Quote:
Originally Posted by surfinhank
This is probably the main issue here: even though this version is "director approved", the real question is... is it the director's "original intent"? Was is shown this way in the theaters when it was released? (If not, was it because of technical limitations of the time or maybe studio interference?)
Or is it "director's intent: 2014"... an afterthought thanks to all the new technology and software available today.
|
Very good points that should all be considered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MifuneFan
Pro-B, an actual film expert, not one that labels themselves as such in forums, says nothing of the sort in his review of the SS disc
|
Not to slight Pro-B here, but I strongly disagree with many of his assessments on several past reviews, and he has given high marks to transfers that were obviously problematic.
I happen to own Second Sight SCANNERS release, and both from checking the screencaps on the net and from playing the movie at home, I can tell you that those issues are present. And while the color timing is always debatable when lacking a proper original reference, the noise reduction is easily noticeable.
Criterion's is no doubt superior to all other releases (including German Subkultur that, to me, was the winner if I had to choose) in terms of detail and definition, but I find it hard to believe that such a dull contrast reflects the original photography. It doesn't look to me like any artistic intent, but more like a bad set of light adjustments.
As for this bearing the director's seal of approval, we don't really know what that means exactly or how actually involved was Cronemberg, or, as others have pointed out already, how much of a revisionist was he when deeming Criterion's transfer as "right".
In any case, I think I don't remember such a big discrepancy between transfers for any other film, and I confess I am completely at a loss about how faithful any of them is.