Scanners (1981)

[HotRats]

I like the German edition but I shall pick this one up for the extras if nothing else. As it appears to be a radical departure I'm intrigued to see how it actually looks in motion.

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by surfinhank

This is probably the main issue here: even though this version is "director approved", the real question is... is it the director's "original intent"? Was is shown this way in the theaters when it was released? (If not, was it because of technical limitations of the time or maybe studio interference?)

Or is it "director's intent: 2014"... an afterthought thanks to all the new technology and software available today.

Very good points that should all be considered.

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Pro-B, an actual film expert, not one that labels themselves as such in forums, says nothing of the sort in his review of the SS disc

Not to slight Pro-B here, but I strongly disagree with many of his assessments on several past reviews, and he has given high marks to transfers that were obviously problematic.

I happen to own Second Sight SCANNERS release, and both from checking the screencaps on the net and from playing the movie at home, I can tell you that those issues are present. And while the color timing is always debatable when lacking a proper original reference, the noise reduction is easily noticeable.

Criterion's is no doubt superior to all other releases (including German Subkultur that, to me, was the winner if I had to choose) in terms of detail and definition, but I find it hard to believe that such a dull contrast reflects the original photography. It doesn't look to me like any artistic intent, but more like a bad set of light adjustments.

As for this bearing the director's seal of approval, we don't really know what that means exactly or how actually involved was Cronemberg, or, as others have pointed out already, how much of a revisionist was he when deeming Criterion's transfer as "right".

In any case, I think I don't remember such a big discrepancy between transfers for any other film, and I confess I am completely at a loss about how faithful any of them is.

[The Film Expert]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I'm just making the point that I'd take Pro-B's words over some self-labeled Film Expert any day of the week. I trust Cronenberg as a filmmaker, but we all know there are times when that expertise doesn't translate perfectly when supervising a new transfer. Many directors like to tinker, or do some sort of revisionism to fit with how they want the movie to look now. I'm not saying Cronenberg is definitely guilty of that, but in a general sense, the terms "Director Approved" doesn't instill absolute confidence in me anymore.

I'm not proclaiming to be an actual film expert. That was just what my friends lightheartedly referred to me as back in the day because they considered me quite knowledgeable when it came to the subject. Do not try and use my username as an attempt to personally attack me.

You can trust that reviewer over me and that's fine, but this new edition clearly shows that the colors were all wrong in the Second Sight release which wasn't supervised by Mr Cronenberg.

I don't need reviewers to tell me what to think of anything, I consider myself a freethinker and believe I am capable of making my own opinions.

This Criterion Collection release has been supervised by the director, so I have to assume this is what he wants and I'm sure that original prints were involved during the color grading stage that show the correct colors, so this has got to be more accurate than any other release.

You haven't even seen the film, but yet you come on here and pretend to know how it should look, and it seems that you actually think the opinions of a reviewer have more validity than the person who made the actual film. That is quite simply irrational.

-The Film Expert

[David M]

Originally Posted by The Film Expert

I was lent the disc by a friend, and I watched it on a 100" projector.

A 100" projector? That's a pretty big projector! What kind of cooling does it need?

-The Projector Expert

[rickah88]

That's it! I'm not getting the Criterion version, until they come out with Scanners: The Ultimate Hunter Edition!

[The Film Expert]

Originally Posted by Lyris

A 100" projector? That's a pretty big projector! What kind of cooling does it need?

-The Projector Expert

I'm sorry, *100" projector screen.

-The Film Expert

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by rickah88

That's it! I'm not getting the Criterion version, until they come out with Scanners: The Ultimate Hunter Edition!

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by The Film Expert

You haven't even seen the film, but yet you come on here and pretend to know how it should look, and it seems that you actually think the opinions of a reviewer have more validity than the person who made the actual film. That is quite simply irrational.

-"The Film Expert"

I never once pretended to know anything of how it looks. I in fact said multiple times that I'm not claiming to know which is more accurate. The only comments I made were about what I thought looked better between the two releases. That in no way meant I was commenting on how accurate either was.

Your logic is flawed in any event. Even if I saw the film a thousand times, it still gives me no more expertise on how the film should actually look.

[The Film Expert]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I never once pretended to know anything of how it looks. I in fact said multiple times that I'm not claiming to know which is more accurate. The only comments I made were about what I thought looked better between the two releases. That in no way meant I was commenting on how accurate either was.

Your logic is flawed in any event. Even if I saw the film a thousand times, it still gives me no more expertise on how the film should actually look.

"The CC transfer look off/strange compared to the other. That fire, and the glowing off of it doesn't look right at all."

Also, why are you even in this thread if you haven't seen the film? There could be potential discussion of spoilers or other plot-related posts that may give things away. It seems to me that you don't care about the film and just see this discussion as a way to make a spectacle out of things and draw more attention to yourself.

I'll gladly take the word of the director of the movie over any reviewer or user any time of the week.

-The Film Expert

[David M]

Originally Posted by brasil

There is DNR or autoclean or some digital alteration on SS version. Look at the helicopter pics.

That looks more like compression to me.

[Roy Batty]

As a side note, I really hate how quickly these debates turn into a pissing contest, instead of what they should be: a joint effort in trying to figure out the truth.

Sadly, many people seem more interested in "winning".

[Cevolution]

I think when doing a comparison, screen caps of the Australian Umbrella release should be used rather than from the SS release. It is mentioned in the SS review, that it is slightly brighter than the Australian disc in some scenes:

The high-definition transfer is virtually identical to the one Australian distributors Umbrella Entertainment used for their Blu-ray release of this cult film a few months ago, and this is good news. The only very small discrepancy I could spot is with the brightness levels - select sequences here look slightly brighter, but the difference is indeed minimal at best.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by brasil

There is DNR or autoclean or some digital alteration on SS version. Look at the helicopter pics.

Actually, there is no such digital tinkering on the SS release. And I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is no DNR that "completely erases" detail in some scenes.

The discrepancies that you see can be traced back to the encoding.

Pro-B

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by brasil

There is DNR or autoclean or some digital alteration on SS version. Look at the helicopter pics.

Originally Posted by Lyris

That looks more like compression to me.

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Actually, there is no such digital tinkering on the SS release. And I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is no DNR that "completely erases" detail in some scenes.

The discrepancies that you see can be traced back to the encoding.

I disagree.

I copy & paste a comment from caps-a-holic:

No, it's Autoclean. The areas where the grass is missing/smoothed is where the rotors are in the previous frame. Definitely not a coincidence.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by The Film Expert

"The CC transfer look off/strange compared to the other. That fire, and the glowing off of it doesn't look right at all."

Also, why are you even in this thread if you haven't seen the film? There could be potential discussion of spoilers or other plot-related posts that may give things away. It seems to me that you don't care about the film and just see this discussion as a way to make a spectacle out of things and draw more attention to yourself.

I'll gladly take the word of the director of the movie over any reviewer or user any time of the week.

-The Film Expert

You just quoted exactly what I pointed out in my post above. I'm making a comparison of one to the other, and noted that the look of the fire doesn't look right in the CC version as compared to the SS one. Do explain to me how that's a comment on which is actually more accurate to the film itself, I'll wait. Maybe try becoming a reading expert?

So just because I haven't seen the film, it somehow means I cant join the discussion in the thread? Continuing that great logic, you then claim that now I don't care about the film? Is there anything else you'd like to add to this, or have you fulfilled your flawed logic quota for the day yet?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Actually, there is no such digital tinkering on the SS release. And I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is no DNR that "completely erases" detail in some scenes.

The discrepancies that you see can be traced back to the encoding.

Pro-B

+1. I have this disc as well and can confirm the same findings.

[slimdude]

I haven't seen Scanners in over 30 years, and I don't remember what the film really looked like. Besides Scanners was a B movie.

[The Film Expert]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

You just quoted exactly what I pointed out in my post above. I'm making a comparison of one to the other, and noted that the look of the fire doesn't look right in the CC version as compared to the SS one. Do explain to me how that's a comment on which is actually more accurate to the film itself, I'll wait. Maybe try becoming a reading expert?

So just because I haven't seen the film, it somehow means I cant join the discussion in the thread? Continuing that great logic, you then claim that now I don't care about the film? Is there anything else you'd like to add to this, or have you fulfilled your flawed logic quota for the day yet?

By using phrases such as "doesn't look right at all". It feels like you are trying to imply that you are speaking from a position where you know what the film should look like. A simple "I think this one looks better" would suffice as it sounds like you are taking a more subjective approach.

Unless you have seen the original prints and have a good recollection of how it appeared then you cannot say whether it looks right or not, you are speaking from a position of ignorance.

Speaking in a condescending tone and being flat out disrespectful won't get you far. I don't care if you have a 'Blu-ray Count' title under your name and spend all day on this site, I refuse to be talked down to. I've been through school and college, studied English extensively and never failed a test. I can not help interpreting your comments "wrongly" because of their ambiguous nature. That is not my fault because of my implied (by you) shortcomings when it comes to comprehending the English language but because of your equivocal posts.

-The Film Expert

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by The Film Expert

Speaking in a condescending tone and being flat out disrespectful won't get you far. I don't care if you have a 'Blu-ray Count' title under your name and spend all day on this site, I refuse to be talked down to. I've been through school and college, studied English extensively and never failed a test. I can not help interpreting your comments "wrongly" because of their ambiguous nature. That is not my fault because of my implied (by you) shortcomings when it comes to comprehending the English language but because of your equivocal posts

I apologize for making you get so worked up over my (ambiguous?) attempt at humor with the whole "reading expert" bit. Had I known your actual reputation as someone who could read was on the line, I would have not attempted such a joke. I will now commit harakiri to right this wrong of mine.

[Show spoiler]As you will find out, try not to take some of the stuff I say too seriously, it's usually meant to poke fun rather than truly offend.

I will move on from this though, so as not to derail the thread further. Harakiri in 3, 2, 1..

[saprano]

It seems my hope with this didn't come true based off what i'm seeing in the screenshots-

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=59

It doesn't look like what i saw with the broadcast version. Anybody know what transfer broadcast was using? The Criterion lookes very muted.