Frontier(s) (Second Sight)

[dullboy]

Originally Posted by kmhofmann

Uncharacteristically for Second Sight, it's a dud.

Horrible ancient DVD-era transfer.

I wonder if May turned out the same way...

[kmhofmann]

Originally Posted by dullboy

I wonder if May turned out the same way...

May looks... solid...ish.
Not the freshest scan for sure, and the booklet of neither film gives any background on the source materials, but while May appears to be from a decent 2K scan of some film element (interpositive? I see some black dirt), Frontier(s) is just a full disaster.

Both discs have been FiM encoded, but that can't save Frontier(s) either.

[kmhofmann]

A few quick but pretty representative screencaps:

Frontier(s)





May

[MatOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by kmhofmann

May looks... solid...ish.
Not the freshest scan for sure, and the booklet of neither film gives any background on the source materials, but while May appears to be from a decent 2K scan of some film element (interpositive? I see some black dirt), Frontier(s) is just a full disaster.

Both discs have been FiM encoded, but that can't save Frontier(s) either.

i always got the feeling Frontier(s) is meant to be a "dirty" looking film

[kmhofmann]

Originally Posted by MatOfTheDead

i always got the feeling Frontier(s) is meant to be a "dirty" looking film

Maybe, but that's a red herring argument.

So is The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and look what could be wringed out of that '70s 16mm film stock. A stellar release from the same label nonetheless.

Frontier(s) remains a film shot on, well, actual 35mm film. What's on the disc falls far short of any reasonable scan of even the grubbiest film stock imaginable. Instead, it looks like a heavily processed DVD-era telecine.

[Member-222782]

Originally Posted by kmhofmann

Uncharacteristically for Second Sight, it's a dud.

Horrible ancient DVD-era transfer.

Sorry to hear that. My copy from Orbit is en route. I wonder if it's a situation where the film elements were not up to par. In any case, I'll be very disappointed if this is a misfire.

[JoelGoodsen]

Both look awful. Talk about taking a step back.

[mrkoernchen]

Frontier(s) is the same old DVD Upscale used in all the BluRay Releases so far. It's a shame.

[kmhofmann]

Originally Posted by JoelGoodsen

Both look awful. Talk about taking a step back.

I'm usually quite picky w.r.t. video quality and wouldn't call May looking awful. It's a middle-of-the-road transfer that's probably not from the newest vintage, but it's certainly way more acceptable than Frontier(s).

[JoelGoodsen]

Originally Posted by kmhofmann

I'm usually quite picky w.r.t. video quality and wouldn't call May looking awful. It's a middle-of-the-road transfer that's probably not from the newest vintage, but it's certainly way more acceptable than Frontier(s).

I hear you. But in terms of what we usually expect from Second Sight from these editions, I wasn’t expecting them to use older transfers. You are correct that May looks better than Frontiers, but that isn’t saying alot considering how bad Frontier(s) looks.

These are basically a pig with lipstick jobs.

[Mr. Chaverria]

Hrmmm. Was pretty interested in this but now I'm very questioning of it.

[levcore]

Hmmm half tempted to cancel my Frontier(s) order but then again I'd rather have the movie on blu than stuck with my old DVD, even if the transfer is underwhelming.

[DaylightsEnd]

Noooooooooooooo......

It looks like a 2012 Criterion dvd-ray. Crushing. I can't even believe there is a Second Sight blu ray title release now that I'm actually considering keeping my dvd on......Color me baffled.

[Rockercub]

I have the French disc, so I popped it in and it looked pretty bad. I decided to grab a couple of caps to compare:

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

The Second Sight looks a bit darker (gamma increase?), but they're similarly janky. I wonder to what extent, if any, this is intentional. Did anyone see it in the theater?

[GiorgioV]

Originally Posted by kmhofmann

A few quick but pretty representative screencaps:

[Show spoiler]
May

Do you happen to have timestamps for the "May" BD caps? I'd like to get the corresponding caps from the previous German BD, which SS doesn't appear to be improving on.

[GiorgioV]

Originally Posted by Rockercub

I have the French disc, so I popped it in and it looked pretty bad. I decided to grab a couple of caps to compare:

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

The Second Sight looks a bit darker (gamma increase?), but they're similarly janky. I wonder to what extent, if any, this is intentional. Did anyone see it in the theater?

They look pretty much the same (=terrible) with some tweaking done on the SS one, for the better IMO but still terrible all the same.
Really weird for Second Sight to release something like that.

[Rockercub]

Originally Posted by GiorgioV

They look pretty much the same (=terrible) with some tweaking done on the SS one, for the better IMO but still terrible all the same.
Really weird for Second Sight to release something like that.

Unless it was intended to look that way. I've seen releases decried as dated transfers that look way better than this.

[GiorgioV]

Originally Posted by Rockercub

Unless it was intended to look that way. I've seen releases decried as dated transfers that look way better than this.

If that's the case, any future release might bear the same limitations. Bummer.
It'd be interesting to hear something official on the matter (director, photography director, someone from SS to explain the abysmal PQ).

P.S. being the first English-friendly disc, I might end up getting it either way

[Member-222782]

Watching now (3/4 of the way through). It looks like the filmmakers wanted to go for an overall "documentary" feel judging by the opening sequence, which features a lot of TV news footage. There's also a fair amount of poor camcorder POV footage sprinkled throughout the film. My guess is the look is intentional. It's by no means unwatchable, though. I was bracing for the worst and have come away mostly satisfied. It is what it is.

[Rockercub]

Yeah, I'd love some background on the transfer too. It would be in SS's best interest. Better to have a reviewer say "it looks like it was intended to look" than "it looks like @ss."