Scanners (1981)

[Corny Collins]

Any word on the packaging of the Criterion edition?

[Oblivion138]

What, specifically, do you mean? It's a 3-disc (1 BD/2 DVD) digipak, if that's what you're asking.

[Seymour]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

What, specifically, do you mean? It's a 3-disc (1 BD/2 DVD) digipak, if that's what you're asking.

I don't think it's a digipack, as the DVDBeaver comparison mentions a clear case.

[Spire]

I dont hate digipaks but I was hoping this one was clear.

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by KowalskiVideo

So everyone was so focused on the colour they missed the egregious use of DNR in this shot? Check the skull bits, bottom left, on the Criterion.

[wesslan]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

So everyone was so focused on the colour they missed the egregious use of DNR in this shot? Check the skull bits, bottom left, on the Criterion.

Awful...

[KowalskiVideo]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

So everyone was so focused on the colour they missed the egregious use of DNR in this shot? Check the skull bits, bottom left, on the Criterion.

Probably Cronenberg did not like these specific skull-bits anymore (but thats what armchair experts don't understand). Keep in my mind its the "director approved" edition, if its fine with Cronenberg its fine with me.... sorry i'm joking.

Haven't noticed it but you are right, this is obivoulsy autocleanup gone bad. I'm shocked and haven't expected THAT from Criterion...

[Mr. Thomsen]

Criterion's QC has really gone down the last year or so. First the atrocious Children of Paradise, then the equally horrible Earrings of Madame de..., and now this.

[HansEpp]

German Subkultur


US Criterion Collection


Oh no, there are missing skull pieces all over the shot. Shame on you Criterion!

Thank you EddieLarkin for pointing this out.

It really looks like an automated cleanup tool gone berserk on this one.

And this goes out to all the "dumbed-down"-disciples of the "Director approved"-marketing-crap: Haha, you lemmings!
You are willing to believe anything if it bears a signature.
So if this is what "DAVID CRONENBERG" intended, I think you have to swallow it. Bon appétit!
Oh, man I am so tired of reading this "if the director approved it, it is the release to go for"-bullsh**. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you: This assumption can not be generalized.

I am still convinced that my inital statement is correct: The German Subkultur release is superior in color and contrast, because this thread hasn't brought up anything that legitimatizes Criterion's look of Scanners (on the contrary, the criterion statement is backing me up).
Here is my guess of what happened in a nutshell: A reinvented look (probably created by the colorist), sadly signed off by an uninteressed David Cronenberg (substantiated by a lack of his involvement in any of the special features & the statement made by himself, that he does not want to talk about the movie anymore).

[mdonovan]

I have to say ... I think the criterion is stronger. It colors are way more accurate. They have no artificial leveling applied. The skin tones are much more how I remember this film looking. I'm definitely going criterion. Bummer that for many , more contrast and boosted colors means better.

[mdonovan]

Originally Posted by HansEpp

German Subkultur





US Criterion Collection





Oh no, there are missing skull pieces all over the shot. Shame on you Criterion!



Thank you EddieLarkin for pointing this out.



It really looks like an automated cleanup tool gone berserk on this one.



And this goes out to all the "dumbed-down"-disciples of the "Director approved"-marketing-crap: Haha, you lemmings!

You are willing to believe anything if it bears a signature.

So if this is what "DAVID CRONENBERG" intended, I think you have to swallow it. Bon appétit!

Oh, man I am so tired of reading this "if the director approved it, it is the release to go for"-bullsh**. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you: This assumption can not be generalized.



I am still convinced that my inital statement is correct: The German Subkultur release is superior in color and contrast, because this thread hasn't brought up anything that legitimatizes Criterion's look of Scanners (on the contrary, the criterion statement is backing me up).

Here is my guess of what happened in a nutshell: A reinvented look (probably created by the colorist), sadly signed off by an uninteressed David Cronenberg (substantiated by a lack of his involvement in any of the special features & the statement made by himself, that he does not want to talk about the movie anymore).

Did you see this film the year it was released in the theatre ?

[HansEpp]

Originally Posted by mdonovan

I have to say ... I think the criterion is stronger. It colors are way more accurate. They have no artificial leveling applied. The skin tones are much more how I remember this film looking. I'm definitely going criterion. Bummer that for many , more contrast and boosted colors means better.

I would rather say the Criterion looks shockingly "flat" in general and has nothing to back up their color and contrast discussions being correct to the theatrical presentation.
BTW there are shots taken from a theatrical print (I posted back a couple of pages back in this thread) and the german disc is mastered from a PRESERVATION MASTER. I guess all this count for nothing?

In case you haven't followed the discussion, here is the post:

Originally Posted by HansEpp

So here it is folks:

Somebody asked Subkultur at their forums (http://dirtypictures.phpbb8.de/subku...-t4699-90.html) about their release of Scanners and why it looks so radically different from the criterion release.

What they basically said was: They licensed a protection master* from MGM and also had a german release-print (which they did not use, except for reference). Since both were very similar they decided to go with MGM master. I guess no other company worldwide has used this specific master before or after. They also said, that Mr. Cronenberg did not want to give an interview for the film (he said something like, everything he wanted to say about this movie he did a long ago). So they can't tell if what they got is "true" to the directors intentions. But they decided to go with the MGM master since it was very close to their release print. They also provided screenshots of the 35mm print they had!

35mm Print (untempered, raw scan):


Subkultur Blu-ray:


*PROTECTION MASTER: General term for a master copy made as a long term protection or insurance against loss, damage or fading of the original.

Wake up, and see the criterion for what it really represents: A newly invented look to please "modern viewing habbits". These habbits are enforced upon audiences by some colorists doing interpretive work instead of recreating what was finished years ago. And to do this work there is no need for involving the director (in most cases).

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by mdonovan

I have to say ... I think the criterion is stronger. It colors are way more accurate. They have no artificial leveling applied. The skin tones are much more how I remember this film looking. I'm definitely going criterion. Bummer that for many , more contrast and boosted colors means better.

Blanket teal across the entire screen is more accurate? Nevermind the fact that you claim to remember what the color timing was of a movie that debuted 33 years ago. Never mind the fact that we have reference prints that show no such teal whatsoever in this shot. I accept that Cronenberg can do whatever he wants with his film, but to say it's theatrically accurate would be revisionism.

[HansEpp]

Originally Posted by mdonovan

Did you see this film the year it was released in the theatre ?

There is no need to have seen the film in cinemas (back in the days) to come to my conclusion. Please read my previous posting to understand why that isn't necessary.

And what do you say about the missing skull pieces on the criterion? Is this (film-)history repeating? (I am refering to the censored headshot of Bobby Peru in David Lynch's "Wild at Heart"). No! It isn't an intended change, it is just bad "restoration" at work.

[mdonovan]

Originally Posted by HansEpp

I would rather say the Criterion looks shockingly "flat" in general and has nothing to back up their color and contrast discussions being correct to the theatrical presentation.

BTW there are shots taken from a theatrical print (I posted back a couple of pages back in this thread) and the german disc is mastered from a PRESERVATION MASTER. I guess all this count for nothing?



In case you haven't followed the discussion, here is the post:

Ok ... Just finished reading the entire thread.

1. I am glad that the Germans used a protected reference scan.

2. The German disc looks boosted from what I can recall seeing the film upon release. But I trust their reference more than my memory ... Lol.

Wake up, and see the criterion for what it really represents: A newly invented look to please "modern viewing habbits". These habbits are enforced upon audiences by some colorists doing interpretive work instead of recreating what was finished years ago. And to do this work there is no need for involving the director (in most cases).

3. Criterion is an altered color timing - something that really bothers me. I hate that colorists have been left to impose their will on these films. There should be a group of certified colorists who's soul purpose is to preserve original color timings. Or at least a board of colorists that review releases. Especially since back in the day film stock was the leading factor in how a picture looked.

4. Maybe I'll get both and watch the one I like better :-)

5. Criterion has rarely let me down in terms of satisfaction of presentation.


Question ... These protected reference scans or preservation masters ... Do they ever degrade ?

[mdonovan]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Blanket teal across the entire screen is more accurate? Nevermind the fact that you claim to remember what the color timing was of a movie that debuted 33 years ago. Never mind the fact that we have reference prints that show no such teal whatsoever in this shot. I accept that Cronenberg can do whatever he wants with his film, but to say it's theatrically accurate would be revisionism.

Look I wasn't claiming anything ... I was just stating what I recalled. I remember that fill being dim, a bit dull in look and darker... That's all. See my above post.

Look closely at the 35mm print that is posted on the subkulture site ... It has sick yellow/greenish hue to it that I definitely recall. Their blu release does not have that. Specifically in the hospital shot ... It's seems closer that the criterion though ... That is certain. Is that just because the correct white balance was not applied ?

[dallywhitty]

Things to learn from this release:

1) A director-approved transfer isn't always accurate.

2) Criterion aren't God's gift to film fans. They're capable of error just like any other company.

[HansEpp]

Originally Posted by mdonovan

Question ... These protected reference scans or preservation masters ... Do they ever degrade ?

I hope this is helpful:
http://www.archives.gov/preservation...tion-copy.html

[mdonovan]

Originally Posted by HansEpp

I hope this is helpful:

http://www.archives.gov/preservation...tion-copy.html

Thanks !

That definitely helps ...

Preservation master files may capture additional information about the original beyond the content itself. Because they are created to high capture standards, preservation master files could take the place of the original record if the original was destroyed, damaged, or not retained. Preservation masters generally do not undergo significant processing or editing.

Seems like the best ref for an older film. Although these PMs must be somewhat degraded due to age. I always thought that film became brighter, faded, softer and greener as it aged.

[HansEpp]

In the case of Scanners we are talking about a preservation master from MGM, which according to Subkultur Entertainment had the finished colortiming on it. As can be seen in comparision to the theatrical print. Although theatrical prints have indeed a tendency to fade or shift color, depending on the film stock used. Keeping that in mind, it is fair to assume that the protection/preservation master used by Subkultur Entertainment pretty closely reproduces the original theatrical presentation.