The Criterion Collection

[Mansinthe]

you can order digipacks and covers etc from the UK as well. just email claire@criterion.com .. each replacement is 5$

inner case and outer case of a digipack are 2 items. (10$)
same for plastic replacements. so replacing a whole movie will cost you 15$ shipped.. (without a disc)

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Khronikos

Well certain TV manufacturers of high-end stuff, like LG and Samsung, typically offer a very calibrated picture on their standard setting. So much so that it is useless to calibrate it. In that way the guy is right. I mean it doesn't take a genius to calibrate a TV in design stage anymore.

The Standard mode setting on my LG television actually looks great. The black-and-white movies look a little better in Cinema mode, but, most of the time, I could flip a coin and go either way.

After looking through some recommended calibration settings for my television last night when I read this thread, I ultimately decided that the setting recommendations set by people in their own homes with their own lighting may not necessarily apply to my television here in my apartment. The differences between the recommended calibrations (which differed amongst themselves) and the Cinema mode on my television seemed negligible at best, so I decided not to bother.

I might do myself a favor by using one of the Disney WOW disc or by checking out the recommendations of David Lynch on the upcoming Blu-ray, but I'm cool with what I've got now.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by Mansinthe

you can order digipacks and covers etc from the UK as well. just email claire@criterion.com .. each replacement is 5$

inner case and outer case of a digipack are 2 items. (10$)
same for plastic replacements. so replacing a whole movie will cost you 15$ shipped.. (without a disc)

I know I do a lot but its $5 per item form outside US, so when the store has replacement case with artwork for $5 of us its $10 .

I thought you meant they sold it on normal store with the discs etc, they are not allowed to ship discs to uk, only artwork, but guess if its on that part of store without discs then fine

I would love that.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

The Standard mode setting on my LG television actually looks great. The black-and-white movies look a little better in Cinema mode, but, most of the time, I could flip a coin and go either way.

Ive seen some people's TV not set up and all film look like TV soaps, they just look horrible! and they don't even notice haha! and it was an expensive tv!

But guess other companies have got better calibrations nowadays, I remember years ago it did make a HUGE difference.

ugh wish this site merged double posts -.- lol

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Ive seen some people's TV not set up and all film look like TV soaps, they just look horrible! and they don't even notice haha! and it was an expensive tv!

My television does not have the high frame rate option, so I watch everything with 60 Hz refresh rate, but several more expensive newer televisions do offer 120 Hz or higher. If a television is defaulted to a higher refresh rate, you might notice the "soap opera effect" when watching movies.

A local friend of mine watches everything with the higher refresh rate, and he is always raving about how movies like Casablanca or Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho look as though they were shot on a sound stage right there in his home.

I prefer the standard refresh rate on my television, because I like the classic cinematic look to the "soap opera effect."

I would recommend that most people change their aspect ratio settings on their television to "Just Scan" instead of 16:9, which was the default on mine. It's not a huge apples vs. oranges type of thing, but I feel as though the "Just Scan" option allows me to see what the director intended.

[Mansinthe]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Ive seen some people's TV not set up and all film look like TV soaps, they just look horrible! and they don't even notice haha! and it was an expensive tv!


ugh wish this site merged double posts -.- lol

well thats mostly a LCD / LED issue as well
glad i changed to a SXRD projector...

LCD often does mess up grain an such stuff or makes dark backgrounds look soft...

My television does not have the high frame rate option, so I watch everything with 60 Hz refresh rate, but several more expensive newer televisions do offer 120 Hz or higher.

urgh.. so you dont even notice the 2:3 pulldown judder every third frame?

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Mansinthe

urgh.. so you dont even notice the 2:3 pulldown judder every third frame?

No. Everything looks good on my 60 Hz television.

This may be a case of "a man who is born blind does not realize that he is blind", but I'm not worried about it.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

My television does not have the high frame rate option, so I watch everything with 60 Hz refresh rate, but several more expensive newer televisions do offer 120 Hz or higher. If a television is defaulted to a higher refresh rate, you might notice the "soap opera effect" when watching movies.

A local friend of mine watches everything with the higher refresh rate, and he is always raving about how movies like Casablanca or Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho look as though they were shot on a sound stage right there in his home.

I prefer the standard refresh rate on my television, because I like the classic cinematic look to the "soap opera effect."

I would recommend that most people change their aspect ratio settings on their television to "Just Scan" instead of 16:9, which was the default on mine. It's not a huge apples vs. oranges type of thing, but I feel as though the "Just Scan" option allows me to see what the director intended.

Ah I didn't know that was the cause on TV's - I know they had the issue with The Hobbit.

Yeah the soap opera effect is horrible and really cheapens the film, its really weird how it can make such a cinematic film look cheap and tacky haha.

Originally Posted by Mansinthe

well thats mostly a LCD / LED issue as well
glad i changed to a SXRD projector...

LCD often does mess up grain an such stuff or makes dark backgrounds look soft...




urgh.. so you dont even notice the 2:3 pulldown judder every third frame?

Im looking into investing in a projector for my spare room, wanna make a film room XD

[jw007]

Originally Posted by jlk5844

Same here. That's why if it's late at night and I'm selecting something to watch, I won't choose something I am really looking forward to, or something I want to give my full attention to rather than just a fun, brainless flick to throw on. I don't want to risk falling asleep, so I don't choose epic length movies like Seven Samurai or Lawrence of Arabia (still haven't watched those ).

Ironic. I was actually thinking of watching Lawrence of Arabia the other night again until I realized its close to 4 hours. Starting at midnight would be too late I suppose. Don't tell anyone but I still haven't opened up my copy of Seven Samurai yet either. That is one I've been holding off on for years now. What is wrong with me!

Lately, I've had such a late schedule that I've been running out of shorter films to watch. Now its all mostly longer, epic films in my collection that I have yet to view on Blu-ray (not that I haven't seen this same films before on DVD of course).

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by jw007

Ironic. I was actually thinking of watching Lawrence of Arabia the other night again until I realized its close to 4 hours.

I'm so glad that I waited until I had a Blu-ray player to watch Lawrence of Arabia for the first time.

I really need to get into my David Lean Directs Noel Coward set soon.

[jw007]

I watched A Brief History of Time (1991) (clocking in at an efficient 84 minutes) for the first time last night. I wasn't bored for a second. I was worried that might happen, but with things as exciting as quantum mechanics/physics and cosmology and particle theory, even though I never was that scientific in school, was very fascinating. I wanted more about the personality of Stephen Hawking in this film, but in the supplements I saw that director Errol Morris only had him for 2 or 3 days to shoot at the studio and Hawking wanted the film to be more about science than about his life. I really wish there could have been sound bites or film clips of Stephen Hawking when he was younger, as I'm sure there must have been something available back then on him, before his vocal cords were removed in the mid 1980s and now he has the fingertip voice of an old "Fred" computer robot sound.

Here's a technical/production spoiler:

[Show spoiler]The coolest thing I learned about this documentary was that all the interviews were conducted in rooms designed for the film (including a remake of Hawking's office with the real Hawking in it)! It looked "unreal" at times because they were perfectly lit and decorated, until I realized later while watching the interviews, the people were flown in from England to the production studio to be filmed on a set. That was cool.

Overall, I wouldn't say this is an essential film to own by any means (only 45 minutes of supplements in addition to the 80 minute film), but it is a great documentary film for those who want to learn more about quantum physics, black holes and Stephen Hawking. The original score by Philip Glass is beautiful. The picture/sound is marvelous too.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by jw007

I watched A Brief History of Time (1991) (clocking in at an efficient 84 minutes) for the first time last night. I wasn't bored for a second. I was worried that might happen, but with things as exciting as quantum mechanics/physics and cosmology and particle theory, even though I never was that scientific in school, was very fascinating. I wanted more about the personality of Stephen Hawking in this film, but in the supplements I saw that director Errol Morris only had him for 2 or 3 days to shoot at the studio and Hawking wanted the film to be more about science than about his life. I really wish there could have been sound bites or film clips of Stephen Hawking when he was younger, as I'm sure there must have been something available back then on him, before his vocal cords were removed in the mid 1980s and now he has the fingertip voice of an old "Fred" computer robot sound.

Here's a technical/production spoiler:

[Show spoiler]The coolest thing I learned about this documentary was that all the interviews were conducted in rooms designed for the film (including a remake of Hawking's office with the real Hawking in it)! It looked "unreal" at times because they were perfectly lit and decorated, until I realized later while watching the interviews, the people were flown in from England to the production studio to be filmed on a set. That was cool.

Overall, I wouldn't say this is an essential film to own by any means (only 45 minutes of supplements in addition to the 80 minute film), but it is a great documentary film for those who want to learn more about quantum physics, black holes and Stephen Hawking. The original score by Philip Glass is beautiful. The picture/sound is marvelous too.

So happy you enjoyed it! I was hoping for more on is work than himself, but I think it balanced out well, the score was bliss - it is a very well crafted documentary and I would neve have discovered had it not been for Criterion, so kudos to them!

Also, I never knew that about the sets! I need to get into those supplements! this documentary did make me go out and buy the book 'A Brief History of Time' though haha

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

So happy you enjoyed it! I was hoping for more on is work than himself, but I think it balanced out well, the score was bliss - it is a very well crafted documentary and I would neve have discovered had it not been for Criterion, so kudos to them!

Also, I never knew that about the sets! I need to get into those supplements! this documentary did make me go out and buy the book 'A Brief History of Time' though haha

Get in there and watch those supplements! You have to get your money's worth after all! (only 45 min. of extras so this is a bare bones release in general). Errol Morris is a strange man I must say (at least the way he talks).

[monorail91]

Zatoichi set is now $120 on Amazon -- just took the plunge! Only seen (and really enjoyed) the first four so I feel confident I'll be pleased with this purchase overall.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by monorail91

Zatoichi set is now $120 on Amazon -- just took the plunge! Only seen (and really enjoyed) the first four so I feel confident I'll be pleased with this purchase overall.

You won't regret it, the packaging is sublime - I have only watched the first one but loved it, just not had chance to sit through more!

Such an incredible set from Criterion !

[Polaroid]

Woo just won Red Desert for £8 lol

[adamhopelies]

One of the best things I've read online concerning TV settings is Masters Of Cinema-founder Nick Wrigley's brief notes on the subject. It's worth five minutes of your time.

http://enthusiasm.org/post/66745208574

[kuro_sawa]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

One of the best things I've read online concerning TV settings is Masters Of Cinema-founder Nick Wrigley's brief notes on the subject. It's worth five minutes of your time.

http://enthusiasm.org/post/66745208574

But.....he does not account for how many children I have, and how I have to watch them! How rude

[Polaroid]

Pissed off at Ebay, I put bid in for £25 for Army of Shadows, the site glitches and wasn't showing as lost or won - the winning bid was £19... but I put £25 in and it showed as me being highest.

[minister_x]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Pissed off at Ebay, I put bid in for £25 for Army of Shadows, the site glitches and wasn't showing as lost or won - the winning bid was £19... but I put £25 in and it showed as me being highest.

I saw that item - just think, you won't be as pissed off as the seller who only got £20 for it despite it being OOP!