The Man Who Knew Too Much: R1 vs. R1 masterpiece boxset

captainjoe · Post by **captainjoe** » 09 Sep 2007, 22:07

The Man Who Knew Too Much

Top: R1 original
Bottom: R1 Masterpiece Collection

The new digital transfer has removed all the dirt and scratches that plagued the original master. The noise
reduction has been reduced and has resulted in a fine look. Colours are cooler and look much more natural.
Cropping isn't too bad but there are a few instances here and there. But the transfer has one big downfall that
can be seen in the above shots, edge enhancement. Some moron at Universal decided to sharpen the movie
giving it that artifical look that transfers like The Spy Who Loved Me ultimate edition and Die hard with a Vengeance
special edition are ruined by. One can only hope that if these titles hit HD, the edge enhancement will be fixed
because other than that this transfer is almost flawless.

Cropping:

There's one capture that shows the new transfer is missing some information during a particular shot.
The new transfer is overlapped onto the previous transfer.

Kris · Post by **Kris** » 09 Sep 2007, 23:00

They're both pretty bad, really. Old release is way soft, and the new release has mad EE.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 09 Sep 2007, 23:14

New release is better but my god that's some EE.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 09 Sep 2007, 23:18

The MC looks worse to my eyes.

It's cropped, crazily edge-enchanced (even I noticed this), and contrast-boosted (look at the white shirts of the orchestra).

The only positive is that it's cleaner, but at a helluva cost.

I'd keep the original release.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 10 Sep 2007, 02:07

I've seen the original 1996 remastered print (which the original DVD is taken from) by Robert Harris and that looked like arse.

dvdvision · Post by **dvdvision** » 10 Sep 2007, 07:13

I would say the remaster is sourced from an HD transfert. But what with the crazy cropping ?

They could have made this one 2.35:1 no sweat.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 10 Sep 2007, 15:36

It was filmed in Vistavision which is usually about 1.75.

And it looks like they've taken an "arse" print and made it worse.

Nice job Universal.

Thankfully it's not one of Hitch's better films.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 10 Sep 2007, 15:47

Personally I curse this film for unleashing that god awful Doris Day song upon the world, Que Sera Sera.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 10 Sep 2007, 16:11

EvaUnit02 wrote:Personally I curse this film for unleashing that god awful Doris Day upon the world, Que Sera Sera.

Eh? She was already famous by the time Hitchcock cast her in this!

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 10 Sep 2007, 16:16

Whoops, I missed out a word. I was talking about that song, Que Sera Sera.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 10 Sep 2007, 16:41

Oh I'm with you on that then, any Doris Day song is a crime against god!

dvdvision · Post by **dvdvision** » 10 Sep 2007, 17:41

Does 1.75 inside an 1.75 frame excluding 30% of the picture count as a respectful transfert in regard to the original director's intent ?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 10 Sep 2007, 17:42

Lol, that's harsh.

But yeah, I don't like that song either.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 10 Sep 2007, 17:43

dvdvision wrote:Does 1.75 inside an 1.75 frame excluding 30% of the picture count as a respectful transfert in regard to the original director's intent ?

Obviously not.