These are my rambling, rough viewing notes about the technical quality of the *UK* BD which I am reviewing:
Opening titles are soft, as are all transitions in the film, which is to be expected. Once the opening titles and following establishing transitions have finished, the film *pops* nicely when we see Uncle Charlie on his bed and the bulk of the film looks good like this.
I’m guessing this isn’t a very recent HD scan (perhaps 2004-2008?) The original film materials that have been scanned are obviously capable of generating superb resolution imagery but they’re not in perfect condition. There are parts in the film (particularly the first few reels, and the scene in the bank when Uncle Charlie is in a back room opening a bank account has some large but brief problems) where there is noticeable film damage. It appears that nothing has been done to deal with the small amounts of film damage throughout the film.
No problems with sparkle.
I have an issue with the DVNR used to handle the grain, but it’s not a shocker and most people won’t notice. It’s not at all scrubbed smooth, there is “grain” visible, but it’s fighting with the DVNR and doesn’t behave organically. Boring disclaimer: Yes, DVNR is useful when used lightly, but its presence should NEVER be felt and detritus it causes should never be seen. I felt its presence here, worse on pans and patterned fabrics that move. If you don’t know what you’re looking for though, you won’t really think it’s much of a problem – but, it could have looked a touch better. I just wish Universal followed best practice, like Criterion, or Warners who reissued CASABLANCA on Blu with a far less heavy-handed 2012 BD, replacing a scrubbed to death 2008 BD.
This was the third time I’d seen the film and it was very satisfying to see it looking this good. There is room for improvement (eg. Criterion would have very carefully removed the film damage, and handled the grain better, which would have resulted in an even more filmic, organic image.)
No noticeable hiss/pop/crackle/noise on the soundtrack whatsoever.
Take these scores with a pinch of salt, and they may change, but I’m going to give it a 7/10.

These are my rough viewing notes about the technical quality of the *UK* BD which I am reviewing:
Upshot: Will this impress the average punter? Very much. Will this impress the discerning enthusiast? It should do. It’s really terrific.
According to Robert Harris, the film’s restorer, REAR WINDOW was shot on an early version of Eastman Color 5248 negative stock and originally printed via Eastman Color direct positive. Separation masters were Eastman 5216, the earliest of the separation stocks, and for the 1961-2 reissue, prints were produced via dye transfer method which tended to an overall beige look.
I have no idea how this film looked when it premièred, or at the 1960s reissue, nor have I ever seen it projected. I therefore have no idea how the colours or the grain of this great film ought to look on Blu-ray.
Having watched the entire Blu-ray, all I can say is that it’s extremely impressive. The detail is incredible, the colours strong, beautiful, and consistent. Grain is very fine and looks like it’s being suppressed by DVNR in some shots, but I detect a more sensible approach here. It’s used on some shots more than others and is not really a problem, but I have no idea what they were wrestling with.
It feels like a lot of work has gone into it, with difficult materials (the grain structure of these early stocks was apparently quite large, but that’s not apparent at all on the Blu-ray), and the result is impressive.
I spotted four very brief noticeably dupey shots at 00:29:44 & 00:29:59 of Lisa, at 00:54:33 of Jeff, and a quick shot of Doyle at the end 01:50:30. All four are poor quality and quite jarring because 99.9% of the rest of the film looks so stunning.
This disc was a pleasure and a treat. I’ll give it 8.5/10 in my own little marking system.

These are my rough viewing notes about the technical quality of the *UK* BD which I am reviewing:
Upshot: Quite a fine viewing experience. A pleasurable and handsome Blu-ray for Hitchcock’s first colour film (1948).
What is immediately apparent (even from the offputting motion menu screen, which has clips from the film) is that we have excellent detail and very fine grain. No noticeable evidence of excessive processing/DVNR.
Colours definitely have a unique 40s/50s “chestnutty” characteristic, slightly drained, tending towards browns and blues, but lit candles look particularly nice, the neon lighting that leaks into the room at the end looked great, and the skin tones don’t look as deathly as I remembered from previous viewings (thankfully colours do not look artificially ramped).
The opening title sequence is pinsharp. I was expecting softness here, but it looked tight from the off, and stayed pinsharp. Of course, there are hardly any transitions in the film, so it’s all like this.
There is light, almost unnoticeable, occasional sparkle. The only other problems are minor brightness fluctuations in some areas, causing a slight flutter, which is hard to correct, and must be inherent in the surviving film elements, which are otherwise quite clean. I looked briefly at the old DVD which seemed to have more damage than this Blu-ray.
No apparent major problems. An enjoyable 7.5/10.
(Here’s how I see the marking system. Less than 5 is pretty problematic. 5 is very average. 6 is slightly disappointing but good. 7 or above is great. 9s are barnstorming. I don’t intend to give 10s.)

Upshot: A completely re-rendered opening credit sequence for this new HD master introduces typographical inconsistencies, wrong fonts, typos, and multiple errors in crew members’ names. Parts of the film are slathered in noticeable DVNR which causes undesirable effects. I can’t recommend this disc. Dear Universal, when the credits get fixed (which hopefully involves simply putting the original credits back, regardless of softness or damage), please dial back the DVNR across the whole film too.
Why would Universal need to re-render the credit sequence? My guess is that they found clean, textless, undamaged footage of the opening helicopter shot and decided to try and recreate all the text to overlay it in order to save time cleaning up the actual, original opening credits. Bad practice, lazy, revisionist, disrespectful, fraught with potential catastrophe which has indeed backfired through sloppy execution. They’ve used unintelligent apostrophes and quote marks which smack of desktop publishing (post-1985) rather than a 35mm film from 1972; they’ve misspelt “fictitious” as “ficticious” and mucked up two crew members’ names.
“Do a few misspellings really matter that much?” – Yes they do. “Nobody would really notice would they?” – That’s not the point. Think how insulting it is to these crewmembers, their families, descendants. This HD master of FRENZY will now become the master that everyone will see for decades on TV, on iTunes, in DCP, and on this bad disc.
We’re not seeing the film as released in 1972 and signed off by Hitchcock, we’re seeing an approximation of the opening titles, the text of which looks like a PS3 videogame, completely static, with digital fades between each piece of text. All done in a vain attempt to make the opening credits look a little better than they probably do, and to save cleaning up the original.
“How bad is the DVNR? Is it really a huge problem?” First impressions are that the film looks a bit too clean and smooth. In static shots, suspiciously inactive parts of the screen are paralysed by DVNR. In motion, resolution suffers as the DVNR realises it doesn’t have an algorithm to deal with this much movement. On much closer inspection, for example, a fascinating shot where Hitchcock locks the camera off on a doorway for TWENTY SECONDS with nothing happening in the frame (it’s at 00:36:50 and lasts until 00:37:12) the DVNR has the film grain in such a death lock that I genuinely thought I’d sat on the remote control and activated the pause button. It’s so unnatural and unfilmlike that it pulls the viewer out of the film. DVNR should be used sparingly, it should not be noticed, and should not cause any untoward effects. At times, parts of the film are soaked in DVNR which causes unwanted, unnecessary, and jarring effects.
If the credits were totally original, I’d give this disc a 4 (for the DVNR). It doesn’t matter if the original credits are soft and have a little damage. They should not be rebuilt. If the credits were totally original, and the DVNR was dialled back so that it didn’t freeze portions of the screen, I’d probably give it a 6 or 7.
As it stands, I think the decision to redo the opening titles was extremely cack-handed, and the re-rendering was executed in a similarly cack-handed manner befitting that of a one-man-band DVD label specializing in VHS>DVD rips, circa 1999. This is not the same Universal that made other great discs in this box set.
I give this Blu-ray 3/10 based on its technical merit.
* cack-hand·ed (kkhndd)
adj. Chiefly British 1. Left-handed.
2. Awkward; clumsy.
3. The new 2012 Blu-ray opening titles for Alfred Hitchcock’s FRENZY.


[from dialect cack excrement, from the fact that clumsy people usually make a mess; via Middle Low German or Middle Dutch from Latin cacāre to defecate]

Colours are strong, not faded. The resolution is superb. Noticeable damage in places, which is a slight shame, but first impressions are "phew".

I'm pretty disappointed. It has a look I haven't seen yet from this set. Very noisy. I think the noise was grain in a past life.
What never comes across from grabs at internet review sites is how smthng looks in motion. How the grain resolves and how processing reacts. Let's just say the Telecine Colourist on this one has dialled in the "Georges Seurat" setting (this is a detail): http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A2iaywnCcAEoLx-.jpg:large
I know it's a phone photograph of my television, and I know it's an exaggerated detail, but... so is this. Same phone, same TV, also a detail (from THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH): http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A2ibWPlCIAAjKO2.jpg:large
Whatever this MARNIE processing is (it's certainly not "smoothing") it succeeds in creating a gauze over the image and when Hitch pans, or there's any fast movement, the gauze gives us a horrible moiré effect. Worst on textures and patterns. Yes, it's like bad colour printing on crockery — rather than anything to do with celluloid. Remember ye olde analogue TV? When it was stormy outside and the TV reception got a little "snowy"? It's like that. Need to turn the aerial. If you could buy a guitar FX pedal for your TV called "1080p fuzz", you could play your old (US 1.85:1) MARNIE DVD through it, and get this.
Skipping chapters forward now on MARNIE to see if the picture quality changes any...
Wasn't expecting this.. the MARNIE fuzz that I've described 80% GOES AWAY at the start of Chapter 18 (01:55:55). The last 15 mins look okish. So, why do chapters 1-17 have the 1080p Fuzz pedal switched on and it's switched off at the beginning of chapter 18? Something quite wrong.

Length 02:22:09
I actually think this is the US BD. It has different menus to all the other discs I've reviewed (it has text menus, the other discs have textless icons). There is no Universal Centenary trailer, and the thing that really tips it is the fact that there are FBI / CIA / and MPAA screens (none of the other BDs so far have had these).
Very suspicious of all the opening credits and opening titlecards of TOPAZ: http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A2i_W-lCMAA8JQ2.jpg:large
They're pure white, rock solid, not slightly transparent, have no grain, and... er.. slightly pixellated edges. But they have not been retyped. Pretty sure they've been Magic Wanded in Photoshop. So nothing could go wrong, unless they missed a bit :(
TOPAZ BD looks just as you'd hope/expect. Normal, good, no major probs. Phew. I've only seen the first 15 mins tho.Hopefully someone doesn't stomp on that "1080p fuzzbox" around chapter 10.
Hmmm.... at the end of the film it says it's authored by Deluxe Digital (like all the other UK discs I've got). Perhaps all the US BDs were authored in the UK????? Would be great if a US reviewer could see if there is a Deluxe Digital logo at the very end of the feature on any US BD. Another hmmm... my TOPAZ BD is the only disc that says 'USHE" (Universal Studios Home Entertainment) at the very top on the bodyprint. All the other discs I have say "UNIVERSAL PICTURES INT'L". There is a chance I have been sent the wrong territory disc. Either that or the UK are getting the US disc?

Gonna hafta call it a night. Peeked @ first 10 mins of THE TROUBLE W/ HARRY. Ace detail, hardly any damage, prob w/ white in 1st few shots.