Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb on June 16, 2009

[tama]

DVDBeaver has their caps up. Looks to be exactly identical. Money saved for me.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by tama

DVDBeaver has their caps up. Looks to be exactly identical. Money saved for me.

Had they included a 1.33:1 aspect ratio, I might've double dipped. But a good thing they had not two, but friggin three different aspect ratios for On the Waterfront.

On the other hand, aside from some exclusive extras, it seems to have all the extras from the Sony Blu ray, other than the picture-in-picture video commentary, so those who don't own this already should definitely have this edition as their first choice.

[Oblivion138]

Pretty much what I expected. I didn't really think Dr. Strangelove could look much better than it already did. I thought we might get another In Cold Blood situation, where a new scan surprised me, but since the press release for Strangelove didn't say "NEW" with regard to the transfer, I assumed we were basically getting the same image. Which is fine. I can put this on my back burner for the foreseeable future. Will probably grab it eventually for the extras, but it's definitely not a priority. I've already got plenty of releases I plan on getting during the summer Criterion sale, so this is no sad news to me. haha

[Yojimbo68]

Actually, the Criterion transfer looks a bit brighter to me.

[MikaLove]

Just reading here Svet's review of the CC edition and he gives PQ/AQ 5/5.
There's virtually NO DIFFERENCE between the image on the CC edition as compared to the last (Sony) edition.
Is Svet biased, whenever we get a new Criterion release?
I stopped believing in the reviews here some time ago.

[HD Goofnut]

IMHO there's no reason in buying the Criterion disc unless you want the exclusive extras or never purchased the Sony disc.

[MikaLove]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

IMHO there's no reason in buying the Criterion disc unless you want the exclusive extras or never purchased the Sony disc.

That's also depending on how substantial and actually needed that extra material is.
It also has slightly better sound, but I think I prefer the multi channel track anyway, which is lossless on both releases.
Unless you're a massive fan of this film to an almost pathological degree and/or collect (the insanely expensive, region locked) CC discs, I wouldn't recommend people to buy this if they have the Sony edition.
I got my copy for the equivalent of 7 bucks fifty.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by MikaLove

Just reading here Svet's review of the CC edition and he gives PQ/AQ 5/5.
There's virtually NO DIFFERENCE between the image on the CC edition as compared to the last (Sony) edition.
Is Svet biased, whenever we get a new Criterion release?
I stopped believing in the reviews here some time ago.

No, he is not. He has described exactly what type of a presentation you get. Your logic appears to be no difference, should be the same score. I disagree.

You should ask yourself why is it that the other review gives the presentation a lower score. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that at least on my disc -- which is sourced from the same Sony 4K restoration of the film -- there is no edge enhancement that spoils the integrity of the image.

[bigbadwoppet]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Had they included a 1.33:1 aspect ratio, I might've double dipped. But a good thing they had not two, but friggin three different aspect ratios for On the Waterfront.

On the other hand, aside from some exclusive extras, it seems to have all the extras from the Sony Blu ray, other than the picture-in-picture video commentary, so those who don't own this already should definitely have this edition as their first choice.

I think that at this point, with blu-ray being expressly for widescreen sets, it doesn't make any sense to include open matte versions of films which were clearly composed for matted widescreen.
The On The Waterfront case in point is perhaps the most ridiculous I've ever heard of. Not only they couldn't decide on whether the film was meant to be matted (when a film CAN be matted, it basically means it was composed so, try to matte Strangers on a Train and you'll see what I mean) but they couldn't even decide the correct matted ratio. That release screams "amateurs".

[Vidya]

Originally Posted by bigbadwoppet

The On The Waterfront case in point is perhaps the most ridiculous I've ever heard of. Not only they couldn't decide on whether the film was meant to be matted (when a film CAN be matted, it basically means it was composed so, try to matte Strangers on a Train and you'll see what I mean) but they couldn't even decide the correct matted ratio. That release screams "amateurs".

I prefer the 1.33:1 version. I'm glad they gave us the option. From what I've read, the aspect ratio for Dr. Strangelove isn't as disputed as On the Waterfront.

[Musicguy]

I passed on this "Manchurian Candidate" and "In Cold Blood" as the image is almost identical

Sony did a pretty good job on their titles the first time around so the extras are the only reason to up grade. Fox's early MGM/UA releases were also pretty good

"The Graduate" is the only time I double dipped since the image is a lot better than the MGM version

[Vidya]

Originally Posted by Musicguy

I passed on this "Manchurian Candidate" and "In Cold Blood" as the image is almost identical

Almost identical? I thought both of those releases used newer 4k source material.

[nitin]

The Manchurian Candidate is a substantial improvement.

[Iamspartacus]

Anyone know if there is a scan or custom criterion cover to put in a scanavo case to replace the digipack?

[Musicguy]

Originally Posted by Vidya

Almost identical? I thought both of those releases used newer 4k source material.

Yes, but the difference isn't that extreme. Not like the new transfers of "Spartacus" or "My Fair Lady" where the difference is night and day. Even the reviewers stated you may only want to upgrade base on the extras.

Wasn't the" Manchurian Candidate" transfer a lot darker than the MGM?

[MikaLove]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

No, he is not. He has described exactly what type of a presentation you get. Your logic appears to be no difference, should be the same score. I disagree.

You should ask yourself why is it that the other review gives the presentation a lower score. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that at least on my disc -- which is sourced from the same Sony 4K restoration of the film -- there is no edge enhancement that spoils the integrity of the image.

Funny how you speak about yourself in third person.
Anyway, your logic seems to be that the precious release had a problem with edge enhancement. Well, I've compared PQ for both releases and while there is a difference, it's minuscule to say the least. Also bitrate is quite similar. If something "spoiled" the image on Sony's release, then the CC release has issues as well.
There's a real difference between 4/5 and 5/5, even if opinions differ.
I see you rate CC releases extremely high most of the time. Sure, they are qualified, but they aren't gods who do everything perfectly with every release.
PQ is really good on Dr. Strangelove, but it's not great or fabulous and IMO not worth 5/5. Especially since the release offers very little more than the added extras, besides the minimal upgrade technically.

[nitin]

He is saying the other reviewer gave the Sony image a 4/5 because that reviewer incorrectly assumed there was EE when there wasn't.

I think everyone accepts that the image on the Criterion hand Sony are virtually indistinguishable.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by MikaLove

1. Anyway, your logic seems to be that the precious release had a problem with edge enhancement. Well, I've compared PQ for both releases and while there is a difference, it's minuscule to say the least.

Originally Posted by MikaLove

2. Also bitrate is quite similar. If something "spoiled" the image on Sony's release, then the CC release has issues as well. There's a real difference between 4/5 and 5/5, even if opinions differ.

Originally Posted by MikaLove

3. I see you rate CC releases extremely high most of the time. Sure, they are qualified, but they aren't gods who do everything perfectly with every release.

Originally Posted by MikaLove

4. PQ is really good on Dr. Strangelove, but it's not great or fabulous and IMO not worth 5/5. Especially since the release offers very little more than the added extras, besides the minimal upgrade technically.

1. It is not my logic at all. The Sony and Criterion releases are sourced from exactly the same 4K master, which I have made very clear in my review, and on this master there is no built-in edge-enhancement that spoils the integrity of the image. I have these releases and I can see exactly what Sony did.

2. I don't think anything "spoiled" the image on the Sony release. Let's repeat this again: It comes from the same 4K master, which Grover Crisp supervised. If I had reviewed the Sony release, I would have given it exactly the same video score I gave the Criterion release, which is 4.75/5.00.

3. You have an odd generalization there that simply does not work. It is irrelevant to me where the release I review comes from. I review what is on the release. If Criterion consistently get high scores for their releases, it means that they consistently deliver high-quality releases. By the way, they have been doing it since the LD days, which is why they have built such a solid reputation.

4. You are wrong again. The folks at Sony did indeed produce a great master. Of course, you can have a different opinion and question their decisions, but given the history of this film and the surviving elements, I have nothing but praise for the restoration/reconstruction of Kubrick's film. The 4K master Sony have in their vaults now will be the source to access for a very, very long time.

[StingingVelvet]

It's funny people always pull the "CRITERION FAVORTISM!!!" card instead of thinking that maybe Criterion do high quality work 95% of the time. Every company has a flaw here and there (Ruby Rose for example?), but Criterion does amazing work the vast majority of the time, which is why they get high reviews the vast majority of the time.

That said, there are certainly a few reviewers (*cough*Gary Tooze*cough*) that trust Criterion a little too much and ignore flaws that should be pointed out, like on Dressed to Kill before it was corrected.

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by MikaLove

Just reading here Svet's review of the CC edition and he gives PQ/AQ 5/5.
There's virtually NO DIFFERENCE between the image on the CC edition as compared to the last (Sony) edition.
Is Svet biased, whenever we get a new Criterion release?
I stopped believing in the reviews here some time ago.

Is Svet biased

Criterion's always get 5/5 for everything dont they? Its the law here.