Scanners (1981)

[Spire]

My opinions on the presentation here have already been said by others, questionable color choices, potentially liberal use of "auto-repair", etc. Was very excited when Criterion announced this, but man, I just dont know if I'd pay for it now. Sigh.

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by tama

Then you missed the post that Moderator CrazyBlue removed (and apparantly that poster suspended).

You need to either explain a situation correctly or, if unsure, refrain from posting. The are dozens of posts that disagree with the review and they all still here. There was one post removed from a member as he went on a grand scale attack vs one of out site reviewers...including insults and accusations.

So there are the FACTS. I probably would have just perm banned the joker.

Another fact is that Pro-B has come into this thread and explained his review in extensive detail...that is all that can be asked of him. IN FACT. I really do not see any other reviewers from this site explaining JACK...the same can be stated for many of the other HT sites.

Cult movies have many fans, some of which are very passionate and knowledgeable about the movies they love...that is awesome.

Discussion and disagreements are great but vicious insults and allegations will never be allowed.

[nagysaudio]

Originally Posted by tedopolous

I was about to ask the same thing. But from those comparisons I've seen in this thread, it's impossible to dispute the fact that Subculture has better white detail. Like the shot with the guys in lab coats.

Actually the whites are clipped there due to white crush, due to blown out contrast.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by HansEpp

The only thing that bothers me, I need to buy Criterion's Scanners for the inclusion of David Cronenberg's Stereo alone. But I will defintely wait until the next B&N-Sale. I need to add it to my Criterion Collection, no matter what.

I keep hearing people say that they'll wait for the next B&N sale...the disc is being released in the middle of the sale.

Originally Posted by Goremeister100

Look at THIEF for another example since this has already been mentioned to death.

For the millionth time, Thief is properly timed.


Beyond that, my only input is that I've never seen a Blu-ray.com reviewer so viciously attacked before. I've had differences of opinion with reviewers before (including Pro-B), but it's always remained on the level of courteous debate. To see this kind of screed is just unbelievable.

[tama]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

You need to either explain a situation correctly or, if unsure, refrain from posting. The are dozens of posts that disagree with the review and they all still here. There was one post removed from a member as he went on a grand scale attack vs one of out site reviewers...including insults and accusations.

So there are the FACTS. I probably would have just perm banned the joker.

Another fact is that Pro-B has come into this thread and explained his review in extensive detail...that is all that can be asked of him. IN FACT. I really do not see any other reviewers from this site explaining JACK...the same can be stated for many of the other HT sites.

Cult movies have many fans, some of which are very passionate and knowledgeable about the movies they love...that is awesome.

Discussion and disagreements are great but vicious insults and allegations will never be allowed.

And I agree with this 100%. Pro-B has gone IMO far and above what anyone could ask for from a site reviewer in explaining his findings and opinions on the CC release.

I was just pointing out that not all people posting were just being disagreeable and that there were those who were viciously attacking the reviewer.

[manitou]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

Color grading is personal. But what I'm interested in is the transfer itself. Criterion has no sharpening, Criterion has no blown out contrast. Criterion is a newer scan. Criterion has more detail. Criterion has better compression.

And since I don't mind and even prefer the new color grading, Criterion is a definite purchase for me. I can see why most of you who don't like the new color grading are so upset. Ya'll are stuck with an inferior all around transfer. So that really sucks.

I guess i committed the mortal sin of mentioning another review site in my post, and so had my comment deleted.
I merely wanted to say at i think kowalski was really in the right track by using objective measurement tools to assess the imagery. If your eyes do not tell you this already, a waveform monitor, histogram, and if necessary, vectorscope can tell you all sorts of objective information about these images. I am not in the least surprised to hear that criterions image is devoid of signal in its upper third, because it can clearly be seen if you have that kind of eye. This animated gif is quite informative as well, and demonstrative of something quite possibly WRONG with the transfer, beyond simple matters of taste. When i see such a flat and strongly tinted image, i often suspect that the color pipeline has somehow been mismanaged, or that an incorrect LUT has been erroneously applied. That is certainly not a look that typically is spit out of most grading rooms. To suit personal preference, the more neutral version would be a perfectly suitable starting point to create a more cyan palette, if desired. But the tinted and low contrast (criterion) version looks like a raw scan, or a mangled render.

[asmodeux21]

I ordered Subkultur's "Scanners" blu ray, but I will probably pick up the Criterion blu ray for "Stereo", which I absolutely love.

[TucoStrangelove]

Hmm...this is interesting. I am definitely picking this up during the sale since the price is right. If it bothers me too much (which I don't think it will), I will buy the German release. Who knows, I might prefer it this way

[nagysaudio]

Originally Posted by manitou

I guess i committed the mortal sin of mentioning another review site in my post, and so had my comment deleted.
I merely wanted to say at i think kowalski was really in the right track by using objective measurement tools to assess the imagery. If your eyes do not tell you this already, a waveform monitor, histogram, and if necessary, vectorscope can tell you all sorts of objective information about these images. I am not in the least surprised to hear that criterions image is devoid of signal in its upper third, because it can clearly be seen if you have that kind of eye. This animated gif is quite informative as well, and demonstrative of something quite possibly WRONG with the transfer, beyond simple matters of taste. When i see such a flat and strongly tinted image, i often suspect that the color pipeline has somehow been mismanaged, or that an incorrect LUT has been erroneously applied. That is certainly not a look that typically is spit out of most grading rooms. To suit personal preference, the more neutral version would be a perfectly suitable starting point to create a more cyan palette, if desired. But the tinted and low contrast (criterion) version looks like a raw scan, or a mangled render.

You're again stuck on the color grading, which has nothing to do with the transfer and has everything to do with what Cronenberg felt like on that beautiful Saturday morning at the studio in front of his Mac as he tinkered in Final Cut Pro like a little kid. With a nice latte in his hand and a blueberry muffin, he decided that he wanted the factory floors to be graded in "Alien Green!" Done deal! But the transfer is terrific.

Same peeps brought up the irrelevant histogram argument when Cameron made Aliens teal. That is a reference transfer BTW. The histogram didn't matter, then and it doesn't matter now.

[peterw5]

The Criterion version is bad. The color is completely wrong. This is not the way the film has ever looked before. This is film revisionism; it's no better than a director changing the aspect ratio or re-cutting the film years after the fact.

[amoergosum]

[nagysaudio]

Star Wars special editions > Star Wars theatricals.
Blade Runner final cut > Blade Runner everything else.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

You're again stuck on the color grading, which has nothing to do with the transfer and has everything to do with what Cronenberg felt like on that beautiful Saturday morning at the studio in front of his Mac as he tinkered in Final Cut Pro like a little kid. With a nice latte in his hand and a blueberry muffin, he decided that he wanted the factory floors to be graded in "Alien Green!" Done deal! But the transfer is terrific.

Same peeps brought up the irrelevant histogram argument when Cameron made Aliens teal. That is a reference transfer BTW. The histogram didn't matter, then and it doesn't matter now.

I hate the Aliens color timing too. It wasn't teal in the theatre and it shouldn't be teal on blu-ray. It looks wonderful other than the teal but the teal ruins it for me. Some people like skin tones to look like skin.

[peterw5]

You know, I don't even have a problem when filmmakers want to change their films later down the line. What I have a problem with is when filmmakers change their films later down the line and then refuse to make the theatrical versions available too. I don't care if Cronenberg wants to release "Scanners: the Green Version" as long as the unaltered theatrical version is included too. I don't think many people would have any problem with the filmmakers changing their films if they'd just make the theatrical versions available as well. That's why people have a problem with George Lucas, but don't have a problem with Ridley Scott having five different cuts of "Blade Runner." Ridley Scott gives you the choice of which version to watch, whereas Lucas is a control freak who won't give you the choice to watch the theatrical versions.

[mdonovan]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

Star Wars special editions > Star Wars theatricals.

Blade Runner final cut > Blade Runner everything else.

Troll. Watch the Despecialized versions.

[mdonovan]

Originally Posted by peterw5

You know, I don't even have a problem when filmmakers want to change their films later down the line. What I have a problem with is when filmmakers change their films later down the line and then refuse to make the theatrical versions available too. I don't care if Cronenberg wants to release "Scanners: the Green Version" as long as the unaltered theatrical version is included too. I don't think many people would have any problem with the filmmakers changing their films if they'd just make the theatrical versions available as well. That's why people have a problem with George Lucas, but don't have a problem with Ridley Scott having five different cuts of "Blade Runner." Ridley Scott gives you the choice of which version to watch, whereas Lucas is a control freak who won't give you the choice to watch the theatrical versions.

Well said ... Plus 1000000

[manitou]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

You're again stuck on the color grading, which has nothing to do with the transfer and has everything to do with what Cronenberg felt like on that beautiful Saturday morning at the studio in front of his Mac as he tinkered in Final Cut Pro like a little kid. With a nice latte in his hand and a blueberry muffin, he decided that he wanted the factory floors to be graded in "Alien Green!" Done deal! But the transfer is terrific.

Same peeps brought up the irrelevant histogram argument when Cameron made Aliens teal. That is a reference transfer BTW. The histogram didn't matter, then and it doesn't matter now.

I don't know what you mean by "reference transfer." You are right about this histogram, or any other measurement tool being irrelevant - in one sense anyway. Whatever I may decide about this image, it is not going to change. What it really comes down to is my own excitement to hear that Scanners was coming to blu via Criterion, and then the utter surprise and disappointment to see how the images apparently look. "Stuck on the color grading?" Well, yeah, I see that as pretty important actually. It's the look of the film. Splitting hairs on what you define as the "grading" vs the "transfer" is just semantics. You are happy with "the transfer" because they managed to do a cleanup pass on the film scans? And it is less important to you how the colors are represented? When I speak of a transfer, it is inclusive of many things. Scanned and presented at proper aspect, cleared of dust and damage, appropriate level of sharpness, and color-timed pleasingly, accurately, or creatively, whatever the intent of the project. As I've said before, if Cronenberg has dictated that the Criterion disc should look this way, that may be fine for him and others. But as a disc buyer, and film fan - as a consumer - it's just not for me. Beyond that simple statement, because I have some expertise in this area, I have wondered if there was any mishandling of the color during the process. Because it does look "wrong" to me, in a way that extends beyond creative choices. Anyway, I'll let it go now. It's not my intent to convince anyone I am right.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by peterw5

The Criterion version is bad. The color is completely wrong. This is not the way the film has ever looked before. This is film revisionism; it's no better than a director changing the aspect ratio or re-cutting the film years after the fact.

I'd say it's a lot better than some examples of that, but point taken otherwise

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

Star Wars special editions > Star Wars theatricals.
Blade Runner final cut > Blade Runner everything else.

Well now at least we know where you stand.

[wickedmiranda]

People who don't mind the color change, buy the Criterion. People who want the theatrical version, buy the UK or Australian versions. Is that so hard? Can we stop complaining now? Both versions are available so whats the fuss?