Eyes Wide Shut 4K UHD (1999) (Criterion Collection)

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by jphoff

Made a comparison between the 35MM scan frame and the Criterion frame, and I think its a perfect example of the limitations of these fan scan projects, as interesting as they are for their own reasons. The 35 certainly has that yellow tint, but look at how much other detail the image is lacking.
They are breathing new life into this film and I could not be more excited.

Don't let Film Twitter read this, they'll shoot you!

[nitebusnitebus]

Originally Posted by jowlygentleman

I don't care about all that. It looks better in 4:3.

you know I was just thinking this thread was too quiet with this nonsense

Larry Smith, Katharina, and Christiane Kubrick all approved this edition. you're gonna tell the DOP and his family they're wrong?

[jowlygentleman]

Originally Posted by nitebusnitebus

you know I was just thinking this thread was too quiet with this nonsense

Larry Smith, Katharina, and Christiane Kubrick all approved this edition. you're gonna tell the DOP and his family they're wrong?

Wrong about what?

[jowlygentleman]

Originally Posted by jphoff

Made a comparison between the 35MM scan frame and the Criterion frame, and I think its a perfect example of the limitations of these fan scan projects, as interesting as they are for their own reasons. The 35 certainly has that yellow tint, but look at how much other detail the image is lacking. Look at Nicole's face. Look at the difference in the contrast, even without Dolby Vision. The high grain level made this a very hard film to restore, and a very easy one to compress to shit and lose a ton of visual information, which is what we see with the fan scan and the 07 BluRay. Getting a good conversion is more than just a high quality source image, its about optimizing it and encoding it so you don't lose data. It is a night and day difference, to me, which of these images is better and closer to how it's meant to look.

The weird thing about this post is that you're not really denying that there's a difference, but that it's justified for the sake of data. I'm not fully convinced. I think the screengrabs look excellent, and I'll be buying it either way, but it looks to me like they changed the look of the film.

[jphoff]

Originally Posted by jowlygentleman

The weird thing about this post is that you're not really denying that there's a difference, but that it's justified for the sake of data. I'm not fully convinced. I think the screengrabs look excellent, and I'll be buying it either way, but it looks to me like they changed the look of the film.

i mean clearly the look of the film is different. my argument is really that we shouldn't be looking to the blu ray or 35MM as the 'true' version of the film based on what we know about they, on how much visual information they compressed, and who is supervising this restoration. i can understand not liking the 'new' color, but we shouldn't be knee-jerk mad at differences that were partially or completely created by bad home video conversions from the mid 2000s and are now being corrected.

[Cat Vision]

Originally Posted by jowlygentleman

I don't care about all that. It looks better in 4:3.

There it is. You don't care.

Nuff said.

[jowlygentleman]

Originally Posted by jphoff

i mean clearly the look of the film is different. my argument is really that we shouldn't be looking to the blu ray or 35MM as the 'true' version of the film based on what we know about they, on how much visual information they compressed, and who is supervising this restoration. i can understand not liking the 'new' color, but we shouldn't be knee-jerk mad at differences that were partially or completely created by bad home video conversions from the mid 2000s and are now being corrected.

But the yellow tint and the blown out highlights don't seem to be the product of compression, but an artistic choice. Again, I'm just not convinced.

[PowellPressburger]

Originally Posted by jphoff

https://imgsli.com/NDA3ODMw

Made a comparison between the 35MM scan frame and the Criterion frame, and I think its a perfect example of the limitations of these fan scan projects, as interesting as they are for their own reasons. The 35 certainly has that yellow tint, but look at how much other detail the image is lacking. Look at Nicole's face. Look at the difference in the contrast, even without Dolby Vision. The high grain level made this a very hard film to restore, and a very easy one to compress to shit and lose a ton of visual information, which is what we see with the fan scan and the 07 BluRay. Getting a good conversion is more than just a high quality source image, its about optimizing it and encoding it so you don't lose data. It is a night and day difference, to me, which of these images is better and closer to how it's meant to look.

They are breathing new life into this film and I could not be more excited.

It's quite a stunning comparison. The amount of new detail is crazy.
Just hope the encode is really great.

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by jowlygentleman

I don't care about all that. It looks better in 4:3.

Stick to the 4x3 DVD from 2001 and leave us the **** alone.

Nobody else cares about some extra image that was only meant to be seen as a compromise if the movie was being watched on a 4x3 screen.

[jowlygentleman]

Originally Posted by Cat Vision

There it is. You don't care.

Nuff said.

Who is Nuff?

[jowlygentleman]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Stick to the 4x3 DVD from 2001 and leave us the **** alone.

No, baby.

Nobody else cares about some extra image that was only meant to be seen as a compromise if the movie was being watched on a 4x3 screen.

I care. Nuff said.

[BobSimms]

Originally Posted by jphoff

Made a comparison between the 35MM scan frame and the Criterion frame, and I think its a perfect example of the limitations of these fan scan projects, as interesting as they are for their own reasons. The 35 certainly has that yellow tint, but look at how much other detail the image is lacking.

As someone who recently took a gamble on a 35mm fan scan, I concur. I was sorely disappointed when I got the disc and had a watch of the first 20 or so minutes. Heck, it might even have been from the same person who did the EWS scan. I don’t understand what went wrong between the 4K scanning stage and the BD mastering/authoring phase (or whatever), but yeah… no grain whatsoever. The bloke promised no DNR, no cleanup, so…

The 35mm print likely shows what EWS’s print run color grade did look like, but I don’t care—Criterion’s master looks fine to me (more than fine, actually—gorgeous). It does, however, make me raise an eyebrow at people who once again are doubting the color grade of an old home video master. The color in that print looks just like the old EWS DVD.

[Telemachus]

I hate myself for ordering Criterion discs

[stalepie]

So glad this is coming out. The pictures they uploaded on the site looked bad when I viewed them on my computer (very dim and colorless). But then I copied them to my TV and viewed them in HDR and they came to life! Great to see.

[saxomaphone]

I await with anticipation the oddly shaped digipak that doesn't align with every other movie I have on my shelf and the scratched discs from mexico. Along with an inner booklet that falls out onto the floor when I open the case because they didn't include a sleeve for it to slip into. $40? WHY YES PLEASE

[jt839]

Originally Posted by saxomaphone

I await with anticipation the oddly shaped digipak that doesn't align with every other movie I have on my shelf and the scratched discs from mexico. Along with an inner booklet that falls out onto the floor when I open the case because they didn't include a sleeve for in to slip into. $40? WHY YES PLEASE

It's in a scanavo.

[BluProofie]

Originally Posted by saxomaphone

I await with anticipation the oddly shaped digipak that doesn't align with every other movie I have on my shelf and the scratched discs from mexico. Along with an inner booklet that falls out onto the floor when I open the case because they didn't include a sleeve for in to slip into. $40? WHY YES PLEASE

It’s already confirmed to be a plastic case.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by maverick22

Blind buy - terrible art though.

Like the majority of Criterion releases..............

[Protozoid]

Did Kubrick even do the final color grade for this? What do they call it, a reference print? Larry Smith is really the best living person for this job, and the more I look at the stills, the more revelatory the new transfer looks. Certainly better than that 35mm fan scan, which looks way too warm. Based on the Christmas lights on the left hand side, it looks like the fan scan had its color temperature pushed way towards warm (edit: it's too magenta, as well). The new transfer looks balanced, but the skin tones are still stunning.

This new disc is gonna rock. And I'm fine with 1.85, too.

[MovieBuff647]

Originally Posted by BluProofie

People on Twitter saying the garbage DVD master is more accurate(based off of a blurry 720p trailer). You just have to laugh…

Some of the Film Twitter types ironically hate cinema and film preservation, it's astounding honestly.

Originally Posted by Protozoid

Did Kubrick even do the final color grade for this? What do they call it, a reference print? Larry Smith is really the best living person for this job, and the more I look at the stills, the more revelatory the new transfer looks. Certainly better than that 35mm fan scan, which looks way too warm. Based on the Christmas lights on the left hand side, it looks like the fan scan had its color temperature pushed way towards warm (edit: it's too magenta, as well). The new transfer looks balanced, but the skin tones are still stunning.

This new disc is gonna rock. And I'm fine with 1.85, too.

As long as Criterion doesn't botch the encode, yes. I want to have hope they'll be extra careful with Kubrick but the macroblocking in those screencaps from their BARRY LYNDON 4K is still fresh in my mind.