The Criterion Collection

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

They said they will put it out this week sometime. I was thinking today.

Where did they say this???? You have been closet-face-booking haven't you????


Is there a 'typical' time of the month for newsletters though? Much like the "Mid-Month" release notices??

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

There are two key things at work here:
1) it's a 4K transfer
2) it's a brand new transfer

If we're still talking Criterion, most of their releases are passable but many of the transfers used are already getting to be a number of years old, and both technology and attitudes have moved forward very fast in this area with the arrival of consumer HD and Blu-ray, and new scans even at 2K would show a lot of improvement (especially on the more outdated ones, like the disappointing Il Gattopardo.)

But 4K definitely adds an additional level of sharpness. Bigger Than Life and The Red Shoes are two other films that received 4K transfers/restorations, and they look fantastic as well.

I noticed you like to produce sweeping generalizations on matters you are obviously unfamiliar with.

1. The element used for the high-definition transfer of The Leopard is in very good condition - hence the terrific Blu-ray release.

2. People from Criterion and BFI are on record stating that the newly restored theatrical print that was circulated at Cannes awhile ago would have produced similar results to what we have on the Blu-ray. Also, if there is an authority on the subject who has expressed an opinion that supports your "disappointing" comment, then I am yet to discover who he/she is.

The supervised by director of photography Giuseppe Rotunno high-definition digital transfer Criterion used is indeed excellent, and there is absolutely nothing dated about it.

Pro-B

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Where did they say this???? You have been closet-face-booking haven't you????


Is there a 'typical' time of the month for newsletters though? Much like the "Mid-Month" release notices??

You don't need an account to read Criterion's facebook, do you? But that is where they said it. I think Newsletters come whenever they feel like it. Though always before announcements.

[SpiderBaby]

Paths of Glory packaging:
http://www.criterionforum.org/DVD-pa...collection/739

House packaging:
http://www.criterionforum.org/DVD-pa...collection/741

[greekak229]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

Paths of Glory packaging:
http://www.criterionforum.org/DVD-pa...collection/739

House packaging:
http://www.criterionforum.org/DVD-pa...collection/741

Can't wait to get both.

[TheDot]

Is it me or do the extras on Paths of Glory appear a little lightweight. Unless someone with a review copy surprises me and says that there is something lengthy on there.

I know Kubrick isn't exactly the type to talk excessively (or at all) about his films, but I hoping for some really good extras with it being his first inclusion in the collection.

I really want to see the film, have had a terrible quality dvd version of the film for a while now and never got round to watching it. Was looking forward to my first viewing being in lovely HD. Might just have to pick this up anyway.

[ShellOilJunior]

It seems to me that 2K may be the optimum scan needed for Seven Samurai.

Different AR's tend to need different scans. Lawrence of Arabia, a 70mm, requires at least an 8K scan. I may be wrong but this is what I've gathered reading HTF and Robert Harris' posts.

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by dankrakafoon

I am sorry. What exactly did you find disappointing in the Il Gattopardo transfer?

I have this Blu and I must say I am very happy with the picture quality... Very film like, in excellent condition and to my eyes, the colors were gorgeous.

Just curious to get your point of view on this.

Everything about it just screams "outdated transfer."

The biggest problem is that it's been way oversharpened, creating both halos everywhere and making the grain more pronounced, add to that a lot of blown-out whites, poor black levels, and you get an overall very "digitized" look. Even beside the sharpening the grain looks weirdly blocky, possibly due to a de-anamorphization using a poor digital algorithm. It plain doesn't look like unprocessed film to me.

I must also admit that I'm being a bit biased against it because a brand new 4K restoration had recently been done and Criterion decided not to try to get it on the disc, instead opting for their own ancient HD master out of cheapness, arrogance, vanity, I don't know. In any case they made the wrong choice.

[rkish]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

Everything about it just screams "outdated transfer."

The biggest problem is that it's been way oversharpened, creating both halos everywhere and making the grain more pronounced, add to that a lot of blown-out whites, poor black levels, and you get an overall very "digitized" look. Even beside the sharpening the grain looks weirdly blocky, possibly due to a de-anamorphization using a poor digital algorithm. It plain doesn't look like unprocessed film to me.

I must also admit that I'm being a bit biased against it because a brand new 4K restoration had recently been created and Criterion decided not to try to get it on the disc, instead opting for their own ancient HD master out cheapness, arrogance, vanity, I don't know. In any case they made the wrong choice.

And you are privy to this information, how?

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by rkish

And you are privy to this information, how?

The new restoration was shown at Cannes this year, you can read about it in this brochure. Criterion stated they wouldn't be using it, instead the Blu-ray was sourced from the same HD master that was created for the DVD release back in 2004.

[KENTA]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

The new restoration was shown at Cannes this year, you can read about it in this brochure. Criterion stated they wouldn't be using it, instead the Blu-ray was sourced from the same HD master that was created for the DVD release back in 2004.

The film will be released in France in December with a transfer sourced from the new master.
Let's see how it'll compare to the Criterion/BFI releases

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by TheDot

Is it me or do the extras on Paths of Glory appear a little lightweight. Unless someone with a review copy surprises me and says that there is something lengthy on there.

Seems about right for a single-disc Criterion to me. It's on par with the extras package on other discs like Vivre Sa Vie. Then again, these days I'm far less interested in the quantity of extras than I used to be. If the commentary is interesting and the new interviews have some decent morsels, I'll be very content.

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by KENTA

The film will be released in France in December with a transfer sourced from the new master.
Let's see how it'll compare to the Criterion/BFI releases

Really? That's fantastic news! I can't wait to see what it looks like. I suppose it won't have English subtitles, but that's easy enough to fix with a HTPC.

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

1. The element used for the high-definition transfer of The Leopard is in very good condition - hence the terrific Blu-ray release.

The "element" you speak of is just digital data, I don't see how it can even have a "condition", save for perhaps corrupted and uncorrupted

2. People from Criterion and BFI are on record stating that the newly restored theatrical print that was circulated at Cannes awhile ago would have produced similar results to what we have on the Blu-ray.

They can go on record all they want, I've seen enough HD transfers from various time points to know it does not have the characteristics of a modern, unprocessed transfer. 2003/2004 is dated by now.

But I guess we will see who is right once the French Blu-ray is released.

[PowellPressburger]

I wrote to Criterion right before the release of THE LEOPARD regarding the film source used for their HD Blu release as opposed to the print used at the Cannes film festival and they sent me a very good response. I even posted it here.

**UPDATE FOUND IT****

I wrote Criterion and asked if they could shed some light on why the Cannes transfer was NOT used on the new Blu edition. This is their response.

Thank you very much for your email!

No offense taken! I know several other customers have posed the same question and I've passed your suggestion along to our web design team.

As far the reason behind choosing the print that we did: we provided support to the restorers of the Cannes version, but our master was made directly from the original camera negative and meticulously color-corrected in Rome under the direct supervision of cinematographer Giuseppe Rotunno. For our purposes there was no technical or artistic need to work off the new elements. In fact they used our master for color reference. This new work was done to create proper 35 mm preservation elements taking advantage of the newest technology.


We're very happy that the Film Foundation continues to spearhead projects like this one, and we're looking forward to seeing how it came out. One thing we can say is that our QC staff thinks the Leopard may be the most beautiful Blu-ray we've ever made!

I hope this information is helpful! Thank you for supporting Criterion!

Best,

Jon Mulvaney

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by kefrank

Seems about right for a single-disc Criterion to me. It's on par with the extras package on other discs like Vivre Sa Vie. Then again, these days I'm far less interested in the quantity of extras than I used to be. If the commentary is interesting and the new interviews have some decent morsels, I'll be very content.

Kubrick didn't leave much behind. He had his assistants dispose of it.

[Pyoko]

PowellPressburger, that was their boilerplate response re: the new restoration, I got the exact same reply to my e-mail query. Obviously I do not agree with it, and it feels like they're using the fact that it was transferred from the original negative as an argument that it could not possibly look any better, which is of course not true at all, as the equipment and methods used are just as important.

But hopefully this can all be settled if the upcoming French Blu-ray is from the new restoration.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

It plain doesn't look like unprocessed film to me.

I must also admit that I'm being a bit biased against it because a brand new 4K restoration had recently been done and Criterion decided not to try to get it on the disc, instead opting for their own ancient HD master out of cheapness, arrogance, vanity, I don't know. In any case they made the wrong choice.

Obviously, you do not know. The fact that you even imply that arrogance might have had anything to do with Criterion's decision and using other generic observations to back up some strange, extremely weak, argument you wish to have sums up your knowledge on the issue rather well.

Pro-B

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Obviously, you do not know. The fact that you even imply that arrogance might have had anything to do with Criterion's decision and using other generic observations to back up some strange, extremely weak, argument you wish to have sums up your knowledge on the issue rather well.

I'm sorry if I don't have blind, uncritical trust in them.

In Criterion's response posted above they implied that there would be no difference in the Blu-ray whether it was sourced from their 6-7 years old transfer or the recent restoration, where the film was scanned at 8K, mastering was done at 4K and 12,000 hours of manual restoration/dirt-and-scratch removal was performed. If that's not arrogance I don't know what is.

The last sentence in the final paragraph makes no sense to me either, when they've released films from 4K scans like Bigger Than Life and The Red Shoes which are both leagues ahead of Il Gattopardo in pure image quality.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

I'm sorry if I don't have blind, uncritical trust in them.

I don't have either. But you are implying that anyone who disagrees with your opinion does.

Originally Posted by Pyoko

In Criterion's response posted above they implied that there would be no difference in the Blu-ray whether it was sourced from their 6-7 years old transfer or the recent restoration, where the film was scanned at 8K, mastering was done at 4K and 12,000 hours of manual restoration/dirt-and-scratch removal was performed. If that's not arrogance I don't know what is.

It certainly isn't - considering the fact that Criterion were involved with the restoration. You assume that their response was a generic one.

Originally Posted by Pyoko

The last sentence in the final paragraph makes no sense to me either, when they've released films from 4K scans like Bigger Than Life and The Red Shoes which are both leagues ahead of Il Gattopardo in pure image quality.

Lastly, I really do not want to have the type of cheap shots in this thread that have become common on other forums, one of which you are contributing to. Discussions here may not always be on track, but they are not hostile. So I hope you would consider purchasing the Pathe disc, and I certainly hope that the presentation meets your quality standards - whatever they might be.

Pro-B