Dressed to Kill (1980)

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by Brad1963

I guess I am in the minority, I think the Criterion version looks the best.

Please explain, because otherwise you cannot be taken seriously.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by schlock

It definitely looks like a layer of teal has been layered on top of Criterion's transfer, and then the image is washed out even more. Normal flesh colors are practically gone. And then it's also stretched. Well, at least it supposedly has the Filmways logo intact; that could be its only selling point.

Scanners, and now this. I don't have much faith in how The Brood is going to turn out.

The original logo at the beginning and only that is hardly a selling point.

[tama]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

Please explain, because otherwise you cannot be taken seriously.

Why. It's his opinion. He didn't state it as fact that it's correct.

[Brad1963]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

Please explain, because otherwise you cannot be taken seriously.

There seems to be more information in the frame than the other two releases. It seems to have a more natural appearance.

[Dr. Humbert]

It's very obviously stretched, which is a deal-breaker for me.

[NLScavenger]

I prefer the geometry of the Criterion release on the shot with Nancy Allen on the desk. Can't say No to a slightly slimmer Nancy, but I do have to say No to the new color timing.

[tama]

The last shot of Nancy eyes look to be a different shot then the prior two for MGM and Arrow. I really wished Beaver was like Caps and had exact matching frames for each shot.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by tama

Why. It's his opinion. He didn't state it as fact that it's correct.

In this politically correct age (and even before), I will not automatically respect what somebody says just because it's their opinion. An opinion needs to merit respect. Today's politically correct age unfortunately says that we need to blindly respect all opinions.

Originally Posted by Brad1963

There seems to be more information in the frame than the other two releases. It seems to have a more natural appearance.

Fair enough, but what about the stretching and other anomalies?

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by NLScavenger

I prefer the geometry of the Criterion release on the shot with Nancy Allen on the desk. Can't say No to a slightly slimmer Nancy, but I do have to say No to the new color timing.

Slimmer and unnatural looking Nancy ? Whatever does it for you.

[tama]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

In this politically correct age (and even before), I will not automatically respect what somebody says just because it's their opinion. An opinion needs to merit respect. Today's politically correct age unfortunately says that we need to blindly respect all opinions.

What the hell are you talking about.

"People in a politically correct age need to blah blah blah."

[Brad1963]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

In this politically correct age (and even before), I will not automatically respect what somebody says just because it's their opinion. An opinion needs to merit respect. Today's politically correct age unfortunately says that we need to blindly respect all opinions.



Fair enough, but what about the stretching and other anomalies?

The coloring seems fine to me. IMO the other releases seem too rich. I'm not really able to notice any stretching. But to me, I love the framing and having the bit more information Criterion provides. It makes it seem like the other 2 versions were purposely cropped a bit. Screenshots are difficult to really tell sometimes for me. Honestly, I am not trying to make waves, but I do like how Criterion's looks. Even Gary Tooze says in retrospect that he likes the changes in the Criterion version.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by tama

What the hell are you talking about.

"People in a politically correct age need to blah blah blah."

You clearly understood what I wrote. I won't respect somebody's opinion just because it's an opinion.

Is that clear enough for you? Or are you so stupid that I need to go further ?

[Bluebolt]

Originally Posted by schlock

Scanners, and now this.

That’s how this is shaping up, all right: a Criterion transfer out of left field (from a ballpark in the adjacent county, where they’re playing football).

What’s strange regarding the “stretch” reported by DVDBeaver is that the review concludes that

“at times, the Criterion ratio looks more 'right' to me - at other times the Arrow and MGM appear more natural. The more I look at it though - the more the Criterion appears correct to me.”

That’s hard to believe based on the screen caps, but we’ll see.

I’m trying to decide whether to cancel my pre-order and wait for more information, or just roll with it. That choice is definitely not what I hoped for.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by Brad1963

The coloring seems fine to me. IMO the other releases seem too rich. I'm not really able to notice any stretching. But to me, I love the framing and having the bit more information Criterion provides. It makes it seem like the other 2 versions were purposely cropped a bit. Screenshots are difficult to really tell sometimes for me. Honestly, I am not trying to make waves, but I do like how Criterion's looks. Even Gary Tooze says in retrospect that he likes the changes in the Criterion version.

Thing is though, I wanted to buy this for the umpteenth time, and I do like some aspects of the Criterion release, but it's that stretching. I can't be doing with that

Surely if you take a little more time to look, you'll see the stretching ?

[Rockercub]

For anyone doubting the stretching, there's a right angle triangle on Peter's chart labeled with one side 30 and the other side 20, for a ratio of 1.5 to 1. Measuring the sides on my computer screen, I get 4.35 cm and 2.85 cm for the triangle on the Arrow cap. That's 1.53 to 1, which is pretty close. The Criterion measures 4.00 cm and 2.85 cm, which is 1.40 to 1, not so close. Assuming the triangle was drawn to scale originally, the Criterion is stretched vertically. Or perhaps it's more appropriate to say that it's squished horizontally. Notice that the vertical measurements are the same at 2.85 cm.

[EddieLarkin]

Note the comparatively huge gain on the left of the Criterion transfer compared to the right. My theory: Criterion transferred the whole or close to 1.33:1 image (thus including the soundtrack area), for a 2.66:1ish image after anamorphis, and then squashed that image to 2.35:1, rather than trimming the left as they should have done.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Brad1963

The coloring seems fine to me. IMO the other releases seem too rich. I'm not really able to notice any stretching. But to me, I love the framing and having the bit more information Criterion provides. It makes it seem like the other 2 versions were purposely cropped a bit. Screenshots are difficult to really tell sometimes for me. Honestly, I am not trying to make waves, but I do like how Criterion's looks. Even Gary Tooze says in retrospect that he likes the changes in the Criterion version.

Seriously? Look at the globe light on the desk behind Michael Caine on the phone. In all the other shots, it's round, as a globe should be. In the Criterion, it's an oval. Heck, even just knowing what Michael Caine looks like from his 150 other movies should tell you that he's not that thin.

Originally Posted by Rockercub

The Criterion is stretched vertically. Or perhaps it's more appropriate to say that it's squished horizontally.

Considering the head and foot room is virtually identical on all the releases, then it's definitely squished horizontally. If it were stretched vertically, then the headroom would be different.

[Bluebolt]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

Note the comparatively huge gain on the left of the Criterion transfer compared to the right. My theory: Criterion transferred the whole or close to 1.33:1 image (thus including the soundtrack area), for a 2.66:1ish image after anamorphis, and then squashed that image to 2.35:1, rather than trimming the left as they should have done.

Do you think there is any possible reason to intentionally do this, or would it simply be a (whopper of a) technical error?

[JohnCarpenterLives]

Originally Posted by Nailwraps

Agreed. Plus, there more image in the Criterion release. It's a teeny bit stretched but overall, the transfer looks totally OK.

Stretched does not equal OK.

It breaks my heart that Criterion would do this, but I am grateful I don't need to replace my Arrow release.

[schlock]

It's clear at this point that the image is squished (I prefer that term to stretched, which makes everyone look fat). Globe lights are oval, pupils are oval, mathematic triangle drawings prove it's squished.

So is there any possibility of Criterion doing a corrected disc for such an issue? Color-timing and "director-approved" teal issues are too debatable so I can't see them changing that, but when the entire image is squished, that seems like a pretty big issue, especially for a company that prides themselves on 'perfection'. Are there any similar precedents before with Criterion on such an issue?