The Criterion Collection

[lordmorpheus72]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

You're in for a big treat with those Criterions.

I'm convinced that about a third of the movies released since Stagecoach have followed the same basic blueprint of that film. It's so remarkably influential even to this day.

I've heard the same from other film guys... I'm very excited. ANd I have see other Ford films, and loved them.

Originally Posted by ravenus

You have a wonderful wife, I especially appreciate that she got you 4 very different movies, so you're set for a varied experience.

yeah, I gave her a big list and she did a great job of mixing it up. She said the lady at B&N was very excited to help and told her she did a great job picking as well.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by jayembee

You couldn't "just shoot it in 1.85 and crop from there". The exposed negative area in a flat photography film was 1.33:1, and it was printed in the same ratio. The top and bottom of the frame was matted off by the use of a mask attached to the projector.

(This is referred to as soft matting. There is also a process called hard matting, in which the mattes were applied during printing rather than during projection.)

There were various other processes developed to shoot in a variety of other ratios, but the typical 1.85:1/1.66:1 film was shot full frame, and then matted.

So does this still apply today? I am guessing that films shot in anamorphic 2.39:1 are easier to "crop"? Although I'm not sure why anyone would want to ("pan and scan" is terrible). Today a lot of films are shot in 1.85 but then again 1.78 is the most popular widescreen 16:9 format for HDTVs. I have included the photo below to help me understand this more.

[lordmorpheus72]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Curious Case of Benjamin Button is still selling for $5. Totally worth getting.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-C.../61962/#Review

Got mine on order, found it at walmart.com before it hit $5 at amazon. darnit, could've saved the $1.98 shipping. lol. Still a great deal!

I did get my CC of Silence of the Lambs today from an amazon seller though... $6 with shipping.

[SidneyFalco]

Originally Posted by jw007

So does this still apply today? I am guessing that films shot in anamorphic 2.39:1 are easier to "crop"? Although I'm not sure why anyone would want to ("pan and scan" is terrible). Today a lot of films are shot in 1.85 but then again 1.78 is the most popular widescreen 16:9 format for HDTVs. I have included the photo below to help me understand this more.

Super35 films have always been shot "full frame 1.37", then matted later. Anamorphic films are shot widescreen, because the lens squeezes the image to fit the film, then the image is unsqueezed when projected. Digital films are all shot 1.78 then matted later for 2.40 if need be.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by SidneyFalco

Super35 films have always been shot "full frame 1.37", then matted later.

Not quite. With Super 35, they use all of the negative area, including the part that had been used for the soundtrack. It was generally matted to 2.39:1, and then anamorphically squeezed during printing. One of the "advantages" (if you want to call it that) of Super 35 was that when it came to pan-&-scanning for video, they'd re-matte to 1.85:1, and then pan-&-scan, resulting in less image being lost on the sides.

(As an aside, for the original laserdisc of The Abyss, the Super 35 film was matted and letterboxed at 1.85:1, and I actually find that a more pleasing ratio than the 2.39:1 that it's supposed to be.)

Anamorphic films are shot widescreen, because the lens squeezes the image to fit the film, then the image is unsqueezed when projected. Digital films are all shot 1.78 then matted later for 2.40 if need be.

One of the things to keep in mind is that, for the most part, the widescreen processes were designed around an exposed negative of 1.33:1. I imagine the reason for that being that they didn't want to have to redesign the cameras and film. Each process in its own funky creative way, would take that 1.33:1 negative image and make a widescreen picture from it, whether it be CinemaScope/Panavision, Cinerama, flat matted, or whatever.

[SidneyFalco]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Not quite. With Super 35, they use all of the negative area, including the part that had been used for the soundtrack. It was generally matted to 2.39:1, and then anamorphically squeezed during printing. One of the "advantages" (if you want to call it that) of Super 35 was that when it came to pan-&-scanning for video, they'd re-matte to 1.85:1, and then pan-&-scan, resulting in less image being lost on the sides.

(As an aside, for the original laserdisc of The Abyss, the Super 35 film was matted and letterboxed at 1.85:1, and I actually find that a more pleasing ratio than the 2.39:1 that it's supposed to be.)



One of the things to keep in mind is that, for the most part, the widescreen processes were designed around an exposed negative of 1.33:1. I imagine the reason for that being that they didn't want to have to redesign the cameras and film. Each process in its own funky creative way, would take that 1.33:1 negative image and make a widescreen picture from it, whether it be CinemaScope/Panavision, Cinerama, flat matted, or whatever.

I just said the same thing, lol. Super35 shoots full neg and is matted later, and anamorphic squeezes to fit the neg.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by jw007

Today a lot of films are shot in 1.85 but then again 1.78 is the most popular widescreen 16:9 format for HDTVs.

Well, the thing about flat matted widescreen is that, for all practical purposes, there's no one "correct" ratio. Notice your chart mentions 1.66:1 being used for "European theatrical showings" and 1.85:1 being used for "American theatrical showings". What it boils down to is that while the director and DP might compose for a specific "preferred" ratio (whether it be 1.66, 1.78, or 1.85), such films can generally be shown in any of those ratios without drastically affecting the composition. And quite often, a film would be projected theatrically at 1.85:1 in the US, and the same film would be projected at 1.66:1 in Europe.

[BruceWayneMartin]

So I found a Barnes & Noble near me that has a Criterion section and I almost spent my entire check there on titles I've been wanting to see. I had a stack building up and ended up putting them all back because I have a stack of unwatched blurays in my room right now.

Could you guys recommend me some titles based off my collection? I love revenge/crime dramas .

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by SidneyFalco

I just said the same thing, lol. Super35 shoots full neg and is matted later, and anamorphic squeezes to fit the neg.

Well, you didn't quite say the same thing. You said it was shot 1.37:1, which isn't quite true. Super 35 uses the same negative area that silent films used, before the 1.37:1 standard was established in order to make room for the optical soundtrack.

You also didn't mention the anamorphic squeezing for Super 35, just for the, well, anamorphic films. I thought both points were worth making, as Super 35 is neither matted nor anamorphic, and both at the same time.

[Brad1963]

Cannes Pic ‘La Grande Bellezza’ To Get Janus, Criterion Release


By THE DEADLINE TEAM | Wednesday August 28, 2013 @ 3:18pm PDT

Janus Films has taken U.S. rights to Paolo Sorrentino’s La Grande Bellezza (The Great Beauty), which debuted in competition at Cannes to acclaim in May. The pic tells a Fellini-esque tale of a playboy journalist (Toni Servillo) looking back on his life among Rome’s high society on his 65th birthday. Janus and home vid partner Criterion Collection will distribute the film stateside after its Toronto Film Festival premiere next month. La Grande Bellezza will first open in NY on November 15 before hitting LA on November 22 and additional cities November 29. Cineaste specialist label Criterion will put out a subsequent home video release. Janus struck the deal with international distributor Pathe. In May, Mongrel Media picked up Canadian rights out of Cannes.

[SidneyFalco]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Well, you didn't quite say the same thing. You said it was shot 1.37:1, which isn't quite true. Super 35 uses the same negative area that silent films used, before the 1.37:1 standard was established in order to make room for the optical soundtrack.

You also didn't mention the anamorphic squeezing for Super 35, just for the, well, anamorphic films. I thought both points were worth making, as Super 35 is neither matted nor anamorphic, and both at the same time.

Semantics, but okay.

[vader4]

I hope My Dinner with Andre gets an upgrade one of these days.

[Hypnosifl]

Originally Posted by jw007

Great Owl: I am surprised you prefer the 1:85 aspect ratio seeing that a lot of information is lost! I guess it gives you an optical illusion that it might appear widescreen this way.

You lose regions of the original picture, but you gain resolution (more pixels devoted to any given thing you can see on screen), so it's a tradeoff. Obviously if the director's intended framing is known you want to go with that, but my understanding is that in the case of On the Waterfront it's a bit ambiguous.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by vader4

I hope My Dinner with Andre gets an upgrade one of these days.

Great movie! I hope so too.

[fiveseven4combat]

I see that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is now $5, is this an attempt to get rid of what remains in stock and Criterion can re-release it in the standard Crition case?

[Rizor]

Originally Posted by fiveseven4combat

I see that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is now $5, is this an attempt to get rid of what remains in stock and Criterion can re-release it in the standard Crition case?

No. Criterion doesn't distribute this title. Despite the Criteron branding, it's handled by Paramount/WHV.

[deepbreathsanddeath]

It's weird that I mention that Carnival of Souls will likely be getting upgraded soon and every one goes on about Benjamin Button lol

[lordmorpheus72]

Originally Posted by SidneyFalco

Well, obviously the 1.37 version will have the most information. The side information that's lost on the 1.33 is minimal compared to the head and foot room. (A few comparisons between the 3 images - http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-r...nt_blu-ray.htm)

The 1.85 looks too cropped, too tight. I tend to side with Criterion in the 1.66 being my preference, in terms of composition without an over-abundance of needless headroom.

Based on those screen shots I'm siding with you and Criterion on ther 1.66 ratio. I've got to go back and watch these all on my tv, but the screeshots make it look like the winner is 1.66. And thanks for those caps!

[andsoitgoes]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

The extras alone are easily worth more than $5:

Extras are only worth it if you like the movie, you could have scores of extras on the White Chick blu, or Salo (yes I know those are slightly odd comparisons) but I wouldn't enjoy watching them even if I was given them for free.

Originally Posted by JJJ225

I really think Benjamin Button gets a bad rap. It's very un-Fincher, but I think it's quite a good movie.

I love Fincher, loved Fight Club, Se7en, The Game, Zodiac and heck, I can even put up with Panic Room and The Social Network was decent (what can you expect when you team up Fincher + Sorkin?) but BB was so hammy and schlocky that I could never get into it. I wanted to, I mean sheesh it had everything. I loved the actors and the story seemed incredible, but the tone and feel couldn't have turned me off more, it felt endlessly ridiculous.

Originally Posted by the sordid sentinel

Ditto. Fight Club seems to lose some value to me over time, I think Benjamin Button will be the opposite. The scene where Benjamin takes his Father to see the sunrise really gets me every time. The A/V quality of that disc is off the freakin' chart.

For me, FC continues to blow me away. The commentary alone is worth watching, Fincher never disappoints there and Pitt/Norton have such amazing chemistry and banter that it ends up being intelligent, insightful and hilarious. Like another movie. For me, it wasn't do much about the stupid things the characters do, but the fact that everything is cranked to 11 makes me incredibly happy.

It's no Life and Death/Night of the Hunter, though it has a lot more depth if you look past the surface.

All the performances are excellent, as is the A/V quality. That gut force push that he can put into films is why I enjoy his direction and his films.

Originally Posted by jw007

I used to be against Roman Polanski too, but boycotting his work seems silly to me. The man isn't a murderer, but yes, he did sexually abuse a young girl about 36 years ago. The female victim, Samantha Geimer, has since forgiven him but yet he's still blacklisted from entering the USA (I think the prosecutors have since died too). I do believe that he should have resolved this many years ago with the American authorities though. I don't believe in running from the law.

It's a shame you refuse to watch any films of Roman Polanski though. He made some amazing movies, and several of which are essential viewing.

I'm glad Samantha could forgive him, but that's necessary for her healing.

He, on the other hand, is a sex offender that overpowered and abused a minor. He should have paid for his crimes, taken the punishment and that would have been that.

Instead, he took the cowardly option and fled.

Sexual predictors that are attracted to underage girls almost always offend again. Who knows what his money and influence buy him in the country he is in. He's never paid the price.

I will do everything I can to ensure he never gets a penny of my money. Maybe that sounds ridiculous to some people, but I have daughters. Daughters that are going into 3rd grade and are all of 4 years younger than the girl he raped.

She was 13, he was and is a coward.



ANYWAY

On another note, I've finally gotten through some more movies. For some reason I've been incredibly distracted and I need to give criterion films far more of my attention.

Of those I saw, Safety Last and Wild Strawberries are some of the most AMAZING FILMS.

Wild Strawberries had me a bit worries. I know, I know... Bergman and all, but the premise seemed a little slow. Nope, not. At all. I jumped on it the second I saw the connection with the brilliant Phantom Carriage, and I was not disappointed. I love that Bergman kept in his sort of "fantasy" elements like in The Seventh Seal, but still kept it very grounded. The casting was perfect, the writing was flawless, the direction amazing.

Saying Wild Strawberries is a brilliant film is like saying the sun is hot. The man does no wrong. As soon as my kids are back in school (next week thank GLOB!) I'll be digging into Fanny and Alexander. I'm incredibly excited!

Safety Last was another awesome movie. I don't know if I can put it in front of Modern Times or The Great Dictator, but it's still better than so much out there.

The Leopard is one of those that I took the jump on without having seen it, and nearly fell on my butt when I realized it was Burt freaking Lancaster as an Italian prince, and Alain Delon as the prince's nephew!

My only issue, and this was a huge problem with A Fistful of Dollars, is the terrible dubbing. I get having American/French actors in non American roles likely requires the dubbing, but I find it really hampers my ability to get fully immersed into the world.

But man, is it good! Again, the subject material could be a bit boring, but nope. I loved it!

[jw007]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Well, the thing about flat matted widescreen is that, for all practical purposes, there's no one "correct" ratio. Notice your chart mentions 1.66:1 being used for "European theatrical showings" and 1.85:1 being used for "American theatrical showings". What it boils down to is that while the director and DP might compose for a specific "preferred" ratio (whether it be 1.66, 1.78, or 1.85), such films can generally be shown in any of those ratios without drastically affecting the composition. And quite often, a film would be projected theatrically at 1.85:1 in the US, and the same film would be projected at 1.66:1 in Europe.

Yes, it can be a bit ambiguous when it comes to these different aspect ratios. I think its best to go with the "intended" aspect ratio the director wanted. If Stanley Kubrick wants us to watch The Shining in 1.33, then I will watch it in 1.33.