The Criterion Collection

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

Just by looking a few scenes from the Pather Panchali blu, and unless I had the bad luck of skipping to the only problematic places I have to disagree with a 5 star PQ, is one thing that an enormous amount of work have been done to make it look as good considering the sources circumstances, but if it can't look as good as originally it isn't perfect, unless we are awarding the restoration itself of what can be done today.

On the other hand I was skipping through the new Spartacus and that does look as good as new, amazing, and the audio sounds great too.

Considering what it DID look like, it's certainly 5-star PQ.

[SkyAntoine]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

As someone who was unfamiliar with the history of Pather Panchali and the other two films in The Apu Trilogy, I simply went into the Criterion discs with no basis of comparison. What I saw were three black-and-white films that all look beautifully detailed in high definition. Based on my initial viewings alone, I have no argument with the five-star designation to the video quality from this site.

To quote a Bruce Springsteen song title, we're living in the "glory days" of home video, and we're pretty fortunate to have all of these amazing releases just a few computer mouse clicks away.

The full length supplement on the restoration process was fascinating. The lab literally had to take melted film and salvage what they could. I cannot recommend enough that folks watch that supplement.

When you watch the movies you do see clips that were not rescanned from originals. I would estimate maybe 5% of the entire film. It did not seem like very much at all.
When you consider the amount of effort that it took to literally save these films IMO it does play into the 5* rating.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Considering what it DID look like, it's certainly 5-star PQ.

I saw it on DVD a couple years ago and it looked in BAD shape. I just think it looks great, though... regardless of how it did or didn't look. I think there are other 5 star PQ releases that are far worse - A Night to Remember would be one of them. ..and I don't recall being wowed by Rififi or Leon Morin for that matter either. I saw A LOT of damage in ANTR and LM.

[joie]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

Just by looking a few scenes from the Pather Panchali blu, and unless I had the bad luck of skipping to the only problematic places I have to disagree with a 5 star PQ, is one thing that an enormous amount of work have been done to make it look as good considering the sources circumstances, but if it can't look as good as originally it isn't perfect, unless we are awarding the restoration itself of what can be done today.

On the other hand I was skipping through the new Spartacus and that does look as good as new, amazing, and the audio sounds great too.

It's good that you're able to form your own opinion.

Another example of a problematical 5-star rating is Chaplin's Essany Comedies.

The problem is that nothing is being measured. A numerical rating is being assigned subjectively rather than objectively.

The best thing to do is to ignore the ratings.

[MifuneFan]

For any region free folks out there, Arrow just announced a March release for Linklater's Waking Life

http://www.arrowfilms.co.uk/shop/ind...product_id=671

SPECIAL EDITION FEATURES
High definition Blu-ray (1080p) and Standard Definition DVD presentations
Original 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio
Optional subtitles for the deaf and hard-of-hearing
Commentary by writer-director Richard Linklater, art director Bob Sabiston, actor Wiley Wiggins and producer Tommy Pallotta
Commentary by the 25-strong animation team
A selection of Bob Sabiston’s short films, including The Trees (1991), Project Incognito (1997), Snack and Drink (1999), Figures of Speech (1999), Grasshopper (2003), Ryan’s Capitol Tour (2006) and The Even More Fun Trip (2007)
Original ‘making of’ featurette including interviews with Linklater, Sabiston and Pallotta
Animation tutorial with Sabiston
Deleted and alternative animation sequences
Pre-animation live action footage captured on Mini DV
Trivia subtitle track written by Linklater
Theatrical trailer
The first pressing also includes a booklet containing new writing on the film by critic David Jenkins and a guide to Bob Sabiston’s short films

I wonder if Criterion will release this one too along with the Before trilogy?

[Scottie]

Does anyone know how to determine whether a particular film is going to be released on Amazon Instant Video or iTunes?

I'm really hoping that Burroughs: The Movie is uploaded so I can rent it.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by joie

It's good that you're able to form your own opinion.

Another example of a problematical 5-star rating is Chaplin's Essany Comedies.

The problem is that nothing is being measured. A numerical rating is being assigned subjectively rather than objectively.

The best thing to do is to ignore the ratings.

so, how would you go about doing that? evaluating technical merit objectively?

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I generally agree with the logic you are applying here, but I happen to think that PP looks incredible. I'm not sure what scenes you are referring to, although it has been well documented that some of the original negative had been completely lost (burnt) which rendered parts of the film unusable.

It'd be hard to fault the presentation for those scenes especially considering that what they did do with what they had to work with is pretty incredible.

Have you seen the short documentary about how they restored the films? About how the burned negative went to Italy and then came back, etc. ? That might change your mind about it being anything short of 5 stars. Even my wife was impressed and she's not too seasoned a viewer.

I will check the 3 films this weekend and have more details, I am no PQ reviewer but what I mention about the problems I noticed seems like there is a missing frame or two from time to time, and looks blurry for a fraction of a second, also noticed small scratch marks that seem to be appearing and dissapearing constantly.

I don't know I think The Music Room looks sharper, I just don't think people saw it like that originally, unless the fire happened before it was premiered.

For example Stagecoach may not look any better considering the circumstances and I think that is better than nothing, but it has an appropriate 4 stars for PQ.

I am still grateful that restorations as this exists, don't get me wrong, It's just that I thought I had figured out the way the PQ reviews work here and happened to disagree. But it is certainly 5 stars for all the effort since I know they will not look better in the future.

[Scottie]

I personally didn't see a problem with The Apu Trilogy. However, I understand what some individuals are saying.

The restoration itself may be worthy of five stars, but in terms of the actual work that was done (given the circumstances), the films, at best, can only be four stars.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

so, how would you go about doing that? evaluating technical merit objectively?

For me it's not technical merit, one evaluates what ends up in screen, not how many hours people spend restoring it or what tools they used.

But I understand some may argue that is unfair to all the people that worked on it.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

I will check the 3 films this weekend and I have more details, I am no PQ reviewer but what I mention about the problems I noticed seems like there is a missing frame or two from time to time, and looks blurry for a fraction of a second, also noticed small scratch marks that seem to be appearing and dissapearing constantly.

I don't know I think The Music Room looks sharper, I just don't think people saw it like that originally, unless the fire happened before it was premiered.

For example Stagecoach may not look any better considering the circumstances and I think that is better than nothing, but it has an appropriate 4 stars for PQ.

I am still grateful that restorations as this exists, don't get me wrong, It's just that I thought I had figured out the way the PQ reviews work here and happened to disagree. But it is certainly 5 stars for all the effort since I know they will not look better in the future.

Stagecoach is a good example to cite, but that one is like night and day compared to PP. I think that existing limitations should factor in, but I don't think that the overall presentation should be penalized too much based on things outside of control.

I'm not a PQ expert either, but my gut told me that Stagecoach was maybe 3 1/2 stars. Maybe I was just too engrossed in the film, but I really can't recall scratches or debris in PP... and having seen the old DVD, the relative comparison floored me.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

As someone who was unfamiliar with the history of Pather Panchali and the other two films in The Apu Trilogy, I simply went into the Criterion discs with no basis of comparison. What I saw were three black-and-white films that all look beautifully detailed in high definition. Based on my initial viewings alone, I have no argument with the five-star designation to the video quality from this site.

To quote a Bruce Springsteen song title, we're living in the "glory days" of home video, and we're pretty fortunate to have all of these amazing releases just a few computer mouse clicks away.

I finished the second part last night and I'm watching part 3 tonight.

The original master must have been in pretty rough shape, because there's some pretty serious PQ flaws in various scenes.

But I'm sure Criterion made it look as good as possible, given the source limitations.

All I can say is I really hope the trilogy ends on an uplifting note.

...because last night I considered bringing a toaster oven into my evening bath.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

For me it's not technical merit, one evaluates what ends up in screen, not how many hours people spend restoring it or what tools they used.

But I understand some may argue that is unfair to all the people that worked on it.

But on what basis should one evaluate what ends up on the screen?

Some people think PQ should be primarily be an eye-candy rating with the highest 'wow' factor transfers getting the highest ratings. Some people think PQ should be a fidelity rating with transfers that most accurately reproduce the source material getting the highest ratings.

I'm guessing most people are somewhere in between. Well, actually most people probably tend toward the eye-candy method. Most people in here though are probably somewhere in between.

For myself, I tend more toward using fidelity as a measuring stick but that said, I also want to be wowed by a five-star presentation and not just in a 'wow, that's really faithful' sort of way.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by octagon

But on what basis should one evaluate what ends up on the screen?

Some people think PQ should be primarily be an eye-candy rating with the highest 'wow' factor transfers getting the highest ratings. Some people think PQ should be a fidelity rating with transfers that most accurately reproduce the source material getting the highest ratings.

I'm guessing most people are somewhere in between. Well, actually most people probably tend toward the eye-candy method. Most people in here though are probably somewhere in between.

For myself, I tend more toward using fidelity as a measuring stick but that said, I also want to be wowed by a five-star presentation and not just in a 'wow, that's really faithful' sort of way.

A Blu-ray should not get a 5/5 for PQ unless it truly is perfect, and it should have nothing to do with whether it's eye candy or not. Stagecoach is obviously not a 5/5 for multiple reasons, but neither is a film that has any kind of PQ defect at all. While I have yet to watch Pather Panchali, multiple things are mentioned in the review that should have instantly eliminated any chance of it receiving a 5/5 in PQ. It's not perfect, whether it's because they had to use multiple film elements or not.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I finished the second part last night and I'm watching part 3 tonight.

The original master must have been in pretty rough shape, because there's some pretty serious PQ flaws in various scenes.

But I'm sure Criterion made it look as good as possible, given the source limitations.

All I can say is I really hope the trilogy ends on an uplifting note.

...because last night I considered bringing a toaster oven into my evening bath.

And we were just talking about Dancer in the Dark.

[Namuhana]

Out of the set, I've only seen Pather Panchali and I have to disagree with the 5 rating, as well. No matter how much we can admire the restoration of what the film started out as, the ultimate result is not perfect, which is what a 5 would be.

[Scottie]

I never understood why Frances Ha has an overall score of 3 out of 5.

Surely 5 for PQ + 5 for AQ + 3 for Extras = 4 overall, no?

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by octagon

But on what basis should one evaluate what ends up on the screen?

Some people think PQ should be primarily be an eye-candy rating with the highest 'wow' factor transfers getting the highest ratings. Some people think PQ should be a fidelity rating with transfers that most accurately reproduce the source material getting the highest ratings.

I'm guessing most people are somewhere in between. Well, actually most people probably tend toward the eye-candy method. Most people in here though are probably somewhere in between.

For myself, I tend more toward using fidelity as a measuring stick but that said, I also want to be wowed by a five-star presentation and not just in a 'wow, that's really faithful' sort of way.

Agreed, but I would say I would choose 100% fidelity as a measuring bar, I consider the other aspect is a quality of the movie itself (cinematography).

I think all films should have looked perfect when they first were shot and reproduced on theaters, unless the movie was intended to have a rougher look, or depending on the film stock used.

Just look at Harold Lloyd's The Freshman, it looks like new even though it is some 80+ years old, but I understand this is pretty uncommon thing at least for such an older film.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I never understood why Frances Ha has an overall score of 3 out of 5.

Surely 5 for PQ + 5 for AQ + 3 for Extras = 4 overall, no?

I guess the reviewer factors his rating of the movie, but it still would be 4 , some of those factors should have more weight then.

[CriterionBlues]

I'll say that of the three, Pather Panchali had the most noticeable issues for me, but I had first seen an earlier print so I know how bad it can (and did) look. This is one of the best presentations since the original distribution, so considering the importance of the films, I think the 5 stars are absolutely warranted.