus said:

This shall be arriving in my doorstep soon. BTW, have you checked out the UK Blu-Ray release of The 39 Steps? One of my favorite Hitchcocks.

(Posted on Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 9:50 PM)

4. ChuckZ said:

I don't believe it was DNR'd. I think it simply didn't have a lot of fine detail in the source, despite their 8K transfer. The first shot is a perfect example of this. It's just a little soft.

(Posted on Friday, November 6, 2009 at 8:37 AM)

5. Author Profile Page Michael said:

Marcus:

I've not seen it myself, but the screen captures look pretty poor. Of course, it may be that the BD was transferred from the best remaining elements and therefore looks as good as it ever will, but until another company has a crack at it I'm not willing to fork out for something that looks like that.


Chuck:

What about Example 7? That certainly looks grain reduced to me. I'm not suggesting that it has been applied to the whole thing, but the sequence in question looked markedly less natural than the rest of the film.

(Posted on Friday, November 6, 2009 at 1:15 PM)

6. AlexBC said:

Michael,

I agree with you that it clearly looks filtered or DNRed. It jumped me immediately as soon as I popped the disc. Of course I've never seen the original elements, but as you stated, we've seen enough to identify what looks like a true presentation and what looks messed with.

And it doesn't come as any suprise to me since WB has filtered just about every other title in their catalog.

IMO, it's far away from what FOX has presented on their top notch jobs like South Pacific and The Robe.

(Posted on Friday, November 6, 2009 at 2:17 PM)

7. FoxyMulder said:

So Alex and Whiggles here's a question for you.

Warner do a complete restoration of the film using the original negatives scanned at 8K. Why would they then proceed to grain reduce a classic film such as this especially when history has shown they don't do that for their classic catalog titles ?

I actually disagree with the views that Warners DNRed or filtered this release.

No seriously i really think that isn't the case. The look of this film is intentional and it's how they filmed it and not every shot will be perfect and some shots may display softness more than others. I don't see waxiness in the screenshots either and what i see is a typical late fifties film look.

Upon further digging on this subject matter i have found out the yellow colour strip of the film had faded in much the same way as happened with The Searchers and that would result in major issues so the restoration team had that to contend with and i believe that also meant a photochemical restoration was impossible to do and the prints also suffered from a term called Newton rings which are circular patterns caused by reflected light introduced during the film transfer.

The restoration work was overseen by Ned Price who worked on The Searchers and The Wizard Of Oz restorations and who has not got a habit of removing grain or anything which shouldn't be there and indeed he comes across very well in his interviews on The Wizard Of Oz extra's. All of the restoration work was carried out digitally.

As for screencap 7. Perhaps the elements were indeed bad for that scene and the restoration team did the best they could with the negative they had to work with as a similiar thing happened with the restoration of Vertigo several years back where a poor soft although very grainy shot remained in the film.

I just don't see Warner spending millions of dollars on a restoration and then DNRing the Blu Ray release as they just haven't done much of that at all with the real classics that they own.

Indeed is there even one film classic from Warner on Blu Ray that could be said to have had major DNR done to it. ? ( That's Major DNR )

I have come to the conclusion that all films get some DNR done to them but it's a question of how far they go that determines the film look or the wax look. For me knowing this is a VistaVision production it does not look waxy to me and from the screencaps it looks very good. If i change my mind after watching the film then i'll come back and say so.

Has anyone checked the extra's out to see if there is information on the restoration ?

(Posted on Friday, November 6, 2009 at 6:40 PM)

8. FoxyMulder said:

More information about Ned Price and The Searchers here in this interview since i mentioned it in the above post. That also mentions Eastman colour which is relevant to this review of North By Northwest.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/robertharris/harris082106.html

(Posted on Friday, November 6, 2009 at 9:27 PM)

9. Author Profile Page Michael said:

Foxy:

I've already said I don't believe the whole film was DNR'd. I'm referring to a specific sequence which in my eyes shows clear evidence of DNR. Example 7 is waxy as hell and this look affects the entire sequence to one degree or another.

"As for screencap 7. Perhaps the elements were indeed bad for that scene and the restoration team did the best they could with the negative they had to work with"

Well, yes, that's exactly what I suggested. And, to be honest, all this talk of "Why would they put so much effort into it and then DNR it?" makes no sense whatsoever. More often than not, it's the very releases that get the most attention that end up having the most damage done to them. I'm not saying that's the case here, but bear in mind that DNR, edge enhancement and other similar forms of digital "enhancement" are not solely the domain of no-budget rush jobs.

(Posted on Friday, November 6, 2009 at 10:07 PM)

10. David Mackenzie said:

>> Warner do a complete restoration of the film using the original negatives scanned at 8K. Why would they then proceed to grain reduce a classic film such as this especially when history has shown they don't do that for their classic catalog titles ?

They don't? It looks very much like they degrained parts of NBNW to get a consistent look. There isn't anything blatantly wrong with this as such.
One thing's obvious though, check out the MGM logo at the very beginning (which would be very grainy with all the optical compositing). It's clearly been degrained heavily - and not very well, I might add. Very powdery-looking.

Scanning in 8K has little to do with it. In fact, scanning at that high a resolution would only make grain stand out more.

(Posted on Friday, November 6, 2009 at 10:10 PM)

11. AdrianM said:

I saw NBNW 3 times in the cinema, twice in the mid-90s and once again at the NFT about 6 years ago. In the mid-90s it was being billed as the restored version - and I guess by the standards of the day they had done all that could be done with it.
What I recall from all 3 screenings was the inconsistency of the image. It veered wildly from stunning to rather shabby. I can't remember how the grain looked overall, but it certainly became pronounced in certain shots.
The colour was also problematic - it just never looked 'right'. There appeared to be a magenta hue over much of the film and clothes would seem to change colour from scene to scene. Cary Grant's face went from looking heathily tanned to appearing to be made from dark brown shoe leather.
I know a little about Vistavision and apart from the optical effect shots (of which there are many in NBNW), this film would probably never have had the level of grain present in most other films of the era. Nevertheless, the caps show clear signs of DNR.

(Posted on Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 2:23 AM)

12. AlexBC said:

Hi Foxxy!

Regarding your question:

"Warner do a complete restoration of the film using the original negatives scanned at 8K. Why would they then proceed to grain reduce a classic film such as this especially when history has shown they don't do that for their classic catalog titles?"

I don't know exactly why, but since they have filtered just about every other live action title they've released (either deliberately or due to low bitrate VC-1 encode automated process) it would seem perfectly reasonable they would filter this one too.

I remember wheyn I posted similar comments in regards to Watchmen and predicted that the (then) upcoming high-bitrate Paramount version would show that. People dismissed me at AVS forum and almost everyone said the it looked perfect. But simply, there was no way an unmolested film sacn would look like that. A couple months later, the Paramount version came around and I guess I was proven right.

I really don't understand why people in general hold WB catalog releases so high, with the exception of HTWWW, all of them look subpar, either by filtering or bad compression jobs.

(Posted on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 4:19 PM)

13. FoxyMulder said:

Even How The West Was Won has some minor edge enhancement in some scenes so that isn't a perfect release either.

Over the last few days i have watched Quantum Of Solace - Pretty good transfer which could have been perfect but there is edge enhancement in some scenes although i believe it was probably added to the digital intermediate and also seen at the cinema.

Friday The 13th remake - Minor grain reduction ( i think ) and tonight i watched Clint Eastwood's Changeling - Disc froze on two occasions
( thanks Blockbuster or i should say thanks to the people who put what appears to be a tiny little scratch on the disc ) I think some minor grain reduction robbing Changeling of the best possible detail but other than that and a few encoding issues early on i thought it was pretty decent as far as transfers go and a very good film and Angelina Jolie should have won the Oscar as should Clint for his direction.

Friday the 13th and Changeling didn't have any real bad issues with edge enhancement though and that always pleases me. I'll take a little minor grain reduction as long as they don't try to compensate with sharpening. Mind you having said that i really cannot understand why minor and i mean extremely minor grain reduction is applied to some releases as the grain structure is so small it should not be necessary.

Changeling which is Universal reminded me of King Kong as far as transfers go. Decent image quality but very minor grain reduction robbing the film of the really fine detail and really fine film look that comes with the fine grain. ( if you can understand that as perhaps i do not explain it well )

I think i'm coming around to the fact that North by Northwest won't be as good as i would have liked although i look forward to my book edition arriving so i can watch it for myself.

(Posted on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 8:29 PM)

14. AlexBC said:

BTW Foxy,

since you menitoned the 'Friday the 13th' remake, I recently checked out the Paramount international version and once again it completely trumps the New Line/WB version.

I remember commenting the NL/WB looked filtered when it came out while most people said it looked great. Once again, Paramount came to straighten things out. High bitrate encode, 48/24 lossless audio track, simply a wash.

If you add Watchmen, Zodiac, Benjamin Button, Beowulf, Sweeney Todd to the mix, we're now on Paramount 6 x 0 Waner Bros.

We also have to points for Sony (Terminator 3, Gothika) against WB and I bet the third one is just coming out (Terminator Salvation).

This is getting really embarassing for them!

(Posted on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 11:22 PM)

15. FoxyMulder said:

Regarding Friday The 13th. It's the UK one i watched which is Paramount. Generally decent transfer but i felt some minor grain reduction although nothing which really bothered me too much. Intentional soft focus in a number of scenes and blue lens flare popped up a lot but thats all intentional.

I know trailers are not always the best possible guide for the actual movie content but the Friday the 13th high definition trailer has much finer grain and a little bit more detail than the actual movie transfer.

I triple checked this after watching the film as i noted some scenes where for example the torchlights in the dark and you see dust and other things within the torchlight beam. It's been my experience with movie watching that scenes like that usually also contain very fine grain visible in the torchlight beam. The trailer had that very fine grain but i felt the actual Paramount transfer didn't have it all.

So the Warner transfer is actually inferior to the Paramount one ?

I would probably give the transfer 7 out of 10 if i was doing a scoring system though.

I do think the recent catalog release of The Wizard Of Oz was very good but i also suspect some minor grain removal and indeed in the interviews on the disc i recall Ned Price or someone saying they have to walk a fine line between keeping some of the grain in for the film look and i felt that reading between the lines he was actually more or less saying some gets removed. I suspect though that is true of most studio releases and not just Warner and i felt The Wizard Of Oz was a fine transfer.

As far as Warner transfers go i feel films such as Poltergeist, Any Given Sunday, Mad Max 2 - The Road Warrior are great transfers.

I have Heat sitting on the shelf here waiting to watch and i did view parts of it. I actually feel it may have had some grain removal applied but in Warners defence i think Michael Mann was diectly involved with that transfer. Anyway thats just initial impressions and i have yet to watch the entire thing so maybe it was just the few scenes i checked out and maybe it's a brilliant transfer ( I hope ) - One thing is for certain it's a really good movie.

What strikes me about Warner is that most of their transfers are never ever really bad ( in my opinion ) but a lot of their transfers are what could be called average and watchable without ever really coming across as excellent.

For me Paramount is still the worst studio with regards catalog titles although i watched Ghost last week and i felt it was actually a decent transfer with a light grain structure in place and i felt it replicated the cinema look very well. Yes the trailer has more grain i actually thought the trailer looked rougher and was probably a few generations removed from what the film should look like. Many may disagree with me but Ghost was a reference type of transfer as far as i'm concerned.

I'm actually still disappointed that so many movies are getting released with edge enhancement in them. Either traces of the issue or entire movies plagued by it.

Take the Bond transfers. Hyped up as gorgeous and great and the ultimate transfers of these movies because Lowry worked on them but many do contain edge enhancement.

From Russia With Love and Goldfinger contain it although not in every scene but it's there. The worst Bond movie i have seen for the issue though is Die Another Day. It's plagued with edge enhancement and it would get 5/10 from me for image quality because it's just really annoying. Take the edge enhancement out and i think you would have a pretty good film like experience. Sure there were a few scenes which had DNR and softness but not many and edge enhancement was the real issue with that transfer.

Hey Alex if you see rsbeck at AVS forums please tell them that although i got their email sent via AVS the link did not work ( Must be an automated spam removal thing that links are not delivered via the AVS forwarding system ) I won't be returning to AVS though and i don't know if they still have the reference thread going but if anyone wants my password to update that thread they can have it by emailing me at admin@darkrealmfox.com.


(Posted on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 11:26 AM)

16. ChuckZ said:

Perhaps the loop filter is too aggressive in that particular capture.

I don't have the disc in front of me because I don't believe in Warner's UCE cash grab on their big catalog titles.

(Posted on Friday, November 13, 2009 at 5:09 AM)

17. FoxyMulder said:

I just watched North By Northwest tonight. I paid attention to some scenes in your review and have to say i didn't actually feel as you felt in your review. ( But that's ok as it would be a boring world if we all agreed on everything )

I do actually feel a number of scenes look like they had the old Hollywood vaseline on lens trick applied in order to evoke a certain cinematographic look which was very popular in the golden age of cinema and seen in a number of Hitchcock films.

I spotted a few scenes where chromatic abberation of the lens came into play and sometimes that can look like sharpened edges but the colour around those edges give the clue that it's chromatic aberration of the lens and some of the opticals on Mount Rushmore certainly haven't aged well but i didn't mind that.

One scene with Martin Landau near the end of the film looked a bit damaged as the camera zooms in on his face but they fixed it up as best they could.

I didn't see any waxiness and indeed i felt it was typical makeup of the time and typical colour reproduction of a number of movies around this time period.

The music score came across great and there was even a few surround effects during the dust crop scenes. Even the subwoofer came to life a little at the end of that scene albeit not deep bass like you get in a modern film.

Great extras on the disc and i love the book packaging.

(Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at 10:46 PM)

 
To combat spam, commenting is automatically disabled on entries older than 30 days.

Did a comment you tried to post accidentally get eaten by the spam filter? It happens from time to time. I get upwards of 200 spam comments every day and unfortunately don't have the time to weed through all of them in case something genuine ended up there by mistake. If one of your posts gets incorrectly flagged as spam, email me at whiggles[at]ntlworld[dot]com and I'll do my best to retrieve it.

 
Archives
Categories
Recent posts