Criterion?

[benricci]

Originally Posted by fettastic

You are mistaken.

Since this link has nothing to do with Spartacus, I'm puzzled why you included it. to the commentary, they specifically say they colorized the b&W interpositive. doesn't take much to see it if you're looking for it. the whole DVD is shades of brown with background in B&W. It's just very well done compared to Ted Turner's bastardizations.

You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what you are talking about. This is not a colorized black and white film. The link explains how color separation is used, and why you might be confusing it with black and white prints. You clearly did not read it and do not understand what colorization is, and the difference between a color separation process.

I'll paraphrase the article:

"The best film preservation method is to make a YCM color separation master, where the yellow, cyan, and magenta elements are stored as B&W film negative reels. It's then printed using an RGB light, where the red affects the cyan dye, the green affects the magenta dye, and blue affects the yellow dye. This allows the full reproduction of the original colors with the highest integrity when the three elements are combined through contact printing."

This is not, I repeat NOT colorization of a black and white film. It's an advanced photochemical process to get the best COLOR reproduction from a COLOR film.

Watch the restoration featurette on the new Godfather release. It will illustrate how this process works, and should clear up your confusion on the black and white issue.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by fettastic

Or maybe that was just an excuse so they wouldn't have to make new masters and just re-release their LD work. That seems a lot more likely to me since WB ALWAYS released anamorphic and never had a problem.

Major studios, other than WB, were slow on the uptake with anamorphic transfers too.

Some reason why they couldn't include both? Again, a BS Criterion claim for not investing more money, yet charging insane prices.

Because it's not a priority when it comes to their mission to preserve the original presentation of the film, which has been stated over and over again. Unless you have concrete evidence of what Criterion spends on a release, you're just making things up. They are a small company that travels all over the world to find and restore the films they release. I suggest you read this thread and then see if you still feel that Criterion skimps on investing money into their releases.

Furthermore, you're clearly confused and incorrect on the "colorization" issue. I suggest you inquire about it in Robert A. Harris's insider thread. He participated in the 1991 restoration from the color separation elements made on black and white film and can explain to you what that means. Spartacus was always a color film. The color separation elements are just a way of preserving the master.

[fettastic]

Originally Posted by benricci

You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what you are talking about. This is not a colorized black and white film. The link explains how color separation is used, and why you might be confusing it with black and white prints. You clearly did not read it and do not understand what colorization is, and the difference between a color separation process.

I'll paraphrase the article:

"The best film preservation method is to make a YCM color separation master, where the yellow, cyan, and magenta elements are stored as B&W film negative reels. It's then printed using an RGB light, where the red affects the cyan dye, the green affects the magenta dye, and blue affects the yellow dye. This allows the full reproduction of the original colors with the highest integrity when the three elements are combined through contact printing."

This is not, I repeat NOT colorization of a black and white film. It's an advanced photochemical process to get the best COLOR reproduction from a COLOR film.

Watch the restoration featurette on the new Godfather release. It will illustrate how this process works, and should clear up your confusion on the black and white issue.

I'm not talking about color seperation. At NO POINT IN TIME was I ever talking about color seps. In fact in the Spartacus commentary they talk about TRYING to use them, but they were too deteriorated. INSTEAD they used a B&W interpositive and then COLORIZED IT!

Until you have listened to the commentary track on this disc in which they talk very pointedly about this process, do not talk to me.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by fettastic

I'm not talking about color seperation. At NO POINT IN TIME was I ever talking about color seps. In fact in the Spartacus commentary they talk about TRYING to use them, but they were too deteriorated. INSTEAD they used a B&W interpositive and then COLORIZED IT!

Until you have listened to the commentary track on this disc in which they talk very pointedly about this process, do not talk to me.

You're wrong. Either that or the New York Times is wrong.

[fettastic]

JadedRaverLA, I wasn't accusing you of saying Criterion invented letterboxing, someone above you did. I was just killing two birds with one stone.

TO EVERYONE (not just JadedRaverLA):

I just get sick of people getting their knees dirty for Criterion. It's like Bose or frankly HD DVD where the hype goes right from talking points to forums. I certainly don't believe Criterion is any better than most video companies, they just think their product is worth 3X the price. Yes I realize they distribute films that may otherwise not get as special of treatment, and that's fine. Other independant distributers manage to do the same thing with remixed audio and more substantial special features and for about the same price as studio releases. That's all I'm saying.

[Clark Kent]

Aside from many of the observations listed, Criterion has a small base of devoted collectors that only buy a movie because it is part of the Criterion Collection (they number every single dvd they release as part of the Collection). Many consider their supplemental features to be of higher quality than most of the pr fluff that gets tossed on the major studios' releases.

[fettastic]

Originally Posted by kefrank

You're wrong. Either that or the New York Times is wrong.

Of course you do realize that you linked to an article about the UNIVERSAL PICTURES restoration and not the Criterion one right?

[fettastic]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Aside from many of the observations listed, Criterion has a small base of devoted collectors that only buy a movie because it is part of the Criterion Collection (they number every single dvd they release as part of the Collection). Many consider their supplemental features to be of higher quality than most of the pr fluff that gets tossed on the major studios' releases.

There is certainly somethin to be said for that because EPKs suck in general and more and more suppliments are becoming less and less substancial. All I'm saying is, put that on video, don't make me squint at a TV screen to read a clipped article.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by fettastic

Of course you do realize that you linked to an article about the UNIVERSAL PICTURES restoration and not the Criterion one right?

You do realize that Criterion merely did a transfer of that very restoration, right?

And you do realize that the commentary you keep referencing was from the 1992 laserdisc release and refers to the 1991 restoration, right?

From the Spartacus page at criterion.com:

- Stunning new 16x9 transfer of the 1991 fully restored Super Technirama version

[neo_reloaded]

Criterion focuses solely on faithfulness to the original vision. Remixed audio is simply not a priority - not to Criterion, and not to the vast majority of their customers. Do they have the resources to out-do major studios? Maybe not. But it's not like they're trying to beat the majors at their own game - they don't want to release a super-loaded version of the latest action blockbuster, and outsell the major studio version of it. Criterion focuses on films that, for whatever reasons, the major studios are not interested in giving the time and effort that they deserve.

Yes, there are a few high-profile titles like Spartacus and Armageddon that will probably be best served by being released by Universal and Buena Vista, respectively. But most of their titles are independent or foreign films that simply don't have much exposure over here. So they aren't really competing with anyone - they are the only company that wants to release these films in the US. If, for example, Universal wanted to release Brazil or Sony wanted to release Bottle Rocket, then they simply wouldn't have licensed the films to Criterion.

[fettastic]

Originally Posted by kefrank

You do realize that Criterion merely did a transfer of that very restoration, right?

And you do realize that the commentary you keep referencing was from the 1992 laserdisc release and refers to the 1991 restoration, right?

From the Spartacus page at criterion.com:

That only refers to the reinsertion of deleted scenes making it 10 minutes longer, making it the 1991 "version", not te 1991 master.

Listen to the commentary, it's all explained in it.

[benricci]

Dude, you are flat out wrong. Why do you keep insisting that you are right?

"The original camera negative of "Spartacus," the actual film shot by Mr. Kubrick from which duplicates were made, was in such bad condition that it was unusable. Instead, technicians on the project used the black-and-white color separation negatives that were often made as backup. The separation negatives were made by exposing black and white film through different filters -- blue, green and red -- to record all of the color information in the movie on non-fading black and white stock."

This is COLOR SEPARATION! Robert A Harris worked on the project and posts on message boards often. Perhaps someone can PM him on another board, and we can get him in here to shut you up?

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by fettastic

JadedRaverLA, I wasn't accusing you of saying Criterion invented letterboxing, someone above you did. I was just killing two birds with one stone.

No problem then. It was just the way it came across when I read it. I think we can agree to disagree on Criterion in other respects -- really, just an issue of different priorities and expectations. Nothing major.

Originally Posted by benricci

This is COLOR SEPARATION! Robert A Harris worked on the project and posts on message boards often. Perhaps someone can PM him on another board, and we can get him in here to shut you up?

Um... he has an insider's thread here on this board. You can post your question directly to him. I'm getting out of here while its still safe.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by fettastic

):

I just get sick of people getting their knees dirty for Criterion. It's like Bose or frankly HD DVD where the hype goes right from talking points to forums. I certainly don't believe Criterion is any better than most video companies, they just think their product is worth 3X the price. .

I have over 250 Criterion releases on DVD, and many are double dipped from other DVD versions, and they're ALWAYS a superior transfer....... I don't think you've seen enough comparisons to compare Criterion to Bose......

And I have HD DVD, it is what it is...... I never said it was better than Blu-ray, but that's why I got my HD DVD player one day after my Blu-ray player...... I wanted access to more titles...... I didn't "choose and lose" I got both knowing HD DVD wasn't as good, and hoping Blu-ray would prevail.......... I wasn't "Duped"

[CheapChildren]

Originally Posted by benricci

Someone is sure stuck in 1999....Criterion has been doing anamorphic transfers since the late 90s, sir. Their discs cost more because, frankly, they are a smaller company and getting the rights to these films and producing supplements for titles that have a smaller appeal is costly. Most people who understand the work (and cost) that is involved in one of their releases can appreciate the premium price tag.---To the original poster, now that we are in the hi-def era, you should feel confident in any upcoming Criterion release on blu-ray.

Well said!

[fettastic]

Originally Posted by benricci

Dude, you are flat out wrong. Why do you keep insisting that you are right?

"The original camera negative of "Spartacus," the actual film shot by Mr. Kubrick from which duplicates were made, was in such bad condition that it was unusable. Instead, technicians on the project used the black-and-white color separation negatives that were often made as backup. The separation negatives were made by exposing black and white film through different filters -- blue, green and red -- to record all of the color information in the movie on non-fading black and white stock."

This is COLOR SEPARATION! Robert A Harris worked on the project and posts on message boards often. Perhaps someone can PM him on another board, and we can get him in here to shut you up?

All you have proven is that Universal did a restoration in which they used the color seps. That is not the same thing as the interpositive Criterion used for its restoration.

One of us has listened to the commentary and heard the restoration team talk about how the Criterion transfer was created. One of us has not. End of story.

Wikipedia has a detailed description of what an interpositive is. CLEARLY it has nothing to do with color seps.

I await your apology.

[benricci]

I am done arguing. You are wrong, and that's the end of it. The film was not colorized, you're an idiot.

Criterion's booklet clearly states Robert Harris, who DID the damn Universal restoration, supervised the transfer:

"This version of Spartacus is presented in its original theatrical Super Technirama aspect ratio of 2.2:1. In consultation with restoration expert Robert A. Harris, this new 16x9-enhanced digital transfer was created from a 65mm intermediate positive."

Again, I'm done with you, you're not gonna get it. If you want to think they "colorized" the film, then by all means keep thinking that. You'll just look like a fool, that's all...