Far From The Madding Crowd (John Schlesinger) - 1st June 2015

[orac1971]

And its on at 10.00pm at night! surely won't be cut?

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by CinemaScope

Yes, looking at the Terence Stamp cap, his hair is blue, that can't be right, & the close-up of the letter, shouldn't the paper be white or grey, not blue. But I see it's on BBC4 in HD next Sunday week, I suppose it's the new transfer, I've set it to record anyway.

The BBC did show the new restoration - exactly the same as the StudioCanal version.

The titles on the BBC broadcast and StudioCanal are from the American print with the MGM logo and the title card "Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Presents" added. In the UK the film was released by Anglo Amalgamated, as is indicated on the back of the box, although the 70mm film prints began with no studio logo at all.

[orac1971]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

The BBC did show the new restoration - exactly the same as the StudioCanal version.

The titles on the BBC broadcast and StudioCanal are from the American print with the MGM logo and the title card "Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Presents" added. In the UK the film was released by Anglo Amalgamated, as is indicated on the back of the box, although the 70mm film prints began with no studio logo at all.

Thanks - good to know. Out of the country at the moment. Have recorded it and it's also on iplayer.

[Olmo]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

The BBC did show the new restoration - exactly the same as the StudioCanal version.

The titles on the BBC broadcast and StudioCanal are from the American print with the MGM logo and the title card "Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Presents" added. In the UK the film was released by Anglo Amalgamated, as is indicated on the back of the box, although the 70mm film prints began with no studio logo at all.

Are you sure? I dipped in just to check and it didn't look anywhere near as good as the StudioCanal 4K restoration.

[orac1971]

Annoying - its been removed from iplayer..

[orac1971]

It's back - expires Sunday. It's a good transfer that was shown, must be the studio canal. Will get the blu ray in due course.

[John Hodson]

Originally Posted by orac1971

It's back - expires Sunday. It's a good transfer that was shown, must be the studio canal. Will get the blu ray in due course.

I have the BD and did a quick comparison; it certainly is the BFI restoration touted by Studio Canal, though the higher bitrate obviously brings a more robust viewing experience in every department, and there is no comparison when it comes to sound (the BD soundtrack is wonderful).

[Wonderless11]

Does this have a slip cover? And if it does, will it always come will the slip cover?
With Amazon in the US, you don't always get the slip cover unless it is wrapped together with the blu-ray case itself.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Wonderless11

Does this have a slip cover? And if it does, will it always come will the slip cover?
With Amazon in the US, you don't always get the slip cover unless it is wrapped together with the blu-ray case itself.

I'm in the US and ordered from Amazon UK and mine came with a slipcover.

[Hal_M]

I've only been able to find one online comparison between these two very different releases (DVDBeaver). While the Warner sports a DD 5.1 mix and the StudioCanal 2.0 mono, the StudioCanal version was restored in 4K off the original camera negative and overseen by DP Nicolas Roeg. I know the StudioCanal version does not contain the 20 second cock fight sequence and the Warners does include it. Not a make-or-break deal for me either way. I'm interested in the absolute best image quality. And the most accurate.

Is there anyone out there who actually knows this film well enough to make an informed comparison? In my research, I have found people praising both releases and also condemning both releases. This is a favorite film, but I'm really not interested in owning 2 different versions. I lean toward the StudioCanal because it's off the original negative, but I do like the idea of a 5.1 mix since it was in 6-track on all 70mm theatrical blowups.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

[James78]

Reviewer Dr. Svet Atanasov: "I have the Warner release. It is not from the new 4K restoration. In fact, the transfer is sourced from a very average old master." https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=16281

The StudioCanal release is absolutely stunning in my opinion.

[Olmo]

Originally Posted by James78

The StudioCanal release is absolutely stunning in my opinion.

I'd second that, along with Tales of Hoffman (also StudioCanal) and Criterion's One Eyed Jacks it's the best I've seen.

[Hintermann]

Sorry for rejuvenating an old thread but having recently received and seen the Warner AC version of FFTMC, I am convinced of a few things that have caused confusion in the past.

As we all know, Picture Quality of blu-ray films is something that has caused a lot of debate with various older films and in the case of FFTMC, views are completely polarized with arguments for and against on both sides. The existence of this poll itself proves that.

I used to own the Studio Canal Vintage Classics version BD of the fim and just about the only positive thing about it was the extras package. If the TVs were set to Standard or especially 'Cinema' setting, the picture was way too dark and skin tones came out an unhealthy, bloodless greyish-green - in short, awful. I hated it and told myself that anyone who thought that this was a good transfer was either colour-blind or a UK-release fanatic. It was that bad.

I feel all the bullcrap about source of the transfer etc is just eyewash and means nothing except to convince a gullible buyer that they have a good product. It is all in the eye of the beholder and as far as I was concerned, the PQ on the Studio Canal version was awful. Period.

I did not immediately get the Warner because of my OCD against double-dipping; but when my sister-in-law, who loves the film and not too discerning about PQ, asked for it, I happily gave away the Studio Canal BD and ordered the Warner. I have received and seen the latter and am very happy with both the PQ (especially the warmer skin tones that make people look alive than bloodless zombies) and audio;it is Region Free too.

I feel that there are too many important variables for any viewer to decide about PQ based on just reviews or screencaps.

- TV type and Picture Setting: The 'Cinema' mode makes images look darker and colder. Fine for modern films but certainly not for older ones like FFTMC.

- Ambient Light in the room: We tend to watch movies in very low light with the TV placed so that there are no reflections to affect image.

- Personal Choice: I think this is probably the most important. FFTMC convinced me of something that I already believed - in addition to the usual personal preference thing, there are significant ethnic colour perception differences. I am of Indian origin and have noticed over the years that we prefer richer, more vibrant TV colours than our white friends. For me personally, natural looking skin tones as though viewed in bright sunlight for outdoor scenes is important. That's why I hated the tones in the Studio Canal version of FFTMC.

[justwannaboogie]

I've just ordered the SC version. There's an interesting bit of debate about which one is preferable on DVDbeaver: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-r...wd_blu-ray.htm

[BigNickUK]

The studio canal imho is the one to go for. The new scan apart from the colour differences has much more detail

[Hintermann]

As I said, it is a matter of choice. I owned the Studio Canal version and saw it twice on 2 different TVs, LG OLED C9 65" with a Sony UBP X800m2 BD player and a Sony KD49 9005BU 49" 4K TV with a Panasonic DP UB820 BD player. The PQ was awful and Julie Christie looked as thought she needed an urgent blood transfusion in most outdoor scenes (of which there are many). I now have the Warner version and happier with it (although I miss losing the SC's extras package)

In terms of detail, it also matters what one is looking at. To me, unhealthy skin tones can NEVER be compensated by anything else.

[Hintermann]

Originally Posted by justwannaboogie

I've just ordered the SC version. There's an interesting bit of debate about which one is preferable on DVDbeaver: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-r...wd_blu-ray.htm

I have read that debate. I do not believe the first Bruce after seeing the SC version myself. He almost certainly has a personal agenda in supporting the SC version looking at the hyperboles in his review. I prefer the more balanced report from the second Bruce.

[NeilZ]

I’ve spent years trying to figure out which release is better, but ultimately I have to agree that the WB is the winner for me. When zooming in there’s technically a bit more detail on the SC but the framing and grading are inferior, and the latter really affects the experience. What more the encoding is just ok on the SC, where as the Warner has a very nice encode.

I’m puzzled how SC managed to mess this up, but I guess I shouldn’t be, as it was released back when their releases were hit or miss (unlike these days where they do so much better). Maybe someday they’ll revisit it for 4k and fix it.

[Hammerlover]

Originally Posted by NeilZ

I’ve spent years trying to figure out which release is better, but ultimately I have to agree that the WB is the winner for me. When zooming in there’s technically a bit more detail on the SC but the framing and grading are inferior, and the latter really affects the experience. What more the encoding is just ok on the SC, where as the Warner has a very nice encode.

I’m puzzled how SC managed to mess this up, but I guess I shouldn’t be, as it was released back when their releases were hit or miss (unlike these days where they do so much better). Maybe someday they’ll revisit it for 4k and fix it.

I agree; I think the Warner Archive version is much better. Now if only somebody could revisit DARLING and spruce that one up (the StudioCanal release even drops the opening Anglo Amalgamated logo)!