MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Thank Goodness Psycho is in B&W

Thank Goodness Psycho is in B&W

posted 4 years ago by swanstep (2769)
24 replies | jump to latest

Because it's turning out that with color films there's just too much possibility for the image to be distorted as the underlying medium changes. Consider the following youtube channel that compares different dvd and bluray generations of the same films:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXo6Srf1rT2MoSGHEejj_6g/videos

The differences are just staggering, e.g., key scenes in The Prestige (2006) are flipped from blue to bright yellow/gold (the latter is correct from theatrical experience) but then skin tones in most recent versions are completely unnatural:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LCJ76vnxmY

e.g. 2, The Good The Bad and The Ugly's best resolution version is colored sickening yellow by a madman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zGsSrT8Kso

And John Carpenter films seem like a particular crapshoot. Recent versions of The Fog are so dark as to be unwatchable/unintelligible (e.g., scenes where Janet Leigh talks to a priest and *we* but not Janet see his reactions don't work at all because the Priest's face is completely in the dark), whereas recent versions of Escape to NY often change the lighting to bright white.

For another example, I recently rewatched The Squid and The Whale for the first time on a blu-ray rather than dvd...and it's a completely different movie: aspect is different, exact frame/cropping is different, light/dark/shadow is different (Scandinavian flatness of image is gone; backgrounds are now plunged into shadow highlighting foregrounds more, changing the emotional temperature) and, finally colors are flipped wildly in different scenes, e.g., formerly brown shirts are now purple. Really, I'd describe the change for Squid&The Whale as a little like the difference between Leonardo and Caravaggio:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1lcb_7gj5k

Frankly, I'm thrilled that B&W seems relatively immune to this sort of tinkering madness. Each gen. of Psycho media has improved resolution (bringing us closer to what a pristine 35mm print would have been like in 1960) but that's about all. Yay.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 4 years ago

I think you're mixing two things and that is advances in transferring a film recording to a home media format such as ultra 4K with that of coloring in films. (Note: Coloring is different from colorization in movies which is done to add color to b&w films.) Coloring depends on background lighting or brightness and contrast as well as hue and saturation. There are also the actual wavelength of colors that can be manipulated by various filters we can put on the camera. There is the difference in sharpness and definition area for a film whether being shot in 35 mm or 70 mm or other film formats. Then the transferring of these films to a home recording format is an entire separate discussion in and of itself -- https://www.avsforum.com/threads/why-is-a-4k-transfer-better-than-transfer-from-the-film-source.2154489/. Finally, one has to consider how they are watching the new ultra 4K Blu-Ray in that they have to have the proper equipment to show it, listen to it, and environment to watch it in -- https://www.quora.com/Do-4K-UltraHD-Blu-rays-really-look-better-than-regular-Blu-rays?share=1.

My actual point is what we think of as the true color may not be true due to the lighting in how the film was shot and whether it was manipulated with filters or not. We have to leave that up to the director and technology they had at the time. With color, I think we want to be as realistic as possible in order to get the fullest experience of what our eyes and brains are capable of. The same in terms of sharpness, definition, resolution, tone, and color balance. That Caravaggio light discussion in his art is fantastic. That said, if I follow what you are saying, then the older format Blu-Ray is better than the Ultra 4K in terms of coloring and I have to agree. While I'd want the better sharpness. definition, sound, etc. of the ultra 4K, I don't want to see it being short changed in the coloring department. One has to practically judge how the ultra 4K was done in comparison to the Blu-Ray. I don't think you should just automatically replace your Blu-Ray just because an ultra 4K version came out.

ETA: With Psycho 1960, I think if one can get the ultra 4K or the best 4K version in the uncut German version and English language to watch on your 4K ultra uhd hdr smart or projection tv in your well laid out family or home theater room, then you are golden.

[–] swanstep (2769) 4 years ago

then the older format Blu-Ray is better than the Ultra 4K in terms of coloring

My points are a little more general than that. First, (at least) color and contrast are varying wildly across generations of digital media from dvd to blu-ray to remastered blu-ay to 4k blu-ray. The differences are so vast, in fact, that it's like watching different movies so that it's almost necessary now to say *which* digital editions of films you have seen. This *instability* in film image (which comes on top of a proliferation of directors cuts etc.) hinders the discussibility of films and is destructive to film culture generally I believe. Second, I don't have any hard and fast rules (yet!) about which digital media generation is preferable, if any is. At least in a few cases, the 4K versions of films seem to correct(often seductive) distortions introduced in blu-rays of images I recall from seeing the films in cinemas. 2001 & The Prestige were my examples of this. Third, B&W films, including Psycho of course, appear to be relatively immune to these sorts of problems. At least once basic restoration work is done I've never had the experience of feeling like I'm 'watching a different movie' after a media upgrade. Actually now I think about it, I do keep a couple of different versions of Dreyer's b&w classic, Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) not just because they're different cuts but because the degree of contrast is so different. But that's very rare.

Anyhow here's a link to a file containing 2 pairs of frames from The Squid and the Whale (2005):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dNZhjyEWBOihHlFbcRCGvh1Jz9-iXIsm/view?usp=sharing
The first member of each pair is from the dvd and each second member is from the Criterion blu-ray. The latter goes full Carravagio...

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 4 years ago

I could be wrong, but my general take was home viewing was getting better with the advances in technology for home viewing format from 8 mm film, 16 mm film, and their projectors, and followed by the VHS vs BetaMax breakthrough. We also had improvements in camera and film technologies of the movies from 35 mm film to 70 mm film and their sound systems. The grain improvement was far superior to VHS so that it could not compare in transfer technology. Then we had another stepwise breakthrough with the digital DVD formats. This was the first DVD and then came the HD DVD vs Blu-Ray. I think the color improved each time and we expected it. Fast forward today and we have the ultra 4K vs Blu-Ray and this is where we experienced a change in the color of the film. I forgot to mention streaming with the latest formats so my bad. Before we get to ultra 4K vs Blu-Ray, we have Netflix and other content providers and they offer 4K streaming which could be better if you are watching on a phone, tablet, or even a desktop pc device. If you have a Blu-Ray player in them, then it's better with Blu-Ray, but you are paying much more for the addition of these players and buying or renting the disks. Finally, we get to the ultra 4k vs Blu-Ray argument and here we are comparing the hardware and software that comes with these devices. My rule of thumb is for older moves before 1980s, then the Blu-Ray player and disk is sufficient and likely will have the better color. This is even if your ultra 4K player can handle both. With the newer films and it being shot digitally as well as with CGI effects, then the ultra 4K version is better suited to handle the colors in the film. I think this is what you are complaining about.

With your The Squid and the Whale (2005), obviously the Criterion Blu-Ray is better and the color we prefer. I think the difference is due to the care Criterion takes with its transfers and formats. It follows the rule of better technology means better color, definition, and viewing experience.

[–] swanstep (2769) 4 years ago

With your The Squid and the Whale (2005), obviously the Criterion Blu-Ray is better and the color we prefer.

Fair enough... but to be clear it isn't just the colors that changed massively from dvd to blur-ray, whole sectors of the images are now plunged into shadow and that in turn focuses viewer attention, sacrificing what I think of as the flatter, more Scandinavian look of the film on DVD. Effectively now TS&TW reads as a more typical, moody NYC film whereas before the film stood out by feeling icier ('emotionally glaciated' to use a Haneke-phrase). It left more of the emotional valence of scenes to the dialogue and the viewer's interpretation rather than using lighting to make all the choices for you.

Unfortunately, I never saw TS&TW in cinemas so can't say for sure which digital edition is closest to that experience. That said, the dvd colors & contrast/shading correspond to the colors and shading in the original trailer (e.g., the tennis court surface in the first scene of the film that's *green* in the blu-ray is *grey* in the trailer and on the dvd). I suspect therefore that the director-authorized Criterion Carravagian do-over does in fact reflect significant second thoughts by the director (about what's cool-looking say) rather than the correction of dvd errors.

Update: Another example from the Trailer - Jeff Daniels is trying to talk his son into moving in with him and shows him a desk-chair for the son to use. It emerges that the chair's for a lefty, i.e., the joke - Jeff Daniels either hasn't internalised that his son is right-handed or has just really half-assed his pitch to his youngest son. In the trailer *and* in the dvd it's a really light, relatively unshadowed room and you can see the bemused/'I got found out' look on Daniels face (crucial to landing the joke). In the blu-ray image, however, the room's much darker with much more dramatic shadows and you can't register the expression on Daniels' face nearly as much, so the joke evaporates, doesn't land.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 4 years ago

Okay, let's discuss what the Scandanavian cinema received for TS&TW. If the movie was shot with a digital camera, then it would've received some kind of file that it could put in their digital projector. Otherwise, they received a 35 mm film in those canisters. All you do is describe what you felt from watching it and that is based on the medium you saw it in. What you get from a theater experience is obviously different than watching a dvd or a Criterion Blu-Ray. The theater experience is the best way to see a movie, but we don't always get that. If I was given the choice that you had, then I would go with the Criterion one despite what you state. I want the better and richer color experience on my projection tv. I'm assuming you can get both on your system and have a preference for the dvd. Okay, the medium is supposed to be the message so I think you will go with what you understand and prefer. I mean there will be some psychological feel to it that comes through from the medium you choose and that is what you are discussing. I can't agree nor disagree because I haven't seen either. Thus, I can go by what I know and what medium I prefer. If I knew more about how the film was shot and made, then I may choose differently.

I found that IMDB has the specs on it and it was shot in super 16 mm (documentary look) and blown up to 35 mm. That means there was some cost savings involved there and maybe that's why you like the dvd look. It probably gives the more claustrophobic and documentary look the director was going for. The film doesn't need the extra pixels (grain on film). The extra definition on Blu-Ray and transfer by Criterion may give it a different look and feel.

https://youtu.be/jv7y7TbHlQM

I think if you watch this video, then you'd know what I am talking about. I believe this is right more than following a director who likes film vs a director who likes digital. The medium is what it is.

[–] swanstep (2769) 4 years ago

@Jason. I checked out your video link and I believe we may be talking past each other a little. While I think you may be onto something that TS&TW's 16mm origins maybe do mean that ultra-high resolution encodings will finally be wasted on it, I do not believe that that slight mismatch of underlying media is the *major* factor in the image-change that I find so disturbing (both in this particular case & more generally). What *seems* to have happened with TS&TW is that the director Baumbach has taken the opportunity of a Criterion Blu-ray release to extensively rethink the visual scheme of his movie. He didn't have to do that, but for whatever reason he has. I'm bummed about that myself.

Let me mention one other case that tortures me. One of the greatest films ever made and a personal favourite is Spirit of the Beehive (1973). Criterion had a dvd of this which was a remarkable change & I think upgrade from existing European dvds:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReview/spirit%20of%20the%20beehive.htm

So far, however, Criterion has not produced a blu-ray of SOTB. The only blu-rays available in fact follow the older dvd's look very closely, and, to my eye at least look terrible compared to the Criterion dvd. Now it could be that the Criterion version is a complete falsification/romanticization of the actual film image and that may explain why they haven't been given permission to release a blu-ray. But I can't help it: I dug the Criterion and am happily stuck back in dvd-land with it, although in this case I can't get up on the soapbox I'm using for TS&TW. I'm far from sure that the Criterion dvd is faithful to the film image, the converse of the case for TS&TW!

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 4 years ago

It's too hard to follow your arguments anymore then. All you are doing is arguing your point based on specific movies which I do not have. How can anyone follow what you are disturbed about based on what has happened in filIm in the theater,e.g. we didn't even discusss IMAX, and home media and its technology? You don't even explain what Criterion did with the movie of its transfer to Blu-Ray to get its version compared to the dvd.

I'm not trying to convince you one format or another for home viewing, but much of it is based on one system versus another and finally the medium you choose for your home viewing. How am I suppose to explain something that you believe and disturbs you whatever that is? All I was doing was bringing out the various thinking and factors that has come out over the years. We've all gone through it. If someone still has a VHS player and plays it on a lower res tv from the 70s or 80s, then who am I to argue? That fits. And it fits the medium is the message pov. That experience is something I can't get anymore because of broken equipment. I have a few boxes of vhs stashed away, but don't have the vhs player/recorder or low res tv.

To that person, I can still point out what has gone on from before that time and after. Finally, I was trying to point out that the newer arguments by directors over using Panavision vs digital cameras are moot. It really depends on what one is trying to get across to their audience and that happens in a theater. There's no way I can capture the grandeur of Ben Hur in 70 mm in a 70 mm theater presentation even in the best home theater setup, but I bet one can get an impressive one for it at home with enough money. Even regular folks have home theater now, so there are choices to be made for that.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 4 years ago

I told you I have an older projection tv system that probably fits a 16 mm movie screen. That's probably the max size I can get in my family room with its dimensions. If I can get a better projector with higher resolution, then I probably could show a > 16 mm screen picture. Then from there, I have to choose what format to use. My general rule of thumb is Blu-Ray or streaming. If I have both dvd and Blu-Ray version, I would go with Blu-Ray. If I have dvd or streaming, then I'd probably go with streaming unless it's a 1980 movie or earlier. For you and everybody else for that matter, you should just go with what you like, but heavens I won't understand Scandanavian feel or what you bring up that the Blu-Ray format doesn't have. I only bring out the general discussion and what is involved in all the different formats for home up until today. You should be able to use it and come up with an explanation for why the things you discuss in your setup at home disturbs you. Criterion is no slouch of a company and it wants you to be satisfied with your purchase so you should be able to get your money back. I'd be ecstatic to have a Criterion collection of dvds and Blu-Rays for my system at home.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 4 years ago

My general rule of thumb is to go with the better technology, but to be careful when deciding whether to get ultra 4K or Blu-Ray. I'm assuming you can afford the technology to upgrade the hardware for player and tv or projection tv. If the movie is digitally shot and uses CGI effects (movie theaters had to put in these new digital projectors (lesser pixels than the film grain!) in addition to their film projectors, then I would go with the ultra 4K. These are the 1980s and later films I think. If it's an older or even newer film using practical effects and higher grain 35 mm or 70 mm film camera, usually shot using different cameras and for special theater exhibitions, i.e. 70 mm screens, then I'd go with Blu-Ray. If you're not sure, then there are reviews that discuss both for a particular film or for a slew of films for which format is better. That's why today I point out what format I watched. I'm usually using Blu-Ray projection tv, dvd projection tv, or compressed 4K streaming at my home. I'm probably getting shortchanged on the new CGI and digitally shot films as I do not have the required players and equipment to play the ultra 4K Blu-Ray. In that case, I settle for the 4K streaming or the Blu-Ray. The color should not be that off to bother you such as in the example you provided. Knock on wood.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Frankly, I'm thrilled that B&W seems relatively immune to this sort of tinkering madness. Each gen. of Psycho media has improved resolution (bringing us closer to what a pristine 35mm print would have been like in 1960) but that's about all. Yay.

---

I'm very impressed with the discussion here; a pleasure to read.

I'll roll in , in my layman's way, to make two Hitchcock-related comments.

I've got most of the Psycho DVDs through time(though I'm missing the 4K and waiting on getting the "German" version with those extra shots) and...

...I noticed how while they generally got BETTER in visual quality, eventually one print was made that got WORSE.

I'll put it this way(with make-believe years): its like my 2005 copy of Psycho looks better than my 2015 copy of Psycho.

How so? The "earlier" copy has a bright, crystal clear clarity to every image (particularly those "lit for inside" in gray and white light; like Arbogast in the foyer or Marion in her real estate office; but the LATER DVD somehow darkened the image, all the way through, making a number of shots look(to me) "older" and more shadowy...you couldn't see everything so clearly.

And thus: when I want to look on Psycho on DVD, I play an OLDER copy, with brighter lighting.

Framings are different in some Psycho prints too -- I guess from VHS to DVD, mainly. For instance, I don't think that any DVD print shows that truck in the distance behind Norman when he's at the swamp watchinig ARBOGAST's car. And a "freeze frame study" at some website showed how , when Arbogast falls down the stairs, in some prints, you can see the painting on the wall to his side as he falls past it, but in some prints(cut "tighter on the frame") you can't see that painting at all.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

--

Now, a color comment: prints of North by Northwest that I saw on TV in the 70s and 80s, and early VHS versions fo the film, seemed to have a "blue" quality to them. NOT a blue tint but, rather a blue-ish "atmosphere" that played off some of the blue backgrounds in the movie, and rather complimented the silvery-gray of Grant's famous suit in the film, and the gray of the 20th Century Limited interiors and exteriors. One internet commenter remarked of this NXNW print: "Hitchcock must have done this film during his Blue Period."

Not any more. My most recent BluRay DVD of North by Northwest seems to have more of a dark, BROWN texture to the colors; its most disconcerting -- and rather a match for the "muddier, darker" print of Psycho on my later DVD copy -- is the culprit here BluRay coloring?

The "brown" copy of NXNW almost makes Grant's famous silvery suit look brown(which would make it like James Stewart's brown "cop's suit" in Vertigo -- a friend of mine says cops used to wear brown suits almost like a uniform).

I will say that "blue" returns triumphantly to the "brown" copy of North by Northwest during my most favorite of Hitchcock set-pieces: the Mount Rushmore climax. The night blue skies and gray granite of the Presidential heads create that sumptuous "Hitchocck clarity and color" and the great sequence survives.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

And a "sound" comment:

Back in the 80s when I had a VHS tape of Vertigo, I recall very distinctive 1958 sound effects for the gunshots fired by the cop at the crook during the opening rooftop chase. Eventually -- the 90's? -- Vertigo was famously restored for color...but also for sound. Which meant that the "new' sound effects assaulted the ears almost immediately -- now that cop was firing a gun that sounded modern, muffled ...and wrong. I was rather upset -- imagine the Psycho shower scene without a casaba melon being stabbed for the sound.

All these years later, when I put Vertigo on...I'm used to those new gunshots now -- and I can't possibly remember what the original 1958 gunshots sounded like.

Maybe I should buy an old VHS player to look at my Vertigo VHS and hear the gunshots as they were. I can put in an old Psycho VHS tape and see the "swamp truck," too.

Which reminds me. I have a copy of the Psycho VHS -- not the Psycho DVD -- signed by Janet Leigh herself, in person, for me. Its a reminder of how long ago that was. (She also signed a photo and a copy of her book about Psycho -- I think I had to purchase the "package.")

---

Meanwhile, back at Psycho and sound. All these modern DVD copies look great(even if the final one is too dark, actually, but it is clear) -- but it is the SOUNDTRACK that is impressive. Right from the moment Leigh and Gavin start talking to each other in the hotel room, Psycho SOUNDS super-rich and "stereophonic" -- in some ways the sound is so much BIGGER than the pictures on screen it is as if you are watching one movie while listening to another. And "long ago 1960" falls away -- the weird effect is that Psycho was made a few months ago, not 60 years ago.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 4 years ago

>>I'll put it this way(with make-believe years): its like my 2005 copy of Psycho looks better than my 2015 copy of Psycho.

How so? The "earlier" copy has a bright, crystal clear clarity to every image (particularly those "lit for inside" in gray and white light; like Arbogast in the foyer or Marion in her real estate office; but the LATER DVD somehow darkened the image, all the way through, making a number of shots look(to me) "older" and more shadowy...you couldn't see everything so clearly.

And thus: when I want to look on Psycho on DVD, I play an OLDER copy, with brighter lighting.

Framings are different in some Psycho prints too -- I guess from VHS to DVD, mainly. For instance, I don't think that any DVD print shows that truck in the distance behind Norman when he's at the swamp watchinig ARBOGAST's car. And a "freeze frame study" at some website showed how , when Arbogast falls down the stairs, in some prints, you can see the painting on the wall to his side as he falls past it, but in some prints(cut "tighter on the frame") you can't see that painting at all.<<

I'm not sure why your 2005 looks better than your 2015 copy of Psycho, but maybe you can figure it out by the dvd vs Blu-Ray discussion or looking at who transferred it and how it was done if both are dvds.

Speaking of brightness, it could affect the color as any background lighting change would do it. Directors are used to different lighting conditions and have utmost control, but they may not have control over how a transfer is done in later dvd or Blu-Ray pressings.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 4 years ago

>>I've got most of the Psycho DVDs through time(though I'm missing the 4K and waiting on getting the "German" version with those extra shots) and...<<

Holy Alfred Hitchcock!!! The uncut version is here in 4K Ultra HD released 9/8/2020.

This guy is one of the reviewers I follow. He has a link to Best Buy in his description -- https://youtu.be/ZNou2-QzvJE

I just ordered the Psycho 4K Ultra HD Blu-Ray from Best Buy. It's supposed to to have the UNCUT original movie in 4K.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 4 years ago

The 4K UHD Blu-Ray is definitely better in terms of picture resolution and sound. It gives me goosebumps cranking it up with Bernard Hermann sound. However, Hitch used his lower quality tv crew and its equipment so the picture isn't the best from the source. There are better out there even in black and white. The darker look is fine, but may bother you if you like a brighter picture. I think it sets the tone of the movie and may be due to source, i.e. Hitch wanted a dark and dirty look.

While seeing the Blu-Ray streaming version online since I like its lighting better, I found the 60th Anniversary uncut version. It's not 4K, but still has nice resolution at 1080p. I bought it, too, and am watching it now -- https://www.amazon.com/Psycho-Blu-ray-Anthony-Perkins/dp/B08CPLDRQH/ref=sr_1_1?crid=24MFHWV7RPQBZ&dchild=1&keywords=psycho+60th+anniversary+blu+ray&qid=1600410982&sprefix=psycho+60%2Caps%2C318&sr=8-1.

Is the 4K better or the Blu-Ray? I like the Blu-Ray brighter picture, but the 4K isn't bad. It sets a tone and its sound is superior. If you watch a movie a lot, then getting a Blu-Ray disc is the way to go even with 4K UHD upgrade and costs.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 4 years ago

>>The "brown" copy of NXNW almost makes Grant's famous silvery suit look brown(which would make it like James Stewart's brown "cop's suit" in Vertigo -- a friend of mine says cops used to wear brown suits almost like a uniform).

I will say that "blue" returns triumphantly to the "brown" copy of North by Northwest during my most favorite of Hitchcock set-pieces: the Mount Rushmore climax. The night blue skies and gray granite of the Presidential heads create that sumptuous "Hitchocck clarity and color" and the great sequence survives.<<

Interesting about Hitchcock's blue period. Did Grant's suit turn brown or was it blue? I guess it was a joke in reference to the changes that happened to the Blu-Ray. The Blu-Ray is a restoration, so it may not suit (no pun intended) to your liking, but it should not turn the color of the suit to brown. BTW, you use silvery and silvery-gray, but is it really silver, i.e. light gray, or a medium gray? It seems more of a medium gray to me and not a dark gray in low light. I wouldn't call it a silvery gray. However, it does look blue depending on the light. I could say it was blue in a photo -- https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xGmL8pE4e68/UYtzP3zRxqI/AAAAAAAALyI/l-vfShla8lc/s1600/NorthByNorthwest-Grant.jpg. The color depends on the back lighting and the brightness, contrast, hue, and saturation as well as I suppose the tone of the scene that the director wants to present. I can see it and accept it being a darker color suit in low light, but or the suit turning brown would throw me off and I would complain.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 4 years ago

>>Frankly, I'm thrilled that B&W seems relatively immune to this sort of tinkering madness. Each gen. of Psycho media has improved resolution (bringing us closer to what a pristine 35mm print would have been like in 1960) but that's about all. Yay.<<

It is incredible to see what has happened in a short period of time, but that's technology for you. I think people are following the battle between the "classic" big directors like Spielberg, Tarantino, Scorcese whom I think favor film, go up against the likes of Lucas and the newer directors who have embraced digital cameras. I was surprised to see how much digital cameras have taken over the market in the last twenty years. There's so much advantage of it over film, especially with cost, that our movie theaters have changed. Tarantino wanted to show what 70 mm film could do so he shot his "film" The Hateful Eight in 2015 using that huge camera. However, he had problems finding theaters set up to present it, so had to limit it to special roadshow cinemas to show how magnificent it is. Think having Ben Hur or Lawrence of Arabia and limited places to show it. I think today it's IMAX that has captured the majority of the audience with its huge "film" and only the big Hollywood directors would get the budget to shoot it in IMAX as well as 35 mm such as The Dark Knight.

Another area to discuss with film vs digital is frames per second or FPS. Obviously, the younger generation want to see movies at a the faster rate. I'm not sure Hitchcock's Psycho would consider such foolishness. That's why I would go with whatever the latest technology is for the more recent movies. Movies shot before 1980 would do better with the older Blu-Ray technology. BTW, have you noticed how bad the trailer was for Psycho (1960) compared to the film? It's because its audience see it on their 1960 tvs at the time. Maybe it was in 8 mm lol.

[–] swanstep (2769) 4 years ago

The youtube channel that specializes in comparing frame-grabs from blu-rays vs 4K UHD discs has just added their Psycho report:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9mE_y3ov-c

That the 4K image is significantly darker is about all that comes through on youtube.

Dvdbeaver also just posted their comparisons of all dvd & after editions of Psycho including the new 4K:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film9/blu-ray_review_127/psycho_4K_UHD.htm

Their comparisons allow you to see some of the benefits of 4K, esp. that there's more of a sense of film grain being accurately reproduced so, e.g., skin surfaces look better. But, I dunno, the darkening of everything in the 4K edition means, for example, that white bathroom surfaces are now solidly grey which looks wrong to me, and facial expressions get lost in gloom a little in the 4K version, which is a bad trade-off as far as I'm concerned.

Someone could lose his or her mind over this sort of stuff!

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 4 years ago

Now, this is more like it and I can add to the discussion. Sorry, if I was carried away with the discussion on TS&TW.

Psycho was shot on the cheap and by Hitchcock's tv show crew. Hitchcock wanted the tone of the movie as such. So what kind of camera does he use? Pretty straightforward 35 mm -- https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054215/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec. This should be pretty basic transfer to the dvd versions. However, notice the additions to the the 2020 ultra 4k remaster. There should be a great difference there in the look as well as the sound and Hitchcock was not involved.

I admit I do like the 4K upgrade of the original Psycho for its high definition, but seeing the darkening in comparison is troublesome. The 4K version (I have a streaming version) does look darker. Yet, it looks widescreen and covers up my 1080p screen on my computer display and has 2160p resolution. If I watched it on projection tv, i.e. blowing up the 2160p image, then it should still look great. I admit the darkness or what I think is more contrast would remain. Was that the way AH wanted to present Psycho? With a darker tone?

Yet, my rule of thumb is that it's an older movie so the 1080p Blu-Ray Psycho should be the choice. I don't think I've seen the Blu-Ray version so am going by the brighter images on your comparison which I like more.

>>Someone could lose his or her mind over this sort of stuff!<<

Sure. But once you know and get used to it, then it should be an easy choice. Even if you don't know or don't care, one can go by what they like.

BTW, before I forget since we discussed VHS. I would think it's better to spend the money to convert one's VHS tapes to dvd and watch your old movies that way unless buying the Blu-Ray.

(Note: I don't think it's worth spending money to see VHS, buying a VHS player, and cables to watch on your HD tv ;).)

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 4 years ago

>>Someone could lose his or her mind over this sort of stuff!<<

Afterthought. Okay, so IMDB lists the 4K is what was remastered of the original film. I think this is the way, i.e. large digital file, that Hollywood is going to keep Psycho for posterity once the original film deteriorates beyond repair.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 4 years ago

I just ordered the Psycho 4K Ultra HD Steelbook from Best Buy, but I wanted the uncut version in it. Yet, I still believe the Blu-Ray version is better. I'm hoping the darkness isn't too bad as in the screen shot comparisons.

I was able to find a trailer in Blu-Ray for the 50th anniversary and it looks simply marvelous -- https://youtu.be/zn7dBPlFkA0

Maybe I'll break down and get it after lol.

[–] swanstep (2769) 4 years ago

My original post was perhaps too confident about B&W film's relative image stability through different technological iterations... I recently discovered a new blu-ray restoration (from Culte films) of The Battle of Algiers (1965) that differs incredibly from the Criterion Blu-ray of only a few years ago. The new edition is incredibly darker and higher-contrast than the Criterion in a range of early, especially indoor scenes: *literally* day is now night, people with relatively light skins are now incredibly dark (reading as complete change in ethnicity), huge amounts of background detail are now lost in shadows, and so on.

I think that the following moral is emerging: in any discussion of an important film it's now important to say with which Digital edition(s) you are familiar. Secondary moral: if directors want to prevent handing over control of the final look of their films to god knows what restorers and faceless tech people then they are going to have to commit to, e.g., a system of standardised reference frames (objectively measured) whose data no later polishing and edition-mongering may diverge from.

[–] swanstep (2769) 4 years ago

The youtube channel that specializes in comparing frame-grabs from blu-rays vs 4K UHD discs has just added The Birds, Vertigo, Rear Window:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXo6Srf1rT2MoSGHEejj_6g/videos

Prima facie, nothing looks too terrible, although, in general, frames that were quite dark in the Blu-rays are often *significantly* darker in the corresponding 4K releases (at least as such images are rendered on youtube).

[–] MickyMac (3254) 4 years ago

There's something about the way it was shot where B&W enhances everything Psycho was going for especially the shower, the silhouette of mother because its in B&W has this creepy imposing presence and enhances the mystery of who it is which makes it effective.