In the Heat of the Night (1967)

[SpaceBlackKnight]

I remember KL Insider mentioned that when they got outbid on ITHOTN, he/she also stated that MGM themselves had completed a new 4k remaster for it (no word on what elements were used, nor if Fox was involved as with MGM's prior 4k remasters like The Terminator or Robocop).

What this means is we could get ether get a solid Fox level restoration in the vein of SOTL & The Princess Bride, or a low effort rehash of the previous transfer with janky sharpening and grain removal ala Platoon's 4k master.

[StingingVelvet]

Criterion would never accept or release anything like that Platoon "remaster." Not saying the company is perfect by any means, but they just wouldn't.

[Joe_Brody]

My question in that case would be does Criterion have a choice in how the transfer looks, ie. do they get a chance to look at the available restoration before bidding on it or do they only bid for the licence and then are stuck with whatever transfer they are supplied with?

[SpaceBlackKnight]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Criterion would never accept or release anything like that Platoon "remaster." Not saying the company is perfect by any means, but they just wouldn't.

That, grasshopper, is true. However, there's been cases where Criterion released titles, licensed from small European companies that contracted out their transfers to the likes of Ritrovata and more well known ones such as Pathe, using "new" restorations that were not only piss yellow/revisionist graded, but also smeary hack jobs on the level of Predator UHE. I imagine they were also contractually obligated to use the provided restoration/transfer as-is, no matter how problematic it was, just to generate sales and meet demands.

Since ITHOTN's 4k transfer was supposedly handled by MGM, we'll have to wait and see come January or if someone saw any recent screenings using this 4k restoration.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

It's mainly because the registration is off, causing it to look soft and mildly out of focus. Not sure Criterion could get the separation masters to re-align the filmstrips, but one hopes they did.

"New digital restoration" to me implies it's the same scan.

[SpaceBlackKnight]

Originally Posted by Joe_Brody

My question in that case would be does Criterion have a choice in how the transfer looks, ie. do they get a chance to look at the available restoration before bidding on it or do they only bid for the licence and then are stuck with whatever transfer they are supplied with?

It depends on the attitude of the rights holders or the restoration firm who were involved in supplying the transfer/elements. In most cases, they get a look at the elements whenever a label inquires about picking up titles at company trade shows and the like. Companies such as MGM are the most lenient, and the ones without the large resources nor funds to create remastered elements on their own allow labels that have restoration foundations to handle the transfers themselves. However, in most cases the licencor (and sometimes the director or DOP if still around) have to approve it as well as any bonus materials they wish to add, which possibly explains how Platoon's 4k remaster became what it was if the DOP ordered "over cleaning" of the element, while SF's other 2/4k scans such as Teen Wolf, the Poltergeist sequels and others, look proper, grainy, and unsmeary.

Fox is quite strict with 4k remasters from their TCF catalog and won't let any label do additional work nor create new transfers themselves, considering most of Fox's 4k transfers were done in-house.

[SpaceBlackKnight]

Originally Posted by koberulz

"New digital restoration" to me implies it's the same scan.

Then I wouldn't put it past MGM if they cheapened out on the restoration and just "enhanced" the previous source for 4k ala Platoon.

Again, we should wait till someone sees screenings of this restoration or come January.

[tama]

Originally Posted by koberulz

"New digital restoration" to me implies it's the same scan.

No. The original scan was not derived from a 4K scan. Also the official press release both here and elsewhere on other sites specifically state Brand New 4K resto. Park Circus has been screening a DCP of this new 4K master for a while now as well.

[Tae]

Really happy to see this finally get a release date! I picked up TT's edition of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner in their last sale to go with my copy of To Sir, With Love, and with this release my 1967 Sidney Poitier collection will finally be complete

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I can’t WAIT for mid-January...

When Gary Tooze will post his review, then someone will hand pick some screencaps and despite the obvious improvements in grain structure, detail and colour, will complain that “Critealion” has struck again that he’s hanging on to his vastly superior MGM disc then someone will talk about the magenta push of all those old MGM discs and we’ll have a big ole flame war... insults will be made, Bates Motel will make some snarky comments, CineSicko will go full on rage mode then dial it back quick as can be, Tooze’s competency will be called into question and we’ll all have a good time!

And then RockyIII will come in asking which release is the best, ask if it’s “Lawrence of Arabia” video quality, argue that ITHOTN is not a mystery film, and that the 1.85 aspect ratio bars make it “cramped”. Than he’ll proceed to go “wow this is the best Blu Ray disc I own it’s almost 4K!”

[davidsal]

Originally Posted by javi92

Yay, another Criterion issue that already has a perfectly good blu release. Sigh.

That bluray have big problems. For me the more important is the "fat faces". It's horizontally stretched. Hope Criterion corrected it.

[Doctorossi]

Come on, Criterion! It's UHD time- you know it is!

DO IT!

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by SpaceBlackKnight

That, grasshopper, is true. However, there's been cases where Criterion released titles, licensed from small European companies that contracted out their transfers to the likes of Ritrovata and more well known ones such as Pathe, using "new" restorations that were not only piss yellow/revisionist graded, but also smeary hack jobs on the level of Predator UHE. I imagine they were also contractually obligated to use the provided restoration/transfer as-is, no matter how problematic it was, just to generate sales and meet demands.

If they've released anything with Platoon style DNR then I never heard about it. Slightly worrying if so. With Shout it's not surprising they pumped out what MGM gave them, but I'd think Criterion would worry about their rep.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by davidsal

That bluray have big problems. For me the more important is the "fat faces". It's horizontally stretched. Hope Criterion corrected it.

Are you sure that's not just Rod Steiger?

[SpaceBlackKnight]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

If they've released anything with Platoon style DNR then I never heard about it.

Criterion's Children of Parsdise https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Child...7/#Screenshots

A Pathe title that wasnt just a smeary mess, but was also handled by Ritrovata despite the lack of yellow present. Unfortinutely, all overseas BD releases use the same problamatic master, so its not entirely Criterions fault that they were obligated to use it and forbidden to do a new, better one.

Theres more they put out with smeary licensor provided transfers, but ATM Children Of Paradise is the most prominite example I can think of.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

If they've released anything with Platoon style DNR then I never heard about it. Slightly worrying if so. With Shout it's not surprising they pumped out what MGM gave them, but I'd think Criterion would worry about their rep.

Both Children of Paradise and Earrings of Madame De.

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by SpaceBlackKnight

Criterion's Children of Parsdise https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Child...7/#Screenshots

The Earrings of Madame De... is a disaster, too.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by SpaceBlackKnight

Criterion's Children of Parsdise https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Child...7/#Screenshots

A Pathe title that wasnt just a smeary mess, but was also handled by Ritrovata despite the lack of yellow present. Unfortinutely, all overseas BD releases use the same problamatic master, so its not entirely Criterions fault that they were obligated to use it and forbidden to do a new, better one.

Theres more they put out with smeary licensor provided transfers, but ATM Children Of Paradise is the most prominite example I can think of.

How about we compare apples to apples then... there have been no titles released by Criterion, that were licenced from MGM, that have had these sorts of issues, have there?

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

How about we compare apples to apples then... there have been no titles released by Criterion, that were licenced from MGM, that have had these sorts of issues, have there?

I've enjoyed their MGM-owned transfers such as The Killing, Midnight Cowboy, The Night of The Hunter, and Sweet Smell of Success. I think it's unfair to be comparing MGM/CC collabs with obtaining masters from overseas.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Dailyan

I've enjoyed their MGM-owned transfers such as The Killing, Midnight Cowboy, The Night of The Hunter, and Sweet Smell of Success. I think it's unfair to be comparing MGM/CC collabs with obtaining masters from overseas.

It's only come up because of Platoon, which got a DNR disaster straight from MGM that Shout released. If they remastered this, and it's the same decision makers, then there is some cause for concern.

Did Criterion remaster Silence of the Lambs themselves, or did MGM do it?