Scanners (1981)

[DaveyJoe]

Yes, there are color differences between the BD and the Hulu version, but the biggest difference is in brightness levels. Do the Hulu colors really look closer to the Subkultur?

Criterion:


Hulu:


Subkultur:

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

It's very close to the differences between the Criterion disc and Subkultur disc:

http://www.screenshotcomparison.com/...n.php?id=83904
http://www.screenshotcomparison.com/...n.php?id=83905
http://www.screenshotcomparison.com/...n.php?id=83906

Yep, from what I can tell, the Subkultur disc has the most preferred color available. I was just looking at the UK (Second Sight) release, and I think that's probably the closest to the digital presentation in terms of color.

Second Sight BD on top, Hulu Plus on the bottom

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Yep, from what I can tell, the Subkultur disc has the most preferred color available. I was just looking at the UK (Second Sight) release, and I think that's probably the closest to the digital presentation in terms of color.

I agree.

[kuro_sawa]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

[Show spoiler]Yep, from what I can tell, the Subkultur disc has the most preferred color available. I was just looking at the UK (Second Sight) release, and I think that's probably the closest to the digital presentation in terms of color.

Second Sight BD on top, Hulu Plus on the bottom

So possibly they used that as a starting point? It looks identical to me Maybe decided on a different source for the BD transfer and used that one for their early digital release?

[Goremeister100]

Originally Posted by Oscar Rothman

Agreed Criterion transfer is only just shy of reference quality.

You're high

[mdonovan]

bump.

criterion is just different ... but not in a bad way :-)

[Bluebolt]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

So the online digital versions are closer to the Subkultur release in terms of color.

These new online versions look exactly like the Japanese release.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Bluebolt

These new online versions look exactly like the Japanese release.

So that's at least three BD that have roughly the same transfer. The UK, Australian, and Japanese discs. .

[Oscar Rothman]

Originally Posted by Goremeister100

You're high

You're a troll Criterion FTW!

[Mr Kite]

Luckily we have various Blu releases of this one so in this case I am going to stick with the directors fantastic approved version.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoe

Yes, there are color differences between the BD and the Hulu version, but the biggest difference is in brightness levels. Do the Hulu colors really look closer to the Subkultur?

Criterion:

[Show spoiler]

Hulu:

[Show spoiler]

Subkultur:

[Show spoiler]

So the Subkultur disc has no green in a scene where it's actually called for? Hmmmmmm....

Originally Posted by Oscar Rothman

You're a troll Criterion FTW!

Hey, don't knock Goremeister. He's the only one who understands that downscaling 4K to 1080p causes tons of compression artifacts, and that it's therefore better to stick with 2K scans.

[lolwut]

The Hulu version looks much better than the Criterion (brightness/color-wise). Obviously the Blu-ray has more detail and better compression, but man that is unnaturally dim. I don't care about clipped highlights if it looks like that - not even close to reality, where fire and lights are actually bright.

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by lolwut

The Hulu version looks much better than the Criterion (brightness/color-wise). Obviously the Blu-ray has more detail and better compression, but man that is unnaturally dim. I don't care about clipped highlights if it looks like that - not even close to reality, where fire and lights are actually bright.

The Director likes it, so do I.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by tele1962

The Director likes it, so do I.

I don't want to get into Criterion's release of Scanners again, I just want to reply that this is such a STUPID "argument" in general, that is only (ab)used by people when it fits their agenda. I mean I'll buy it and back away with my tail tucked in between my legs IF you don't flip flop between different movies and are ready to stick to your statement 100%:

Are you ready to say the exact same sentence about the first release of The French Connection?

Are you ready to say the exact same sentence about Star Wars?

Are you ready to say that about any movie that has undergone any change/s over the years, as long as it is currently approved by the director?

Go ahead... Someone write me an essay about how these are oh so totally different situations.

When in fact they are all under the "director approved" umbrella.

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

I don't want to get into Criterion's release of Scanners again, I just want to reply that this is such a STUPID "argument" in general, that is only (ab)used by people when it fits their agenda. I mean I'll buy it and back away with my tail tucked in between my legs IF you don't flip flop between different movies and are ready to stick to your statement 100%:

Are you ready to say the exact same sentence about the first release of The French Connection?

Are you ready to say the exact same sentence about Star Wars?

Are you ready to say that about any movie that has undergone any change/s over the years, as long as it is currently approved by the director?

Go ahead... Someone write me an essay about how these are oh so totally different situations.

When in fact they are all under the "director approved" umbrella.

Nobody flip flopping here, the films you mentioned were indeed taken to the limits by the director, one turned blue the others well to many revisions to mention, but here is the difference, the look of the Director approved Scanners is I think in keeping with the film and is not a travesty to watch in fact it looks bloody good.
So comparing this with the likes of Star Wars is a bit of a none runner I am afraid as this is a different director and a different film.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by tele1962

Nobody flip flopping here, the films you mentioned were indeed taken to the limits by the director, one turned blue the others well to many revisions to mention, but here is the difference, the look of the Director approved Scanners is I think in keeping with the film and is not a travesty to watch in fact it looks bloody good.
So comparing this with the likes of Star Wars is a bit of a none runner I am afraid as this is a different director and a different film.

Okay.

Flip flopping it is then.

[Bad Sandwich]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

I don't want to get into Criterion's release of Scanners again, I just want to reply that this is such a STUPID "argument" in general, that is only (ab)used by people when it fits their agenda. I mean I'll buy it and back away with my tail tucked in between my legs IF you don't flip flop between different movies and are ready to stick to your statement 100%:

Are you ready to say the exact same sentence about the first release of The French Connection?

Are you ready to say the exact same sentence about Star Wars?

Are you ready to say that about any movie that has undergone any change/s over the years, as long as it is currently approved by the director?

Go ahead... Someone write me an essay about how these are oh so totally different situations.

When in fact they are all under the "director approved" umbrella.

This. Many/most who assert the reductive "whatever the director likes" maxim seem to mean it with the implicit conditional "...so long as the changes don't violate my arbitrary conception of acceptable". Thus you wind up with Star Wars tinkering - yuck/Who turned out the lights in Scanners - A-Ok!, which is fine, but just acknowledge it isn't as cut and dry as "Director likey" and personal preference does usually enter the equation.

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Okay.

Flip flopping it is then.

The look of the film is not detrimental to the source and I am probably right in thinking no one can remember the theatrical release of Scanners........easy really.

[Mansinthe]

watched the movie on a calibrated projector (108 inch screen) and was really happy with the release. it does look pretty good. but it does look different from other cronenberg criterion releases.. but i actually liked the look of it!

and the whole "green" issue isnt half as bad as people make it sound after judging some screenshots on their mostly non calibrated TN panels....


by the way if you got a halfway decent TV setup its easy to "correct" the colors the way you like it.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

I don't want to get into Criterion's release of Scanners again, I just want to reply that this is such a STUPID "argument" in general, that is only (ab)used by people when it fits their agenda. I mean I'll buy it and back away with my tail tucked in between my legs IF you don't flip flop between different movies and are ready to stick to your statement 100%:

Are you ready to say the exact same sentence about the first release of The French Connection?

Are you ready to say the exact same sentence about Star Wars?

Are you ready to say that about any movie that has undergone any change/s over the years, as long as it is currently approved by the director?

Go ahead... Someone write me an essay about how these are oh so totally different situations.

When in fact they are all under the "director approved" umbrella.

He didn't say he likes it because the director likes it. Only that, in this case, he agrees with the director that it looks good. To NOT share a different director's sentiment regarding a completely different release is not hypocrisy...it's just a matter of taste.