The Criterion Collection

[SpiderBaby]

Also me a reference is a Criterion disc. Example: "Hey look how great this 1940's film looks today, thanks to Criterion".

[vveksuvarna]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

So it can't get a 5 star for being a great film? We rate films now by how good the HD looks? Criterion films are for the most part far better films than the everyday Transformers or X-men movie that comes out. They get 5 star ratings on the picture based off of the transfer and the fact that some of these are 50+ years old.

the bluray.com review is meant to represent the blu ray disc and not the actual film itself. if you want film reviews, go to imdb or rotten tomatoes.

i dont think being 50 years old allows the film to get 5 star reviews.

casablanca is much older than 'for all mankind', and that has a better transfer.

my point was, that the reviewers are easier on criterion than they are on other companies...since criterion has had a reputation to deliver.

but to call criterion flawless is a mistake.

remmember what criterion had to say about 2disc blu ray releases of previously released films, while the they expect us to shell the exact same amount. i thought that was a horrible move.

[vveksuvarna]

IMO lowry digital delivers better transfers than criterion.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by vveksuvarna

why do criterion blus geet full 5 stars. i think the reviewers are being a little partial here.

i saw for all mankind last night, and it was far from perfect. the black levels were inconsistent, and the some of the colours seemed saturated.

a 5star rating must strictly be reserved for reference grade discs. IMHO.

For All Mankind looked fantastic, especially considering it was all real documentary footage form the 1960s, probably on 8mm or 16mm cameras. Do you expect everything to look like Iron Man?

[CheapChildren]

Originally Posted by vveksuvarna

why do criterion blus geet full 5 stars. i think the reviewers are being a little partial here.

i saw for all mankind last night, and it was far from perfect. the black levels were inconsistent, and the some of the colours seemed saturated.

a 5star rating must strictly be reserved for reference grade discs. IMHO.

That's just silly..

[vveksuvarna]

Originally Posted by retablo

For All Mankind looked fantastic, especially considering it was all real documentary footage form the 1960s, probably on 8mm or 16mm cameras. Do you expect everything to look like Iron Man?

2001 space odyssey was from the 60's

the searchers was from 50's that has a near perfect transfer.

and the answer is NO. i dont expect a 1960's documentary to look like ironman. be that as it may, if its not reference quality, i wouldnt rate it 5 stars either.

[vveksuvarna]

For The Last Time...for All Mankind Is Not A Perfect Transfer.

[PowellPressburger]

I think what we mean by a great transfer we mean based on the film elements that are used for the HD transfer etc is this the best it can look? FIlm could be damaged etc, but is this the best the presentation can be, and does it create the film like theatre quality?

So that is how I base my ratings, I give films like Ghostbusters very high ratings right next to The Seventh Seal. You can't compare A Bug's Life image with a release like For All Mankind. Each film presentation must be judged on it own elements.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by PowellPressburger

I think what we mean by a great transfer we mean based on the film elements that are used for the HD transfer etc is this the best it can look? FIlm could be damaged etc, but is this the best the presentation can be, and does it create the film like theatre quality?

So that is how I base my ratings, I give films like Ghostbusters very high ratings right next to The Seventh Seal. You can't compare A Bug's Life image with a release like For All Mankind. Each film presentation must be judged on it own elements.

That is what I was trying to get at. Thanks for saying it.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by vveksuvarna

2001 space odyssey was from the 60's

the searchers was from 50's that has a near perfect transfer.

2001 was shot on 70mm and The Searchers was VistaVision.

For All Mankind was shot predominantly on 16mm and blown up to 35mm for theatrical presentation. The transfer on the BD is a revelation in my opinion.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by vveksuvarna

2001 space odyssey was from the 60's

the searchers was from 50's that has a near perfect transfer.

and the answer is NO. i dont expect a 1960's documentary to look like ironman. be that as it may, if its not reference quality, i wouldnt rate it 5 stars either.

Do you know anything about film speeds, ISO, film formats, etc? As said, 2001 was shot 65/70 mm. Searchers was VistaVision. For All Mankind was shot mostly 16mm with natural light (meaning higher film ISO, which means more grain), and on the moon. 2001 wasn't really shot on the moon, it was shot in studios with carefully controlled cinematography.

before you trash a great transfer, look at all the facts please. You think this should somehow look like Planet Earth, and it never will no matter WHO does the transfer. You judge titles based on how they are shot, not compared to something you think it should look like.

[benricci]

Very excited for Gimme Shelter. For some reason I never picked this up on DVD, so this is great news indeed.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by kefrank

2001 was shot on 70mm and The Searchers was VistaVision.

For All Mankind was shot predominantly on 16mm and blown up to 35mm for theatrical presentation. The transfer on the BD is a revelation in my opinion.

notably the two scenes: the space walk sequence and the lunar rover travelling shots - wow! the blacks are so inky black and the other objects look like you could reach in and touch them.

I have to say I'm very disappointed in the transfer/overall look of Playtime - it just doesn't impress me, since the film is nearly monochromatic throughout, the image isn't sharp and flat times. Granted I was treated to seeing the feature in 70mm (which looked super glossy and razor sharp) at the AFI Silver a few years back, the fact that Criterion didn't source the bluray from a 65mm negative is a glaring and an obvious missed opportunity - guess they'll have to revisit this when 4K monitors/bluray players hit the market in 4 years time

[captveg]

Originally Posted by vveksuvarna

For The Last Time...for All Mankind Is Not A Perfect Transfer.

Yes it is. The elements don't lend themselves to look like 2001 or Casablanca. 70mm and 35mm will always look superior to 16mm and 8mm, no matter the video format.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by vveksuvarna

For The Last Time...for All Mankind Is Not A Perfect Transfer.

You've viewed the source material?

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

You've viewed the source material?

I love how you always say the perfect things with so few words.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by retablo

I love how you always say the perfect things with so few words.

The exact opposite of what my wife tells me all the time

EDIT:

Should we still expect a Fellini release for December

[rezpekt]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Should we still expect a Fellini release for December

More like Q1 of 2010.

[KENTA]

C-a-n'-t w-a-i-t that long

[benricci]

If anyone's interested, the single disc version of Criterion's Monterey Pop on blu-ray is only $20 on DVDEmpire. Amazon is currently selling it for $37.