Midnight Cowboy (1969)

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by captainjoe

Looks beautiful as I expected. And before anyone starts to cry teal, remember that florescent lighting gives off a green colour temperature.

Old:
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...737&position=6
New:
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...410&position=7

Except the standard at the time was to photochemicallly time out the green so the image would have a more neutral appearance. Of course, I can think of a few exceptions but I've seen some Blu-rays that didn't time out the green when on the original prints they did.

Whether Midnight Cowboy did this or not, I don't know. Also fluorescent lighting doesn't account for the other screenshots which also have a green hue with no fluorescent lighting so it's clearly not a result of that, but rather the result of color timing or use of camera filters.

Originally Posted by Markgway

Judging by the DVD Beaver caps, the new master has been heavily tealed. The MGM maybe less sharp, but it's a much more natural looking transfer. And it's not just the interiors that are affected. Look at the skies (teal vs blue). If people like the new master, that's fine, but calling other people out for being critical of it isn't on.

Colors may be more lifelike on the MGM, but that doesn't make it more accurate. Virtually all of MGM's older masters look the same, with heavily stylized films being stripped of their unique appearance so that they'd look "natural", so it should be no surprise that the colors look more "natural" on the MGM, although from what I'm seeing, the Criterion looks more natural in the sense that it looks more like what you'd expect to see on film.

The MGM disc should not be held as some sort of reference given their history with older masters. I'm much more inclined to believe that their latest effort is much more accurate since their modern 4K remasters have been and it also has the involvement of the cinematographer.

This is just like when people criticized MGM's remastered Rain Man for not having more "natural" colors and for being "cropped" compared to the older disc. Turned out that the remaster looked like how it did originally on 35mm and the "cropping" was nothing of the sort, it was just that the older edition was badly misframed and showed much more information than intended which ruined the compositions.

[myway]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

People should learn the difference between licensing and restoring. Criterion had no part in the restoration for this. They merely licensed an existing restoration from MGM. I think the transfer looks fine.

That's all well and good but why would one opt for "fine" when the MGM disc is available?

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by myway

That's all well and good but why would one opt for "fine" when the MGM disc is available?

Probably because the MGM version is shit.
Looking forward to replacing it with this superior looking version.
On top of that, while some shots have more of a green lean a lot of others don't, also apparent on the shots up at DVD beaver.

[lilboyblu]

For any of you that are finger waving and crying, “Teal!”, did you actually read the DVDBeaver review? In addition to acknowledging the color difference, Mr. Tooze also highly praised the release. Here are a few choice quotes since you obviously missed them...

...the improved detail is such a dramatic improvement over the older 1080P transfer. I have never seen it looks this good.

...the restored visuals have so much more depth and crispness that it is easily the finest (of the dozen or more viewings I've had) of Midnight Cowboy. Wow, indeed.

The 4K Blu-ray presentation, uncompressed monaural audio score and extensive new extras make it the BD release of the year for me. Positively a 'must-own'.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Markgway

Judging by the DVD Beaver caps, the new master has been heavily tealed. The MGM maybe less sharp, but it's a much more natural looking transfer. And it's not just the interiors that are affected. Look at the skies (teal vs blue). If people like the new master, that's fine, but calling other people out for being critical of it isn't on.

MGM

[Show spoiler]

Criterion

Say what? So if someone says something critical and I don't agree with it, I'm not allowed to respond?

As for the caps you posted, the sky looks blue in both. It's just that the Criterion cap looks brighter. The movie's title in the same shot looks bright white, if the image was "tealed" I would expect that to have a bluish tint to it as well.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Say what? So if someone says something critical and I don't agree with it, I'm not allowed to respond?

As for the caps you posted, the sky looks blue in both. It's just that the Criterion cap looks brighter. The movie's title in the same shot looks bright white, if the image was "tealed" I would expect that to have a bluish tint to it as well.

Even though that cap is clearly tealed, the cap where the tealing is most obvious is this one:





If we could somehow combine the colors of the old blu ray and the detail of the new one, we would have one hell of a release. Oh yeah, and without Criterion's patented compression issues. I'm just glad that MGM didn't give The Silence of the Lambs the same teal treatment.

[CoronetBlue]

Anyone else see Midnight Cowboy when it was first released? I did. And I was so moved by it, I went back to the theatre more times than I can count. I can say with a high degree of certainty it did not look like what I’m seeing in the Criterion screen caps and the older Blu-ray is accurate color-wise.

[The Great Owl]

I just pre-ordered the Criterion Blu-ray. The screenshots look great to my eyes.

[Stanis]

I love Criterion as much as the next guy, but being awed by the new amount of detail but ignoring the obvious revisionist coloring really shouldn't go hand in hand. If you don't mind it, fine, but half of this forum is prickly about such things and it shouldn't come as a surprise when people point it out. In fact I depend on this forum's member to point it out, and also point out the better encodes/grains and transfers!

[Stationary Explorer]

This is my favorite film (obviously). I will withhold judgement until I'm watching it on my TV by I must admit it does look a bit off to me in these caps. Why is the ocean green? Hoping for the best, though. Fingers crossed. Eyes too. Hell, maybe I won't notice the green that way. Heh.

[chas speed]

Originally Posted by Stationary Explorer

This is my favorite film (obviously). I will withhold judgement until I'm watching it on my TV by I must admit it does look a bit off to me in these caps. Why is the ocean green? Hoping for the best, though. Fingers crossed. Eyes too. Hell, maybe I won't notice the green that way. Heh.

Did you ever read the book? The first 1/3rd of the book couldn't be filmed because of budget and time reasons, but it is a great adaption.

[tama]

Originally Posted by CoronetBlue

Anyone else see Midnight Cowboy when it was first released? I did. And I was so moved by it, I went back to the theatre more times than I can count. I can say with a high degree of certainty it did not look like what I’m seeing in the Criterion screen caps and the older Blu-ray is accurate color-wise.

I've seen a ton of films in theaters multiple times when first released over the last 20 years. I can't for the life of me remember the color timing of films from the 80's, 90's, etc. There is a specific reason why companies like WAC will go back to answer prints and vaulted material to help them with color timing. They don't go based off memory.

Where were most of these individuals complaining about the color timing when Pro-B posted his review with caps? Only when DaBeaver posted comparison shots did people start to complain. Differences will stand out much more when compared that way.

[Smegma]

Damn.
Both this and Virgin Suicides look as though something has been done to color... and I was really looking forward to both releases too...

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by Smegma

Damn.
Both this and Virgin Suicides look as though something has been done to color... and I was really looking forward to both releases too...

Don't bring up Virgin Suicides, regardless if its treatment has been revisionist it gets a free pass on the matter unlike other titles.

[Jacques Souvenir]

Originally Posted by tama

I've seen a ton of films in theaters multiple times when first released over the last 20 years. I can't for the life of me remember the color timing of films from the 80's, 90's, etc. There is a specific reason why companies like WAC will go back to answer prints and vaulted material to help them with color timing. They don't go based off memory.

Where were most of these individuals complaining about the color timing when Pro-B posted his review with caps? Only when DaBeaver posted comparison shots did people start to complain. Differences will stand out much more when compared that way.

^^^This! I always get a kick out of people saying they can remember the color timing of a movie from years ago. I honestly can't remember what a movie looks like that I saw two months ago, so it's funny when people say they can remember a movie from almost 50 YEARS AGO! Yeah right...

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Say what? So if someone says something critical and I don't agree with it, I'm not allowed to respond?

No, of course not. It just felt like one poster was being ganged up on because he dared to disagree.

I disagree with you about the colour of the skies in those caps, but that's OK, right?

In all other respects I think the Criterion looks better. But unless someone can say for sure that the film was meant to look teal, I'm going to assume something is awry.

It happens too many times that older films are remastered to a modern grading standard and wind up looking suspiciously different to the way they had before.

Teal and orange are pervasive today -- was that the case in the 60s and 70s?

I watched the remake of The Magnificent Seven yesterday and the image was so manipulated toward orange and teal it was ugly IMHO.

[AnthonyGG]

Hmmm. This is a tricky one. I absolutely adore this film too, which makes it worse. It most certainly looks clearer and more defined in the Criterion shots but looks much more natural in the MGM ones. I hate this "new color grading" model. I'm leaning toward sticking with my MGM blu at this point.

Twilight Time's release of 1968's Pretty Poison looks a hell of a lot better than the import on DVDBeaver but it IS slightly teal and orange tinted. I stuck with TT on that one. The Tree of Wooden Clogs looks much more natural in the Arrow Academy shots but I had already purchased the "Ritrovata'ed" (Beaver's word) Criterion version.

At a certain point, I just determine how often I think I'll watch a certain film and decide from there whether or not it's worth the repurchase. Still annoying though so I feel the irritation many on here are expressing.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Markgway

No, of course not. It just felt like one poster was being ganged up on because he dared to disagree.

I disagree with you about the colour of the skies in those caps, but that's OK, right?

Okay, I'll grant you that some people were rather harsh in their responses to him, but I don't think that I was.

Originally Posted by Markgway

In all other respects I think the Criterion looks better. But unless someone can say for sure that the film was meant to look teal, I'm going to assume something is awry.

It happens too many times that older films are remastered to a modern grading standard and wind up looking suspiciously different to the way they had before.

Teal and orange are pervasive today -- was that the case in the 60s and 70s?

I can't say with any authority what films looked like in the 60s and 70s because I wasn't around, so all I can go by are VHS tapes and old DVDs that I've seen. And using those as a benchmark as to how films should look really isn't a reliable method. I'm much more inclined to believe that these newer 4K remasters are far more accurate than any of those are.

That being said, I know there are releases out there that have been given weird colour gradings (the infamous yellow version of The Good, The Bad and the Ugly being one) but I just don't see that here.

In looking at the blu-ray.com caps, which I consider to be more reliable than DVD Beaver, there is nothing that looks teal to me. Look at this cap for example:



There are various shades of white in that picture that look like they should. If there was a teal wash on this transfer, I would expect her coat and the walls to have a bluish tint to them but I'm not seeing that at all.

[malakaheso]

For all of you guys saying this is how the film is meant to look, I agree wholeheatedly. This guy agrees too:

[UseY0ur1llusi0n]

Ugh, they seriously need to just have MacKenzie start doing all their authoring.