The Criterion Collection

[greekak229]

Technically, people can argue that every movie has some sort of message which is trying to be conveyed.

[jcs913]

I love the talk about quality control from all the different forums, when not one of the people "discussing" these films has ever seen the original print?? Kind of hard to make a call on something if you have never seen the original. Makes it all opinion based on zero facts. One can think that this release looks better and another can say the opposite. You are all viewing what the distributor has believed that their release is as close to keep the "integrity" of the original as possible. Whether it's Criterion, Kino, BFI, etc; unless the commentator has seen the work done on it with the original, your belief system and frankly opinion means nothing. Let's keep the thread back on topic, unless you work for one of these companies and can factually give us some answers....

[42041]

Originally Posted by jcs913

I love the talk about quality control from all the different forums, when not one of the people "discussing" these films has ever seen the original print?? Kind of hard to make a call on something if you have never seen the original. Makes it all opinion based on zero facts. One can think that this release looks better and another can say the opposite. You are all viewing what the distributor has believed that their release is as close to keep the "integrity" of the original as possible. Whether it's Criterion, Kino, BFI, etc; unless the commentator has seen the work done on it with the original, your belief system and frankly opinion means nothing. Let's keep the thread back on topic, unless you work for one of these companies and can factually give us some answers....

The original looks like film. Here's a fact: film prints don't have edge enhancement.

[Trekkie313]

Originally Posted by octagon

A comment? You said it looked like they dug it out of a dumpster.

If you're going to use silly hyperbole like that you can't get too indignant over a similarly silly response.

Well hey its my opinion, it looks like a bad print.

[Trekkie313]

Originally Posted by s00perd00per

People saying that the Criterion version looks like a DVD probably haven't seen the blu-ray themselves. I just popped in my copy to see the difference and while I'd say that the French version does look a bit sharper, the difference is marginal at best and that the screenshots make the Criterion version look a lot worse than it actually is. About the color, which is where the drastic difference comes in it's tough to say because while I think the color looks more natural with the French version I have to wonder if that's the intended look of the film since the Criterion version is supposed to be approved by Giuseppe Rotunno.

I think most would agree even if the director approves one version, that the French is clearly superior in the PQ department. A "Word Of God" situation is not always right.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

I'm loving the "there's a wacky C on the cover so it deserves to be bought for $40 regardless of what's on the disc" mentality.

There are about a dozen other Criterion titles I could really whine about but I won't, I'll just say that from a videophile standpoint they are nowhere near as perfect as some people would like to believe. I only knock The Leopard specifically because they had the opportunity to make it look like the French disc but decided it wasn't necessary. If Criterion are so good they should pass on the savings by making the SRP $19.99 the next time they're going the cheap route on a release.

1. No one here is forcing anyone to buy anything. You read, you inform yourself, and make a decision.

2. For the price Criterion charge, the overwhelming majoriry of their releases are near as perfect as they could possibly be; they offer compete packages - specifically in regard to the supplemental features they produce in addition to the strong transfers. And for the record, I am yet to see some conclusive evidence clarifying that what is on the French disc reflects more accurately what the creators of The Leopard intended. We know that what is on the Criterion disc reflects Giuseppe Rotunno's vision. Again, there is a serious discrepancy in the color-schemes of these two releases. Also, I've projected Criterion's release on a 100' screen and it looks marvelous (anyone who argues that it looks like a DVD simply does not have a clue what he/she is talking about), so I wonder how much of an improvement someone would notice playing the French version on a PC.

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

I think most would agree even if the director approves one version, that the French is clearly superior in the PQ department. A "Word Of God" situation is not always right.

I disagree. Back in the days Criterion's Melville SDVD releases had a somewhat superior detail to the French Canal releases, but manipulated color-schemes. The French releases were clearly the better option. The situation appears to be reversed with these Blu-ray releases.

Pro-B

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by 42041

The original looks like film. Here's a fact: film prints don't have edge enhancement.

Heh, thank you. Like you need to have access to the original negative to tell that edge enhancement, digital noise reduction and fake, clumpy digital grain (ie noise) is not part of the original photography.

It's distressing that more people don't know what film looks like. I mean, it's only the medium that has been used to photograph and exhibit movies for oh, 100+ years.

I bet many folks posting on this forum don't even know what film is.

[Trekkie313]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Also, I've projected Criterion's release on a 100' screen and it looks marvelous (anyone who argues that it looks like a DVD simply does not have a clue what he/she is talking about), so I wonder how much of an improvement someone would notice playing the French version on a PC.

Nor do you. Why would you watch a Blu-Ray on a PC?

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

Nor do you. Why would you watch a Blu-Ray on a PC?

Originally Posted by Pyoko

I'm going to write an e-mail to Criterion expressing my disappointment, though I guess there's really no chance of getting an updated Blu-ray of The Leopard, so I'll probably have to order the French release and play it with external subtitles on my HTPC.

I do know this: Projected on a large screen, Criterion's release looks fantastic. I also know that the improved grain reproduction should be terribly difficult to appreciate when played on an HTPC.

Pro-B

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

I do know this: Projected on a large screen, Criterion's release looks fantastic. I also know that the improved grain reproduction should be terribly difficult to appreciate when played on an HTPC.

Pro-B

"Fantastic" is relative and requires qualifiers. Fantastic compared to what and at what seating distance. I can tell you that viewed on a 60-inch display from 6 feet the nasty digital noise was apparent. However, yes, I think most would agree the blu-ray looks alot better than a DVD. How could it not? It's 1080P vs 480P. But that is not the standard a blu-ray should be judged by, in my opinion.

The French version has discernable film grain due to the lack of filtering/noise reduction. It simply looks like film. Which is the standard blu-ray should be judged against (assuming something was actually shot on film, digital cameras are something else entirely).

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

"Fantastic" is relative and requires qualifiers. Fantastic compared to what and at what seating distance. I can tell you that viewed on a 60-inch display from 6 feet the nasty digital noise was apparent. However, yes, I think most would agree the blu-ray looks alot better than a DVD. How could it not? It's 1080P vs 480P. But that is not the standard a blu-ray should be judged by, in my opinion.

The French version has discernable film grain due to the lack of filtering/noise reduction. It simply looks like film. Which is the standard blu-ray should be judged against (assuming something was actually shot on film, digital cameras are something else entirely).

Everything is judged in relative terms, so I am unsure what are you trying to argue here. Furthermore, there is no 'standard' according to which a Blu-ray transfer should be judged, I certainly am not aware of an existing one. All basics comparisons that are produced on various forums are, by default, of questionable quality, because by default all high-definition transfers should be better than all SDVD transfers, and, also by default, all high-definition 1080p transfers are compromised because Blu-ray cannot reproduce the native resolution film has. With other words, all of the criticism that is typically produced by various self-proclaimed purists is compromised to begin with. This said, color accuracy is a lot easier to acknowledge and register by the human eye (except, of course, by those who are color-blind) than consistency in detail produced from 2K and 4K scans. Lastly, just so we are on the same page here, The Leopard SDVD has a native resolution of 480/60i, not 480/60p.

Pro-B

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Everything is judged in relative terms, so I am unsure what are you trying to argue here. Furthermore, there is no 'standard' according to which a Blu-ray transfer should be judged, I certainly am not aware of an existing one. All basics comparisons that are produced on various forums are, by default, of questionable quality, because by default all high-definition transfers should be better than all SDVD transfers, and, also by default, all high-definition 1080p transfers are compromised because Blu-ray cannot reproduce the native resolution film has. With other words, all of the criticism that is typically produced by various self-proclaimed purists is compromised to begin with. This said, color accuracy is a lot easier to acknowledge and register by the human eye (except, of course, by those who are color-blind) than consistency in detail produced from 2K and 4K scans. Lastly, just so we are on the same page here, The Leopard SDVD has a native resolution of 480/60i, not 480/60p.

Pro-B

You got me. DVDs are interlaced. Well done.

Anyway, I would argue that blu-ray can come extremely close to approximating the look of film on consumer dislays measured in terms of feet, not just inches (ie, on really big screens in the home), so I think that criticism on that front is absolutely well-founded and worthwhile. The "compromises" of blu-ray as it pertains to film when viewed at these screen-sizes becomes almost academic. In other words, arguing about whether a blu-ray disc looks like film or not is entirely appropriate.

You won't catch me arguing about color unless it's some kind of gross error...because I don't know what the color is supposed to be in 95% of cases. I do know what film looks like though and Criterion's edition of The Leopard ain't it.

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Everything is judged in relative terms, so I am unsure what are you trying to argue here. Furthermore, there is no 'standard' according to which a Blu-ray transfer should be judged, I certainly am not aware of an existing one. All basics comparisons that are produced on various forums are, by default, of questionable quality, because by default all high-definition transfers should be better than all SDVD transfers, and, also by default, all high-definition 1080p transfers are compromised because Blu-ray cannot reproduce the native resolution film has. With other words, all of the criticism that is typically produced by various self-proclaimed purists is compromised to begin with. This said, color accuracy is a lot easier to acknowledge and register by the human eye (except, of course, by those who are color-blind) than consistency in detail produced from 2K and 4K scans. Lastly, just so we are on the same page here, The Leopard SDVD has a native resolution of 480/60i, not 480/60p.

Pro-B

This.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

Definitely.

Other companies must see what kind of insane brand loyalty and reputation Criterion have built during a period when most studios couldn't be bothered to put an iota of effort toward a decent DVD transfer. To not try to tap into that is silly. It was inevitable that one day Criterion would have competition, and that competition might possibly put out something better than them (so far in North America it hasn't happened - I'm looking at you, StudioCanal Collection) or that the hype generated by their fanbase might defy actual reality. Criterion are terrifically consistent, though. It will be interesting to see if they address the perceived issues with The Leopard print (pun intended).

Blue Underground equals and often surpasses Criterion. It's just a shame that a large % of their output are films that I have no interest in.

Sony does excellent work as well. They beat the pants off of Criterion when it comes to picture quality. It's the quantity they need to work on. I still can't believe how lucky I am that they put out such a great version of The Bridge On The River Kwai. I can't wait for Lawrence of Arabia. I wish they would start releasing their Capra films and some Howard Hawks stuff. Their DVDs of those films were really good for the time.

[Strevlac]

Oh, and so I don't across as a nattering nabob of negativity re Criterion I will say that Bigger Than Life, The Red Shoes, and Seven Samurai look really, really good.

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

Oh, and so I don't across as a nattering nabob of negativity re Criterion I will say that Bigger Than Life, The Red Shoes, and Seven Samurai look really, really good.

I don't think anyone would debate you on the opinion that Sony does a pretty good job on most of their releases.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by Volume11

This.

Yeah man, rock on

No point in discussing the film-like appearance of blu-ray discs since they can't reproduce the quality of 35mm film. Let's all pack up our toys and go home.

Look I know that it can seem like minutia to some of you and in some cases people can get a bit nuts but geez you need to be able to admit when something is not up to par. Criterions version of The Leopard is a release that, when considering what it could have been, comes up short.

No one is saying you have to throw away your disc or turn in your Criterion fan club membership card. Just accept that they are not perfect it and move on. Let the people who care discuss the issues without the constant back-biting and maybe Criterion and consumers will benefit in the long run.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

Oh, and so I don't across as a nattering nabob of negativity re Criterion I will say that Bigger Than Life, The Red Shoes, and Seven Samurai look really, really good.

I would also include Lola Montes to that list, looks great for its age. And obviously The Thin Red Line, but there's nothing to restore there.
IMO, since Criterion releases are supposed to be premium products, they would do well to make high-end 4K transfers standard, when every major studio is doing restorations with 4k/8k workflows. To me the visible benefits of high-end scanning have been very obvious.

[Eny-]

I think that it's pretty clear, judging by these SS, that despite the different color correction - which is besides the point - the new print is much better than the one that Criterion used.

Criterion's transfer is riddled with digital noise while the new print have a nice grain structure.

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

Yeah man, rock on

No point in discussing the film-like appearance of blu-ray discs since they can't reproduce the quality of 35mm film. Let's all pack up our toys and go home.

Look I know that it can seem like minutia to some of you and in some cases people can get a bit nuts but geez you need to be able to admit when something is not up to par. Criterions version of The Leopard is a release that, when considering what it could have been, comes up short.

No one is saying you have to throw away your disc or turn in your Criterion fan club membership card. Just accept that they are not perfect it and move on. Let the people who care discuss the issues without the constant back-biting and maybe Criterion and consumers will benefit in the long run.

OK, it came up short...I never said it didn't. I was mainly pointing out that going overboard on a good to great but not amazing edition of a film from a company who makes little money from said titles and puts out tons of titles that would likely never see the light of day and often times DO look great is nitpicking, annoying, and pompous at best...

Again, if it were Patton, the remastered Predator, hell, even the U.S. edition of Pan's Lab you would have the support of this thread concerning mediocre encodes but in this case its kind of meh...cool, a better edition of a solid release exists...I'm pretty sure I don't want to put Criterion to task over it...save it for a real blunder...