Dressed to Kill (1980)

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by albey000

Only get the Criterion for the extras - as the image quality is the worst of the three ( MGM / Arrow / Criterion )
Black levels are poor / color timing is way off compared to the other two and the image is too bright ( Have a look at DVDBEAVER - It compares all three )

Theres zero things wrong with the colours or black levels.
Screencaps here look totally fine and accurate to DePalmas style at the time.

[albey000]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

35mm is supposedly "roughly 4k" while 75mm is "roughly 8k," according to many conversations on these topics I have been witness to. I have no idea how technically accurate that is, but I know 2k digital films look a lot worse than 35mm films do.

35mm film can capture greater detail than a native 4k digital camera can. In order to capture all grain on the negative you would need around 6k scan.
Even 16mm film needs about 3k scan.
Have a look at The Evil Dead Blu-ray from Anchor Bay, which was shot in 16mm. The difference in fine detail and resolution is huge compared to the DVD, and shows just how good 16mm is. The 2k scan would be close to capturing all the detail on the negative, but i think there is a little more resolution to extract from it.

[42041]

Originally Posted by albey000

35mm film can capture greater detail than a native 4k digital camera can. In order to capture all grain on the negative you would need around 6k scan.

It really depends on the sensor design. A digital camera that outputs an oversampled 4K image will be, for all practical purposes, better than 35mm. With 6K, grain is exactly what you're capturing - especially if you're talking about 80s movies.

[sidetracked1]

Originally Posted by albey000

Only get the Criterion for the extras - as the image quality is the worst of the three ( MGM / Arrow / Criterion )
Black levels are poor / color timing is way off compared to the other two and the image is too bright ( Have a look at DVDBEAVER - It compares all three )

Just to qualify your comment - DVD Beaver is currently comparing and showing screencaps from the FIRST, screwed up Criterion pressing, not this brand new 2nd pressing (I'm sure they will update soon).

The screencaps from the new BR.com review of the new Criterion pressing look very close indeed to the original theatrical look.

Keep in mind the film always had a hazy look, and never had super rich black levels, even in the theater. People may not like that look, but it is accurate to DePalma's original 35mm film.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by albey000

Only get the Criterion for the extras - as the image quality is the worst of the three ( MGM / Arrow / Criterion )
Black levels are poor / color timing is way off compared to the other two and the image is too bright ( Have a look at DVDBEAVER - It compares all three )

If the color timing and brightness are off, you should tell the director, since he personally worked on the transfer himself.

People REALLY need to stop comparing discs to old, outdated masters used for DVDs and VHS as being "correct." It's 2015 and 8 years into the format, you'd think people would've learned by now.

[mredman]

Got the Arrow release it looks excellent and features the unrared cut too with all the Extras found here except the new interviews. I do not see an upgrade here for me.

[sjconstable]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

If the color timing and brightness are off, you should tell the director, since he personally worked on the transfer himself.

People REALLY need to stop comparing discs to old, outdated masters used for DVDs and VHS as being "correct." It's 2015 and 8 years into the format, you'd think people would've learned by now.

There are countless DVDs which provide more faithful presentations than the Blu-rays. What people REALLY need to do is stop assuming that if it's on Blu-ray, it's correct.

[nitin]

De Palma hardly has a track record for revisionism though.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by sjconstable

There are countless DVDs which provide more faithful presentations than the Blu-rays. What people REALLY need to do is stop assuming that if it's on Blu-ray, it's correct.

Both assumptions are wrong. His point though is a ton of people see a BD with differences from the DVD and assume "they changed the colors!" when in fact a lot of the time DVD "changed the colors" and now they're being changed back to the intended look.

Given De Palma supervised the transfer, and that it now looks like Blow Out and his other movies made at that time, I would say this is how Dressed to Kill is supposed to look. There's no real evidence to say otherwise.

[MifuneFan]

So the extent of Criterion's "mastering error" was not even putting De Palma's supervised transfer on the disc? I could understand the stretching being overlooked, but the differences between the first and second printing are large enough that someone should have noticed before a single disc was pressed.

[DaveyJoe]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Both assumptions are wrong. His point though is a ton of people see a BD with differences from the DVD and assume "they changed the colors!" when in fact a lot of the time DVD "changed the colors" and now they're being changed back to the intended look.

Given De Palma supervised the transfer, and that it now looks like Blow Out and his other movies made at that time, I would say this is how Dressed to Kill is supposed to look. There's no real evidence to say otherwise.

Surely some folks who saw the movie 30 years ago in the theater remember exactly how the colors looked, and won't at all be influenced by all of the times they watched the DVD more recently.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

So the extent of Criterion's "mastering error" was not even putting De Palma's supervised transfer on the disc? I could understand the stretching being overlooked, but the differences between the first and second printing are large enough that someone should have noticed before a single disc was pressed.

What do you mean? The colour, contrast etc look identical in the screenshots that are on here.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What do you mean? The colour, contrast etc look identical in the screenshots that are on here.

Oh I see my mistake now. I saw the post from Pro-B comparing the "old transfer" to the new one, and I thought he meant the first pressing vs second

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Actually, there is more visible detail, density is much better, and color balance is superior. It is very easy to see. And there is no such "green hue". Screencaptures #14, 18, and 19 very clearly demonstrate the wide range of color tonalities. The cold lighting is either in the subway or in the police station.

Old transfer
Blown out whites. See the lights.



New transfer



And so on.

Pro-B

[Geoff D]

[sidetracked1]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoe

Surely some folks who saw the movie 30 years ago in the theater remember exactly how the colors looked, and won't at all be influenced by all of the times they watched the DVD more recently.

A fair point. BUT remember, some of us may have seen it theatrically much more recently. There are revival houses, museum screenings, etc. I saw a screening off a really nice 35mm print not all that long ago.

[Foggy]

I'm happy Criteron revisited this one so it was up to their standards. This film is a helluva lot of fun.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by sjconstable

There are countless DVDs which provide more faithful presentations than the Blu-rays. What people REALLY need to do is stop assuming that if it's on Blu-ray, it's correct.

Assuming by "faithful" you mean the theater you saw it in was projecting the absolute correct lux on their arc lamps (which most weren't to save lamp life) and the framing was absolutely dead on (which it hardly ever was). So no one really knows what faithful means except the people who made the film. Are some movies changed? Sure. In fact, MOST movies are changed when they hit DVD (oversaturated colors to account for the sub-standard limitations of the format, sharpening, etc) and blu-ray. It's a different format that delivers the image in a different way than a film projector, and is a digital presentation, not chemical.

Originally Posted by sidetracked1

A fair point. BUT remember, some of us may have seen it theatrically much more recently. There are revival houses, museum screenings, etc. I saw a screening off a really nice 35mm print not all that long ago.

Problem with this is, what source was the print mastered from? A remaster? The original neg? A correct answer print? In some cases they will announce the source, but in many cases revival houses do not.

Remember, there's a difference in something being "different" from a previous DVD and being incorrect.

[GxyExpress999]

I did A/B comparison between Arrow and Criterion (first pressing but unsqueezed ) and, to me there is no comparison. I prefer Criterion hands down - beautifully distributed grain, better contrast, and Arrow version's red push is noticeable especially during the museum scene (wall/Dickinson's coat etc.).

[Trax-3]

Originally Posted by sidetracked1

A fair point. BUT remember, some of us may have seen it theatrically much more recently. There are revival houses, museum screenings, etc. I saw a screening off a really nice 35mm print not all that long ago.

Unless it was a print made for the original run (and it can't be as this film is before low fade print stocks and would not look "very nice" anymore) it's not much more authorative than a DVD. It just tells you what some colour timer possibly decades later thought looked good enough to put in circulation.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Trax-3

Unless it was a print made for the original run (and it can't be as this film is before low fade print stocks and would not look "very nice" anymore) it's not much more authorative than a DVD. It just tells you what some colour timer possibly decades later thought looked good enough to put in circulation.

Newer prints would likely be made from a color-timed IP, which is designed to be a better archival element and shouldn't fade readily in proper storage. Of course it's possible the studio made newer IPs or struck the print from the negative, and did god knows what to the color timing in the process, and print stocks change too, but I'd still take my chances on the limitations analog printing imposes over a random video transfer, where there's little stopping anyone from tweaking whatever parameters they please.