The Criterion Collection

[ShellOilJunior]

Of those films, imo:

1 Duck Soup
2 Monkey Business
3 Animal Crackers
4 Horsefeathers
5 The Cocoanuts

I prefer Night at the Opera to Duck Soup. It's a shame MGM, Warner Bros, or whomever owns Night at the Opera isn't getting it on blu any time soon.

If only Criterion could. . .

Edit: Robert Harris just replied to the Marx Bros. Thread.

[Banned User]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

I'd take anything written on DVDBeaver with a truckload of salt.

Ignoring the writing. You can see a rather large difference in sharpness from the pictures with even some grain evident in the Universal release. I usually take all reviews with a grain of salt. I've seen just as many on reviews this site as others that are questionable.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by Banned User

Ignoring the writing. You can see a rather large difference in sharpness from the pictures with even some grain evident in the Universal release. I usually take all reviews with a grain of salt. I've seen just as many on reviews this site as others that are questionable.

You mean the fawning over Inception?

[Yankees0222]

Just got my copies of Smiles of a Summer Night and Fat Girl. Can't wait to pop them in tonight

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by Banned User

Ignoring the writing. You can see a rather large difference in sharpness from the pictures with even some grain evident in the Universal release.

Problem is the DVDBeaver screenshots haven't been correctly captured since some time last year (they're softer than they should be, which probably explains the Fear and Loathing verdict.)

[italy12]

I have a question concerning the audio on some of the CC releases...I know CC strives to give us the original audio all the time, and one of these sound formats has me scratching my head...

2.0 Surround

...found on such titles as Fear & Loathing, Blow Out, Yi Yi, Broadcast News, Still Walking, and maybe a few others.

The "about the transfer" section in each of their respective booklets says to enable "Dolby Pro Logic" on your receivers so you can hear it properly.

Why not encode it to play the way it was intended...what I assume would be front left and right, and a single surround.

There are many different Pro Logic decoding options depending on the receiver: Dolby Pro Logic, Dolby Pro Logic II, Dolby Pro Logic IIx, etc...

Mine has DPLII...I believe the differences in Pro Logic and PLII is that one turns stereo mixes into 5.1 and one turns it into 7.1...am I correct in assuming this?

Any thoughts, opinions, or facts that might help me understand this a little better. I mean, the movies I have seen so far with the 2.0 Surround option sound fine with the PLII option set, so I'm not complaining.

Thanks!

[P@t_Mtl]

I saw Au Revoir Les Enfants last night, very powerful movie. I enjoyed more then I tought I would considering the subject matter. Sad hard ending as well.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by blkhrt

I might be wrong here, and someone please correct me if you know better, but I believe I read that although these films might have been shot at 1.37/1, they were never intended to be seen that way. The extra area would not be shown when they were projected. Just like films that are shot now are cropped to fit the proper widescreen aspect ratio when projected, older films were also cropped. I believe one of the other editions of Modern Times includes the extra footage, but because that is not what Chaplin intended Criterion cropped it out.

Again, please correct me if someone knows better.

It's true that when projected, films are cropped against the background (negative) area, but 1.37 isn't more area as opposed to 1.33, it's less area. From 1932, films were meant to be projected at about 1.37, but standards did evolve and just because a standard changed doesn't mean that either camera manufacturers or projectionists changed their gates. And because of parallax distortion in most theatres and because projection lenses only come in "even" sizes, few theatres project totally properly anyway -- it's all really an estimate. The only way to really know is to project the SMPTE RP-40 test film and see what's getting projected and how straight it is.

Note that SMPTE specs do not define aspect ratios -- they define the dimensions that might result in a particular aspect ratio. The 1969 edition of the American Cinematographers Manual listed negative dimensions for "1.33" films as .980 x .735 for silent films (1.333:1), .868 x .731 for sound films (1.376:1) and a projected dimension of .825 x .6 (1.375:1).

The 1973 edition listed the same dimensions. But by 1986, negative dimensions had been restated as a minimum size of .864 x .731 and a slightly larger projected dimension of .825 x .602 (1.37:1). The .825 x .602 projected dimension was restated in 1993, was part of the standard SMPTE test film, known as RP40 (1995), and was also part of SMPTE standard 59 (1997). I don't think it's been changed since.

(All of the above dimensions relate only to "1.33" films and not to widescreen whether spherical or anamorphic processes.)

One thing that's always bugged me when silent films are projected (obviously not from original sources because no one is projecting nitrate stock or printing from nitrate negs) or transferred to DVD, Blu-ray, etc., is that it appears to me that the image is still substantially cropped and I'm at a loss to explain why. With modern scanning techniques, it should be possible to capture the entire original intended frame, but maybe the original frame was lost years ago when prints were made from badly formatted prints or TV prints or when originally silent films were made into new prints with accompanying optical soundtracks. It may be that these were contact printed with a hard matte and original intended area was lost.

Note also that silent films used a variety of formats and aspect ratios. Some Edison silent films used a dimension of .906 x .6795 (1.333) and an early 1927 sound format used .8 x .6795 (1.177) and some early projection was done at .8 x .607 (1.318).

(All dimensions stated in inches).

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by italy12

I have a question concerning the audio on some of the CC releases...I know CC strives to give us the original audio all the time, and one of these sound formats has me scratching my head...

2.0 Surround

...found on such titles as Fear & Loathing, Blow Out, Yi Yi, Broadcast News, Still Walking, and maybe a few others.

The "about the transfer" section in each of their respective booklets says to enable "Dolby Pro Logic" on your receivers so you can hear it properly.

Why not encode it to play the way it was intended...what I assume would be front left and right, and a single surround.

There are many different Pro Logic decoding options depending on the receiver: Dolby Pro Logic, Dolby Pro Logic II, Dolby Pro Logic IIx, etc...

Mine has DPLII...I believe the differences in Pro Logic and PLII is that one turns stereo mixes into 5.1 and one turns it into 7.1...am I correct in assuming this?

Any thoughts, opinions, or facts that might help me understand this a little better. I mean, the movies I have seen so far with the 2.0 Surround option sound fine with the PLII option set, so I'm not complaining.

Thanks!

I'm not 100% sure, but this whole Dolby 2.0 thing puzzles me because while I recall some films recorded in Dolby mono, I don't recall any films recorded in Dolby 2 channel. Which makes me think that these were standard Dolby Optical films in which the 4-2-4 matrix was used, which results in L, C, R and mono surround, although not necessarily with a lot of separation between adjacent channels. Also, there were many films released in which the filmmakers didn't bother putting anything into the surround. If I'm correct, I don't understand why Criterion didn't decode the matrix and release these as discrete LCRS (and decoding would have only been necessary if they only had access to a release print and not the original audio mag tracks, which would have been discrete LCRS.)

But having said that, the other confusing thing is that none of those films (as far as I can tell) were released in Dolby Optical stereo. Fear & Loathing was released in both DTS and SDDS, so a digital multitrack master should have been available. But even that's confusing because it would have been unusual for a film to have only DTS and SDDS, but the film didn't show up on the lists that Dolby used to publish of Dolby encoded films.

Blow Out certainly would have leant itself to a stereo presentation, but it's not on any of my lists. (I did see it theatrically, but I can't remember if it was in stereo or not.)

However, the reason why Criterion is recommending that you run these in Dolby Pro Logic is that regardless of whether they really were only 2-channel or whether they were matrixed 4-2-4, using Pro Logic will extract any mono material from the Left and Right channels and force it to a hard center. If you don't do that, you'll still get a phantom center, but that generally sounds more diffuse. Since dialog in most films is mixed mono, you want the dialog coming out of that hard center and they should sound better. Extracting surround material (assuming these were only 2-channel and not encoded) is a bit more iffy because what it basically does is look for out-of-phase material using some complex logic and send that to the surrounds.

[silentblu]

Originally Posted by italy12

I have a question concerning the audio on some of the CC releases...I know CC strives to give us the original audio all the time, and one of these sound formats has me scratching my head...

2.0 Surround

...found on such titles as Fear & Loathing, Blow Out, Yi Yi, Broadcast News, Still Walking, and maybe a few others.

The "about the transfer" section in each of their respective booklets says to enable "Dolby Pro Logic" on your receivers so you can hear it properly.

Why not encode it to play the way it was intended...what I assume would be front left and right, and a single surround.

There are many different Pro Logic decoding options depending on the receiver: Dolby Pro Logic, Dolby Pro Logic II, Dolby Pro Logic IIx, etc...

Mine has DPLII...I believe the differences in Pro Logic and PLII is that one turns stereo mixes into 5.1 and one turns it into 7.1...am I correct in assuming this?

Any thoughts, opinions, or facts that might help me understand this a little better. I mean, the movies I have seen so far with the 2.0 Surround option sound fine with the PLII option set, so I'm not complaining.

Thanks!

It has to do with the orginal mix. With DPL the mix and balance will be as intended within a theater and how Criterion intends it. With DPLII new mixes would need to be done for a proper sound. Although it probably sounds fine it isn't how the orginal audio engineer mixed and intended it to sound. Criterion sticks with the original audio and doesn't do new mixes like some studios, so that is why they inform which setting to use.

The Universal release of Psycho is probably the best example to test. It has the orginal mix and also a new 5.1 mix. It also has a good supplement on how it was done. It's amazing how they extracted everything into seperate tracks and then mixed for 5.1 Or even North by Northwest would be a good test.

[italy12]

Originally Posted by silentblu

It has to do with the orginal mix. With DPL the mix and balance will be as intended within a theater and how Criterion intends it. With DPLII new mixes would need to be done for a proper sound. Although it probably sounds fine it isn't how the orginal audio engineer mixed and intended it to sound. Criterion sticks with the original audio and doesn't do new mixes like some studios, so that is why they inform which setting to use.
The Universal release of Psycho is probably the best example to test. It has the orginal mix and also a new 5.1 mix. It also has a good supplement on how it was done. It's amazing how they extracted everything into seperate tracks and then mixed for 5.1 Or even North by Northwest would be a good test.

I understand that, and I agree 100% with that statement, however, not everyone's receiver has the same settings. Older receivers have PL, newer receivers have PLII and PLIIx even, so if you just happened to get a newer receiver, you will not get to hear the audio as it was intended. Does that sound right?

I have no way to get just a plain PL setting to come on...only PLII.

My question was why couldn't they encode it to come out of only the select speakers, a la Kagemusha's DTS HD-MA 4.0 or Yojimbo/Sanjuro's Perspecta 3.0 mix?

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Yankees0222

Just got my copies of Smiles of a Summer Night and Fat Girl. Can't wait to pop them in tonight

As did I ..... I also got Fear and Loathing and Blow Out, and I think Blow-Out is going to be my next in line for viewing... then Fat Girl, then Smiles, and eventually Fear and Loathing but I watched my DVD of that one more recently than I have Fat Girl, so it got bumped back.

[silentblu]

Originally Posted by italy12

I understand that, and I agree 100% with that statement, however, not everyone's receiver has the same settings. Older receivers have PL, newer receivers have PLII and PLIIx even, so if you just happened to get a newer receiver, you will not get to hear the audio as it was intended. Does that sound right?

I have no way to get just a plain PL setting to come on...only PLII.

My question was why couldn't they encode it to come out of only the select speakers, a la Kagemusha's DTS HD-MA 4.0 or Yojimbo/Sanjuro's Perspecta 3.0 mix?

I guess you could contact Criterion and find out.

I was thinking that even newer receivers still had both. I guess not. I wonder if there is a big enough difference between PL and PLII, etc. to actually matter.

[capnnarcolepsy]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

As did I ..... I also got Fear and Loathing and Blow Out, and I think Blow-Out is going to be my next in line for viewing... then Fat Girl, then Smiles, and eventually Fear and Loathing but I watched my DVD of that one more recently than I have Fat Girl, so it got bumped back.

Got my four today too. They've been sitting here at work with me for hours, just taunting me. Just an hour to go!

[SlickDamian]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

As did I ..... I also got Fear and Loathing and Blow Out, and I think Blow-Out is going to be my next in line for viewing... then Fat Girl, then Smiles, and eventually Fear and Loathing but I watched my DVD of that one more recently than I have Fat Girl, so it got bumped back.

Blow Out is a great film and the Criterion disc is very nice. I have really enjoyed it. Such a cool vibe to that film. Fear and Loathing is real nice as well. Awesome job on these two Criterion!

[Hunk Golden]

For anyone who cares to rank the following...I'd love to know what film buffs think. I'm considering them on Amazon. How would you rank them (#1 being the best, and so on). I haven't seen a single one at this point. I suspect many Criterion titles are too "niche" (or whatever) for me. I love all the features though.

Blow Out
Sweet Smell Of Success
Paths Of Glory
Au revoir les enfants
The Red Shoes
Le Cercle Rouge
Modern Times
M
Breathless
8 1/2

[georgec]

Originally Posted by Hunk Golden

For anyone who cares to rank the following...I'd love to know what film buffs think. I'm considering them on Amazon. How would you rank them (#1 being the best, and so on). I haven't seen a single one at this point. I suspect many Criterion titles are too "niche" (or whatever) for me. I love all the features though.

Blow Out
Sweet Smell Of Success
Paths Of Glory
Au revoir les enfants
The Red Shoes
Le Cercle Rouge
Modern Times
M
Breathless
8 1/2

M
Modern Times
Paths of Glory
The Red Shoes
Le Cercle Rouge
Breathless
8 1/2
Blow Out
Sweet Smell of Success
Au Revoir Les Enfants

All fantastic movies. You can't go wrong with any of them.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Hunk Golden

For anyone who cares to rank the following...I'd love to know what film buffs think. I'm considering them on Amazon. How would you rank them (#1 being the best, and so on). I haven't seen a single one at this point. I suspect many Criterion titles are too "niche" (or whatever) for me. I love all the features though.

Blow Out
Sweet Smell Of Success
Paths Of Glory
Au revoir les enfants
The Red Shoes
Le Cercle Rouge
Modern Times
M
Breathless
8 1/2

I've seen the bolded titles and all but Breathless strike me as fairly mainstream ie they would have fairly wide appeal. And even Breathless was pretty accessible, it just doesn't fall into any obvious 'so what's it like?' pigeonholes.

It's really hard to go wrong with any of them but if I had to rank them I'd say M and Paths of Glory are at the top, Sweet Smell of Success and Le Cercle Rouge are close behind and Breathless and Blow Out aren't exactly must haves but are well worth the sale prices.

[Sukuri]

Originally Posted by georgec

M
Modern Times
Paths of Glory

All fantastic movies. You can't go wrong with any of them.

Those were my top 3 too.

[Andrewtst]

Promotion Criterion Collection BD arrived

White Material

[Show spoiler]

Au Revoirles Enfants

[Show spoiler]

The Double Life Of Veronique

[Show spoiler]

Army Of Shadows

[Show spoiler]

Le Cercle Rouge

[Show spoiler]