Far and Away (1992) [41415]

This will not be a movie review, but merely a comparison of a film on two different formats.

The test equipment shall be what follows:

- 56-inch Samsung DLP 1080p HDTV
- 7.1 Onkyo sound system with vintage speakers ranging from Kenwood to Design Acoustics
- Magnavox CDV 474 LD Player (with composite video hooked directly into TV and 2-channel RCA audio hooked directly into the receiver.)
- Sony PlayStation 3 (phat model) (with HDMI video/audio hooked into the receiver and output to the TV.)
- Sofa

VIDEO

Let's begin with the LD. Although LD looks better on a CRT, thankfully this DLP gives out a nice image and helps with the built-in comb filter. The LD gives us a picture so noisy, so soft and barely detailed, it is a shame for a film of this scale to be treated this poorly. Although shot on 70mm, the transfer was taken from a 35mm reduction print because telecines that transferred 70mm were so expensive at the time. So we are given a slightly cropped 2.35:1 picture, as opposed to the native 2.20:1. If anything, it's closer to the 35mm experience. I know it's an analog picture, but not only are the higher frequencies in the image are rolled off, they appear to be cut off. One thing I noticed was the railing on the stairs in the landlord's house had this dreadful rainbow effect. It wasn't even a thin railing, but it was pretty darn thick. The final side is in CAV, and it isn't much improved over the previous CLV sides. A disappointing video transfer.

Then we come to the DVD. It's an early Universal DVD from 1998. Is the picture any better? Not quite. Well, it is in anamorphic widescreen, that's a good start, but it is not a huge improvement. The back of the case reads the aspect ratio is 2.20:1, but once I popped it in, it was still 2.35:1. While the LD copy I have has some laser rot in the video and side 1's audio, the DVD transfer has more print damage. I could be wrong but the credits looked more damaged than it did on the LD. There is also edge enhancement in the DVD's transfer as well as motion being smeared. The color timing on the DVD has a pinkish tint and brightness has been boosted not for the better. The scene when Joseph's dad is on his deathbed used to be darker and brownish, now on the DVD all you can see is the sun emitting on the room. The fight club in Boston is brighter than it needed to be. That place is gritty and the LD made it grittier. Did I mention the whites are tinted to pink on the DVD?

LD wins in color and contrast. DVD wins in sharpness. Both are mediocre transfers that don't demonstrate what their format is capable of.

LD: 6/10
DVD: 5/10

AUDIO

The LD sports a 2-channel Dolby Surround-encoded PCM track. There was an awkward buzzing sound you can kind of hear in the main titles and when the two protagonists take the boat to America. Far and Away is a very front-heavy mix and it's not mixed as hot as other films so I decided to turn up the volume by 3dB halfway through the film. When the surrounds are in use, it's not used in a gimmicky way. It's just there to further the immersion and story. The highlight of the mix is the Oklahoma land rush where the music, sound effects, dialogue, and overall mixing come to play in full circle.

The DVD is presented in 5.1 Dolby Digital AC-3. In theaters, the 70mm prints of Far and Away had a six-track magnetic Dolby SR split-surround mix, which was very much like 5.1 today. So is the DVD identical to the six-track mix used in those theatrical 70mm prints? Who knows, but my bet is Yes. Although it is digitally compressed, there is far better spatial separation than the LD's acoustically compressed PCM track. Usually the LD sounds better, but in this case the DVD wins. It has the same front-heavy and dialogue-driven attributes of the LD, but the DVD gives that extra oomph thanks to the LFE channel. This is especially evident in the land rush. The discrete nature of the DVD makes it sound more clearer.

Both the LD and DVD have adequate audio transfers but the slight edge is going to the DVD.

LD: 7.5/10
DVD: 8/10

I love these LD vs DVD reviews of films, great stuff.

You're comparing one of the best DVD setups possible to a very sub-par LD setup.

I have this LD, it's one of the first ones I ever bought more than 20 years ago. It's pretty good, IMO, and I've tested it on every setup I've ever owned. It gets a lot better with better gear.

I think the Magnavox player here is a Philips CDV clone. Philips CDV 488 is considered one of the great LD players. I don't know how better or worst CDV 474 is. I have seen CDV488 in action briefly and I remember it was good. Some here owns it and claim its comparable to Pioneer CLD-97 in noise levels and sharpness. Earlier Theta LD transports were based on Philips players too.

PS3 is a good up converting DVD player but I wouldn't call it one of the best possible. It uses Sony propriety scaling algorithm found on older ES line BD players. I think its above average but far from best. But to beat LD picture you don't need a good DVD player.

for the review I am actually surprised that both DVD and LD are bad masters in your opinion(and I trust it). Supposedly Hi-Vision/MUSE LD of this title is among the best produced in this format. I would assume they used the same master at least on the DVD.

Maybe not one of the best possible, but it's better than anything that existed when that DVD came out. Upscaling, HDMI, etc. To compare LD to DVD you need to have a similarly pimped out LD setup, or at least period-correct. Half the noise you see on an LD on a massive plasma screen is totally invisible on a 27" Trinitron from the 90s.

When Philips released the CDV-488, the Philips name was being introduced as the equivalent of Pioneer Elite, while the Magnavox name was used for their lower priced/performing stuff. The CDV-488 and CDV-600 were the only players Philips introduced in the US that had digital memory for CLV special effects. Their lower end players, mostly sold under the Magnavox name and later the Philips name, were not great performers - Philips even made a model specifically for Price Club/Costco that came with a bundle of discs - it sold for $399 and was the player that ended up in the majority of the Theta Data I & II players - Theta didn't even remove the front panels - they just dropped the player into their steel and aluminum box and claimed superior performance. Even the Theta Data III was just a Pioneer CLD-704 in the Hollywood False-Front styled box. Only the Theta Voyager, a Pioneer DVL-919, actually had circuit modifications and such to improve performance - and as seems to generally be the case, it was MSB who did the video reengineering of the player.

The Philips CDV-488 is indeed an excellent player although its no match for the CLD-97. Its overall video S/N ratio is 48db and unlike most players its video noise is higher in the darker areas of the image. Its the only LaserDisc player ever sold that utilized a comb filter built from discrete components and not an off-the-shelf chip. It was the very first LaserDisc player to offer an S-Video output and its comb filter is a one line design that uses an analog CCD delay - it combs the whole spectrum from around 2MHz up and since its not a dynamic/adaptive filter, the whole color image is always covered in dots. Luckily, the composite video output is pure composite - the comb filter is not in the composite signal path at all and it produces an excellent image. The remote control is a whole component unto itself - I can't think of another piece of video gear that came with a 5 pound remote that could also learn the functions of 8 other remotes and had an LCD display that you could program soft keys and change the name of selected components. The 488 also has both RCA Coaxial and Toslink optical digital outputs making it DTS LaserDisc compatible - it just needs an AC-3 RF mod. The internal DA converters are Philips Crown S1 chips which were Philips very best DA converters at the time - they are true ladder-based 16-bit converters with guaranteed resolution of 15.5 bits. The chips are run with 4x Oversampling and the player produces a warm, beautiful sound from CD's and LaserDisc's. the Crown S1 digital chips are still so highly thought of and in demand that a set of them can sell for more than an entire CDV-488 in perfect condition.

I won a CDV-488 back in 1989 when they were being introduced and used it for years as my main player with a 45-inch Mitsubishi rear projection TV - I ended up selling it and always regretted it, but thanks to a member here, bought another in excellent condition, complete with the remote and instruction manual, last year and have made it one of my main players along with my EAD TheaterVision, Runco's and MSB LS-1. Its a great player, and built like a tank - sadly, the quality of the lower end Magnavox and Philips players just isn't as good as the 488.

Considering it was Philips who invented the 5-inch CDV and forced the renaming of the LaserVision format to CD-Video, they did a very poor job of supporting it with good quality players - except for the 488 and the doomed 600, they seemed to focus on the low end of the market. While their players were not flat-out bad like Sony's, as co-inventor of the format they should have had players that performed superbly in all price ranges, like Pioneer did. Philips has always been an odd company though, such as focusing time and huge amounts of money on their loser DCC format, and at a time when everyone could see that the audio cassettes days were numbered - especially when compared to MiniDisc. While MD never sold in great numbers, I think it was a 'winner' of a for,at and would have been highly successful if it had more support behind it instead of just Sony and their record company.

Okay, I've totally lost track of what my original point even was -since I'm an idiot - and I will stop writing now.

yes I first saw CDV488 3 years ago. I met this guy who was Philips sales manager(retired at the time). He had a good number of test LDs, 5" CDV discs. He had the same era Marantz speakers. He told me they were actually Philips speakers but they were sold as Marantz in the US(Philips owned Marantz back then). He was using the CDV488 mainly as a cd player. I bought all his test LDs and CDVs for less than $1 each. He was willing to sell the CDV for $40. I didn't know it was a good player back then and I already had my McIntosh MLD. He talked a lot about the specifics of the player and speakers. I don't remember much but from what I remember they were really leading technology. I lost his contact but he definitely knew a lot about Laserdiscs. One of the test discs turned out to be LD-R

A typical ODC/Nimbus LD-R, or a lab prototype for a consumer unit...?

Firstly I have seen it a few times. Once 35mm SCOPE Dolby Stereo A-type at the MGM screen 1.

A few years later In 70mm six-track Dolby Stereo not sure if their ran it with SR cards on the CP200? I knew the down stairs screen 2 CP55 had SR cards



Far And Away, played at Empire 1, in 70mm THX, not that I saw it there I wish, and not sure if it had more bass kick slam as over the MGM screen 1, which had small kick on cannon firing I would assume YES since other films I have seen at Empire 1, in 70mm vibrated the cinema.

I know the stereo surrounds are not the best I've listened to they are there in mix its the front mix that ether needs lowering LCR at same level or the surrounds being raised up equally by many db.

The bass on "I do not wish to fight you" punching the horse seems weak? It might have been better if Indiana Jones punched the horse.

I'll get down to a small A B test of the sound later on the Spectrum Lab to compare the strength of the films mix.





You might notice the cropped height on the DVD. The LD wins on framing. I'm, shocked no 70mm was used for the transfer.


PAL LASERDISC played on Pioneer DVL-909


DVD R2 played on Toshiba HD-E30


DVD R2


PAL LASERDISC


PAL LASERDISC


DVD R2



R2 DVD


DVD R2


DVD R2


PAL LASERDISC


PAL LASERDISC


PAL LASERDISC

Onkyo TX-SR875 THX Ultra2 THX switched off on the Onyko.

Lucasfilm Ltd THX Sound System

JBL control 12SR LCR JBL control 1 x6 regular surrounds (full use x12) 18" 4645 JBL GTO 12 SW extension. PUCK transducer for the seats.


DVD R2 DOLBY STEREO DIGITAL 5.1 LCR LFE.1


PAL LASERDISC DOLBY STEREO PCM LCR SW


Tested the cannon scene over and over till I was blue in the face.

Set the levels to from the analouge though the CP500 to match as close within shade of db, with Onkyo, TX-SR875

I notice the cannon fire appears to be the same on LFE.1 apart from small jolt of hoarse kicking up for the race.

Also I lowed the LCR down from 0db to -10db so that the surrounds would be around me a little more on the discrete mix. But when the end credits "Book of Days" by Enya, the surrounds are too high and levels are matched on the RTA. What I need is variable 5 zone or more control to adjust + and - without having to keep going into the Onkyo, sound menu.

One thing I remember when I took the SPL db meter to the MGM screen 1, for the 70mm show "the cannon fire" only reached over 100dbc it wasn't bang on at 105dbc it was few db under and loud at front centre row. The fader might have been a few notches lower than "7"?

Not enough dialouge panning used in this film.
Surrounds might as well be mixed in super70 ViataPhone mono
Sub bass. I felt better with Sensurround and other Dolby films in THX.

It should be FAR AND AWAY vs BACKDRAFT as the lows on BACKDRAFT are far better, plus lots of human dialouge panning that made it sound better than most 3D films today. Sub bass was used to great good rumbling slam and kick.

Bottom line FAR AND AWAY didn't hit the nerve the film makers was hoping for with Super70 hype. It would have been better if BACKDRAFT was filmed in Super70. FAR AND AWAY has lost its appeal with me.

i have to say, far and away is one of those films that i went to see by accident but actually really liked.
had some time to waste and that was the only film playing in a small upstate NY town.



________________________________
the rein-o official signature:

Did you make sure to calibrate your sofa for best viewing experience?

Far and Away, at least here in America, had two major problems with its theatrical showings - and both were due to the theaters and not the prints themselves, which were individually QC'd and slow printed for optimum resolution. The theaters that showed Far and Away in Panavision Super 70 typically had old lenses from the 60's and 70's that, while good enough in terms of resolution for 35/70 blow ups, were nowhere near good enough to show the level of detail and quality that was on the actual prints - so for most showings, it looked no better than a 35mm blow up, when it should have been so sharp and detailed that audiences would blown away. The sound mix was a standard 4-track mix with Baby Booms and minimal dialog panning - the Dolby SR encoded prints should have sounded equal to any digital format in terms of fidelity but theaters had old, worn sound heads and most failed to use the supplied 70mm mag EQ set up film to align the heads and mag preamps to the Far and Away 70mm mag print - a 70mm print can't just be threaded up and shown like 35mm can - the mag must be properly aligned and EQ'd for proper frequency response, levels and Dolby A or SR noise reduction decoding. The studios have always provided 70mm mag film loops created for each film to do this set up, but few theaters bothered, leading to incorrect bass levels, poor frequency response and noise reduction mistracking.

On top of all of the above, Far and Away wasn't shot all that well and the subject matter, except in a very few sequences, just didn't lend itself to being shot in the 70mm format. An uninspired sound mix without the full-time directional dialog that the huge 70mm screen requires further lead to less-than-impressive results. And sadly it kind of spelled the end of films shot in 65mm and shown in 70mm. DTS even developed a 70mm reader and 2 disc system that could provide 5 speakers behind the screen, mono or stereo surrounds and LFE, but except for a few special showings of Titanic in 70mm DTS and Vertigo, the system just never got used due to the lack of 70mm product - and the 70mm DTS system saved studios thousands of dollars per 70mm print since each print didn't have to be mag striped, dried and then 'sounded' (have the soundtrack recorded on the print) in real time and then QC'd in real time to make sure there were no sounding errors.

Far and Away was a missed opportunity all around to bring back films shot for exhibition in the 70mm format.

The MPU-1 preamp.

True about 35mm which doesn't take as half as long to clean down and lace the film back up.

I've experimented little with the playback this afternoon and managed to beef up the low end a bit.

Low end rarely reaches past 30Hz on this film even though The Land Race effects wise. The cannon still bursts out with lows below 40Hz for brief moment same with the mine shaft explosions.



Human dialouge panning starts at 01:05:01 stage Left. "Mike!" "Mike!" "Mike!"







Girl calls up to Joseph from an open window in the apartment at 01:14:17 on stage Left "Joseph." "Joseph." then as Shannon, walks to the window the sound has moved to centre stage.









More human panning starts at 01:38:13 on stage Left "Water?" "Anybody need water?" "Water?"

Just bumping this thread after seeing the tail end of a 1080i broadcast of Far and Away on Showtime. It was letterboxed to 2.35:1 on a 16:9 image. I must say the HDTV version was a heck of a lot more detailed and saturated than the DVD. Colors were much richer in the HD version, especially during what was chapter 15 on the DVD (Joseph's "resuscitation"). However, the sound wasn't quite like how I remembered it on the DVD, so I popped the DVD in and watched the same two scenes.

Firstly, I noticed that the colors were muted on the DVD. It looked like a Sega CD FMV sequence in comparison. I didn't do a direct A/B comparison, but the picture appeared to be even more cropped than the HDTV and PAL LD versions. The sound on the other hand was a different story. I heard the canon fire on the HD version, whereas I felt it on the DVD version. Mind you, the HD broadcast was in Dolby Digital 5.1. I also watched the credits on the HD version. It was less damaged than that on the DVD.

So apparently, the HD broadcast and the DVD come from two different masters. My bet is that the HD broadcast was from the Hi-Vision MUSE master, while the DVD's master was a mistake. But the MUSE master could have been used on the DVD, it's just that the movie looks so much better on Showtime HD.

I am now inspired to get a capture device and create my de-facto "ultimate" Blu-ray or AVCHD DVD disc of Far and Away, using the 1080i HD picture and the DVD audio, since there is no official Blu of the film yet. But you know Universal and their back catalog... they'd care friggin less about quality control!

I doubt the version you saw had anything to do with HiVision. It was probably a new transfer than hasn't made it to Bluray yet.

As for the DVD looking pale, isn't this a pretty early DVD, around 99 or 2000 maybe? If so, it probably looks like crap for the same reasons most early DVDs look like crap. Low bit rate, terrible encoding, outdated masters, etc.