Farewell My Concubine 4K UHD (Criterion Collection)

[PullBackCamera]

Dolby Vision on the French release?! What's the excuse going to be this time?

[dwk]

That the restoration was done in SDR. Again, Criterion's policy regarding HDR is very clear, if the 4K master was done in HDR, they will include that. SDR masters are presented that way either at a filmmakers' request or if the 4K master wasn't done in HDR.

[PullBackCamera]

Ah, I knew there'd be one, and ample defenders willing to take up the charge.

[dwk]

The hell are you talking about? Why would they not use HDR if it was natively done in HDR? None of their SDR releases were done in HDR.

[MifuneFan]

It amazes me how many people still don't understand how film licensing works.

[dwk]

Like if they are so anti-HDR why do they use it on in-house restorations like Double Indemnity or Akria Kurosawa's Dreams or (to use a Janus owned title) For All Mankind?

[SpookyDollhouse]

Also some of their SDR UHDs like Branded to Kill are my favorites yet

[PullBackCamera]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

It amazes me how many people still don't understand how film licensing works.

McCabe & Mrs Miller and the Apu Trilogy were in-house grades, so it's not true that Criterion only resort to SDR when it's forced on them by a licensor. As for Farewell My Concubine, if Carlotta were permitted to re-grade in HDR then there would be nothing stopping Criterion from doing the same. Indeed, they could have teamed up with Carlotta. Instead, we're left only with the hope that someone in the UK or Aus will add subtitles to Carlotta's master.

[dwk]

I should have addressed those two in my initial post.

Apu was restored in SDR and because the state of the elements, and how expensive it was to restore, they probably couldn't redo the restoration, so they opted for SDR.

Since they had no way to get input from the filmmakers, it wouldn't shock me if they tested McCabe in HDR and found that SDR was the best way to present that material That was a real specific case of a look that is very difficult to present correctly on home video.

Again, none of this negates what I said their policy is re:HDR, it is there if it was restored in HDR and it isn't there if it was done in SDR or if a filmmaker requests SDR.

[PullBackCamera]

Originally Posted by dwk

it wouldn't shock me if they tested McCabe in HDR and found that SDR was the best way to present that material... Again, none of this negates what I said

'It amazes me how many people still don't understand how film grading works'.

Of course it negates what you said. And even if true, this would be a stupid policy - the Carlotta is by all accounts a fantastic disc (albeit absent subtitles).

[bergman864]

The site review is as I expected. It's either a vision issue or a hardware issue with each of these reviews.

[WhiskeyGnome]

I am definitely somebody that doesn't think HDR is right for everything, and we always have DTM on LG to give a big luminance boost. I don't usually hate warmer timings, but I will have to see this personally I guess. Needs Caps.

[Aemstel]

Originally Posted by bergman864

The site review is as I expected. It's either a vision issue or a hardware issue with each of these reviews.

So you think it looks good? I haven't seen it myself yet.

[sidetracked1]

Originally Posted by bergman864

The site review is as I expected. It's either a vision issue or a hardware issue with each of these reviews.

Completely agree, but would add the phrase 'or a false memory issue', since it's usually a complaint in comparison to inherently unreliable memories of the subtleties of how a film released theatrically many, many years ago looked at the time --

Or a 'blind faith in earlier home releases' issue - since it also seems to often be based on comparison with earlier home releases we have no reason to believe were more correct or more accurate to the original look or intent (e.g. 'Three Colors').

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by Aemstel

So you think it looks good? I haven't seen it myself yet.

The same reviewer makes the same comments on all his reviews. No amount of evidence shown to him will convince him he's incorrect. If the same "problem" occurs over multiple discs from multiple labels and restoration houses it's a reviewer issue. I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[sidetracked1]

Originally Posted by Aemstel

So you think it looks good? I haven't seen it myself yet.

The problem with these reviews is that they leave us with no clue if this version looks good or not. Generally I ignore them and wait for the comments of posters here who seem far more reality based in their responses (if, admittedly, occasionally hyperbolic )

[JulesAndJim]

The thing is that he provides no evidence that the color timing is incorrect. It would be one thing if he had access to some kind of reference print, or cited someone who did, or cited quotes from one or more of the filmmakers about the intended look of the film, or cited contemporary reviews that mentioned the way certain scenes looked upon release, but all we ever get is a vague claim that the colors are "unconvincing" or "modern" and a downgraded video score based on that.

[kieslow]

Does anyone know if the same master was used for the Criterion and the Carlotta?

[Jexes23]

Originally Posted by sidetracked1

Completely agree, but would add the phrase 'or a false memory issue', since it's usually a complaint in comparison to inherently unreliable memories of the subtleties of how a film released theatrically many, many years ago looked at the time --

Or a 'blind faith in earlier home releases' issue - since it also seems to often be based on comparison with earlier home releases we have no reason to believe were more correct or more accurate to the original look or intent (e.g. 'Three Colors').

If things we are positive are white look yellow, blue looks teal, and red looks orange they're incorrect and have a piss color filter applied which is why the blu rays for the 3 Colors Trilogy still looks better.

[sidetracked1]

Originally Posted by Jexes23

If things we are positive are white look yellow, blue looks teal, and red looks orange they're incorrect and have a piss color filter applied which is why the blu rays for the 3 Colors Trilogy still looks better.

Not to re-hash an old, settled argument, but the whole point is, based on comments from the cinematographer and comments about the films from the time of their initial theatrical release in Europe, the piss yellow look was the intended look for "Three Colors", whether one prefers it or not.

People/critics can claim to be 'positive' of what the colors 'should' look like, but sometimes that has proven not to be the case when others find/present actual evidence.

Or - more often - there is no evidence in play other than vague memories, earlier video releases, or simple assumptions, which are not a great basis for sweeping, positive statements presented as fact, rather than as personal taste or unsubstantiated opinion.

I mean, one could assume whites should be white, not yellowish and use that to toss out the value of the Gordon Willis timed blu-rays of
'The Godfather' and embrace only the new, far more neutral color scheme in the 4Ks as more 'correct' since the colors look more like they'd be seen by the naked eye.

The reality is color grading is far more subtle, complex and often has little to do with strict naturalism, which means a 'professional' reviewer should exercise caution before pronouncing a given grading 'wrong'. It may be, it may not. But a knee-jerk assumption presented as fact is never a good approach.