Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) - Universal & Criterion releases

[Strevlac]

I don't expect every bluray to come from a 4K scan. At bluray resolution it doesn't matter anyway. I do however think that HD transfers that are more than 6-7 years old and made for broadcast and DVD, and have telecine noise and baked in video artifacts should be retired. I'm not paying Criterion prices for antiquated 2002 transfers. I'll just keep my DVD and maybe buy the Universal version if I can find it for $8 or less.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

The film looks it's age, to be sure, but the transfer looks faithful, and without video-based artifacts.

I'd say it looks the age of its transfer, since in terms of film technology it's practically a new movie, shot on the same sorts of film stocks as Minority Report, Gladiator, and the like...

The Universal release isn't horrendous or anything, just pretty mediocre.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

Gotcha...thanks for the tip.

Still, comparing to the screencaps for Taxi Driver - the best restoration I've seen on Blu-ray to date - is a bit "dirty pool." haha I honestly wasn't expecting anything like the full-on restoration Sony gave that film, and I don't think most people were.

Criterion is using what they were given and they might not even have the power to demand better from Universal but that doesn't change the fact that this is an old transfer. And a bad one, IMO.

Criterion's version of Bigger than Life is stunning, and that's hardly a title with much of a following outside of Nicholas Ray fans. The point is Fear and Loathing will sell a lot more copies, and Universal (and possibly Criterion) could and should have done better.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

I don't expect every bluray to come from a 4K scan. At bluray resolution it doesn't matter anyway. I do however think that HD transfers that are more than 6-7 years old and made for broadcast and DVD, and have telecine noise and baked in video artifacts should be retired. I'm not paying Criterion prices for antiquated 2002 transfers. I'll just keep my DVD and maybe buy the Universal version if I can find it for $8 or less.

I'd certainly rather pay $27.99 for the Criterion than buy the Universal Blu-ray...even for $8.00. Sure, the master may be the same age on both, but based on the screencaps, Universal's disc has clearly fallen victim to more severe manipulation.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

This seems to be the problem. Even Kagemusha, which is the most problematic of Criterion's releases, does not even come close to being bad. And it is not even a matter of opinion, because clearly considering the available materials Criterion did what they could.

Like I said earlier, good/bad is subjective but I have to comment on the "best available materials" comment. If you mean they did the best they could with a substandard video master they were given by Toho, then yeah I guess. But a modern scan would look much, much, much better than that mess. It would be grainy as all hell but it would at least look like a film.

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

We shall have to agree to disagree again. The improved detail and grain structure of the Pathe release are clearly negated by the problematic color-scheme.

I'm not an expert on color and have no idea what the proper color scheme is. So for all I know the Pathe release is incorrect. I'm one who loves film and the look of celluloid so I go for the one that looks like a plausible facsimile of that look. Of course I would prefer the color to be accurate but the Criterion release is riddled with telecine noise that drives me bonkers.

And I'm not conceding that the Pathe release is incorrect in regards to color. Are you certain the Criterion version has the more correct color balance?

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

This isn't even a matter of having a different opinion - it is much better. You should take a look at the MK2 release if you wish to argue that it isn't better than, say, Kagemusha.

OK, it's much better. But it's still riddled with video noise and doesn't look much like film. Especially if you are watching on screen sizes of 120"+.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

And I'm not conceding that the Pathe release is incorrect in regards to color. Are you certain the Criterion version has the more correct color balance?

There's an article about the recent Leopard restoration that says it was approved by the cinematographer, for whatever that's worth.
http://www.studiodaily.com/blog/?p=3524

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

Like I said earlier, good/bad is subjective but I have to comment on the "best available materials" comment. If you mean they did the best they could with a substandard video master they were given by Toho, then yeah I guess. But a modern scan would look much, much, much better than that mess. It would be grainy as all hell but it would at least look like a film.

No. This is not what I meant Because if Kagemusha and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas are bad, as you would want us to believe, then I could post links to more than a half dozen bad transfers for which you would not have enough colorful labels to use. Of course, this brings us right back to the notion I mentioned earlier, which you are now supporting with your post, which is that a "modern scan" would look better. I am not arguing that it won't. I am simply trying to explain to you that things are not always black and white, or excellent and bad, and that there is plenty of gray/good in between.

Originally Posted by Strevlac

I'm not an expert on color and have no idea what the proper color scheme is. So for all I know the Pathe release is incorrect. I'm one who loves film and the look of celluloid so I go for the one that looks like a plausible facsimile of that look. Of course I would prefer the color to be accurate but the Criterion release is riddled with telecine noise that drives me bonkers.

Here's my comment: To me, grain and detail are as important as color - which, ironically, is why I, for instance, prefer the Studio Canal release of Le Cercle Rouge over the Criterion release. I understand there are different opinions on how the film should look, but again, it appears that a lot of the people who are arguing the subject (color-grading) have not even seen the Studio Canal release. If they had, and, more importantly, if they had gone through the supplemental features on the disc, they would have learned from Professor Vincendeau, whom I consider an expert on Melville and his work, that the strong bluish tint is indeed "correct".

Some food for thought about the Pathe release of The Leopard.

Originally Posted by Strevlac

And I'm not conceding that the Pathe release is incorrect in regards to color. Are you certain the Criterion version has the more correct color balance?

How about I leave you to do some research and find out how Criterion feel about their release, and more importantly, why they feel that way.

Originally Posted by Strevlac

OK, it's much better. But it's still riddled with video noise and doesn't look much like film. Especially if you are watching on screen sizes of 120"+.

Ha, I have actually projected the film on a 100+ screen (slightly smaller than 120').

You know, it is great talking to you, but I have to leave you know. You have a wonderful week, Strevlac

Pro-B

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by 42041

There's an article about the recent Leopard restoration that says it was approved by the cinematographer, for whatever that's worth.
http://www.studiodaily.com/blog/?p=3524

Yeah, I've read that article and I've read Criterions statement. I still dunno who's right. I thought Pro-Basoonist (not sure what's up with him bolding my name) might have had some inside knowledge based on his statements but it looks like it's back to me to do some more research

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

1. Sony Colorworks - had access to a Technirama print. They scanned the print on a Northlight scanner at 6K, down-resed it to 4K and then restored The Leopard in 4K on a Baselight. Consequently, the Gucci-sponsored Film Foundation restoration shown at Cannes used the Criterion master as a color reference.

2. Criterion - Criterion's master, from which a transfer was struck, is made from the original negative, and the color correction is supervised by Giuseppe Rotunno.

Summation: Though Pathe have stated that their release is also approved by Giuseppe Rotunno, not one person has stepped up to clarify whether it was the high-definition transfer they used, or whether they are simply referring to the master which Mr. Scorsese liked and Mr. Rotunno approved. Big difference.

What we know for a fact is that the Cannes restoration used the Criterion master as a color reference (!!) (which was struck from the original negative). What we do not know for a fact is if the Pathe release faultlessly replicates the look of the Cannes restoration, as well as if the color-scheme of the transfer they used for their Blu-ray release was apporved by Mr. Rotunno.

At the end of the day, I go with the facts. And the facts are that only Criterion's master was struck from the original negative, and that it was used as a color reference. Everything else - and specifically that Pathe's transfer, not the restoration that was screened in Cannes, is approved by Mr. Rotunno - is pure speculation.

Pro-B

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

Yeah, I've read that article and I've read Criterions statement. I still dunno who's right. I thought Pro-Basoonist (not sure what's up with him bolding my name) might have had some inside knowledge based on his statements but it looks like it's back to me to do some more research

Not sure if you noticed, but Pro-Basoonist is Dr. Svet Atanasov who did the official review of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/revie...viewerid=10022

[42041]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

1. Sony Colorworks - had access to a Technirama print. They scanned the print on a Northlight scanner at 6K, down-resed it to 4K and then restored The Leopard in 4K on a Baselight. Consequently, the Gucci-sponsored Film Foundation restoration shown at Cannes used the Criterion master as a color reference.

2. Criterion - Criterion's master, from which a transfer was struck, is made from the original negative, and the color correction is supervised by Giuseppe Rotunno.

Summation: Though Pathe have stated that their release is also approved by Giuseppe Rotunno, not one person has stepped up to clarify whether it was the high-definition transfer they used, or whether they are simply referring to the master which Mr. Scorsese liked and Mr. Rotunno approved. Big difference.

What we know for a fact is that the Cannes restoration used the Criterion master as a color reference (which was struck from the original negative). What we do not know for a fact is if the Pathe release faultlessly replicates the look of the Cannes restoration, as well as if the color-scheme of the transfer they used for their Blu-ray release was apporved by Mr. Rotunno.

At the end of the day, I go with the facts. And the facts are that only Criterion's master was struck from the original negative, and that it was used as a color reference. Everything else - and specifically that Pathe's transfer, not the master that was used in Cannes - is pure speculation.

Pro-B

As per BD.com's resident Sony insider:
"Of course, that article is wrong. Writers often just think in terms of prints because they don't really know the various elements and so forth. It is a benign mistake. The original negative is what was scanned."
(link: https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...n-man-750.html)

Camera negatives aren't very instructive in the proper appearance of the film though, since only subsequent elements are color-timed. There was an article or post by Robert Harris, not sure where, about how in some older films that were mastered from the negative, a character would flip a light switch and nothing would happen, because the brightness was altered during printing from the OCN, and the technicians neglected that detail.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

1. Sony Colorworks - had access to a Technirama print. They scanned the print on a Northlight scanner at 6K, down-resed it to 4K and then restored The Leopard in 4K on a Baselight. Consequently, the Gucci-sponsored Film Foundation restoration shown at Cannes used the Criterion master as a color reference.

2. Criterion - Criterion's master, from which a transfer was struck, is made from the original negative, and the color correction is supervised by Giuseppe Rotunno.

Summation: Though Pathe have stated that their release is also approved by Giuseppe Rotunno, not one person has stepped up to clarify whether it was the high-definition transfer they used, or whether they are simply referring to the master which Mr. Scorsese liked and Mr. Rotunno approved. Big difference.

What we know for a fact is that the Cannes restoration used the Criterion master as a color reference (!!) (which was struck from the original negative). What we do not know for a fact is if the Pathe release faultlessly replicates the look of the Cannes restoration, as well as if the color-scheme of the transfer they used for their Blu-ray release was apporved by Mr. Rotunno.

At the end of the day, I go with the facts. And the facts are that only Criterion's master was struck from the original negative, and that it was used as a color reference. Everything else - and specifically that Pathe's transfer, not the restoration that was screened in Cannes, is approved by Mr. Rotunno - is pure speculation.

Pro-B

Fair enough re color. However the Pathe release still looks like film and the Criterion release still looks like video. They might have used the original negative but the video noise negates any benefit of the earlier generation element.

When Pathe said they used a print I have to wonder if they mean an actual release print for exhibition?

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by 42041

As per BD.com's resident Sony insider:
"Of course, that article is wrong. Writers often just think in terms of prints because they don't really know the various elements and so forth. It is a benign mistake. The original negative is what was scanned."
(link: https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...n-man-750.html).

This makes everything even easier then. If you have two masters, both struck from the original negative, and both approved by Mr. Rotunno, what needs to be determined is whether the transfer Pathe used accurately replicates the color-scheme of the newly restored master. But if the Cannes restoration used Criterion's master for reference, there isn't much debating to be had there.

It seems to me, somewhere in between Mr. Rotunno's approval/endorsement of the new master, and Pathe's transfer, which they used for their Blu-ray release, there is missing information. (There is a Thank you note on the French Blu-ray release for Mr. Rotunno; explicit approval of the transfer?).

Pro-B

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by frogmort

Not sure if you noticed, but Pro-Basoonist is Dr. Svet Atanasov who did the official review of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/revie...viewerid=10022

I did not notice that. I don't know what that has to do with the good doctor bolding my name though. Not that it's a big deal.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

I did not notice that. I don't know what that has to do with the good doctor bolding my name though. Not that it's a big deal.

It is a common practice when people greet or say goodbye on many forums.

Pro-B

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

This makes everything even easier then. If you have two masters, both struck from the original negative, and both approved by Mr. Rotunno, what needs to be determined is whether the transfer Pathe used accurately replicates the color-scheme of the newly restored master. But if the Cannes restoration used Criterion's master for reference, there isn't much debating to be had there.

It seems to me, somewhere in between Mr. Rotunno's approval/endorsement of the new master, and Pathe's transfer, which they used for their Blu-ray release, there is missing information. (There is a Thank you note on the French Blu-ray release for Mr. Rotunno; explicit approval of the transfer?).

Pro-B

Who knows. I take most claims regarding color with a grain of salt anyway. Disney said they spent weeks doing color reference for Fantasia when the bluray looks nothing like the color on IB techs. These kind of claims I look at with a suspect eye because all they had to do was look at one of those prints. They aren't that rare and it wouldn't have taken weeks.

[ImportFanatic]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

It was missing a ton of sound effects in the center channel. When Depp bangs his hand on the side of the phone booth, no sound. When he pees in the toilet, no sound. Types on the typewriter in two scenes, no sound. It was an incomplete 5.1 track, which is why it was never used in the theatrical presentations.

On the other hand, the 5.1 track on the current Universal blu-ray has none of these issues.

Hmmm I'm interested in knowing if the Criterion Blu-ray is "fixed" like the Universal Blu-ray's 5.1 track is.

[Sky_Captain]

I wonder, would they use Universal's 5.1 mix?

[Sopranogl]

Am I alone in thinking that the Universal disc looks IDENTICAL to the Criterion disc?

Check the screen captures on both reviews. They look the same to me -- don't get me wrong: I'm gonna buy the Criterion disc when it hits the streets in two weeks.

Do you agree?

[Sky_Captain]

I don't agree. As mentioned in the review, the Criterion lacks the mild sharpening of the Universal release. Not that the Universal release is bad.

The colors also vary slightly.

If you have tab browsing, just flick between these:

Criterion
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...911&position=6

Universal
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...355&position=1