Criterion Goes Blu!!! - Page 17

Coincidentally she goes to the same University as Thunderbolt.

let me rephrase it, almost any chinese person I've ever seen, be it in real life or movies/documentaries located in china (not pseudo locations and actors), those people (excluding makeup) all had slightly a darker skin as in the criterion version (no negative connotation intended, just as observation). my guess is just that by trying to regain that greenish look they accepted this side effect.

If only movie making had any thing to do with making things look like real life you might really be onto some thing there.

then all discussion with the direction like "looks more natural to me" from people here or in reviews are obsolete as well.

Highlights on the R3 look blown out in comparisons 2, 7, & 10. Criterion is probably more accurate.


With the amount of grain in those images, they are definitely pulling out as much detail as possible.

I'm sure you are right. The problem is that the underlying detail is SD at best, so all you would gain from buying the Blu-ray version is additional grain with any additional detail. This is sort of similar to HD DVD fiascos such as Spartacus, Lost in Translation, and Big Lebowski. I felt all those titles had plenty of grain, but no HD sharpness or detail.

Not really. There's a difference between naturally soft from film stock decisions/quality and lack of detail from a poor transfer IMO. Spartacus was an upconvert so it's not gonna have much detail. Big Lebowski looked upconvertish with EE/ringing. Lost in Translation might look accurate.

Even with soft transfers HD adds a lot of clarity (not detail) to the image IMO. It looks like your looking at the original film, not a slightly blurred version. Also with DVD, grain looks lumpy and unrefined.

Agreed, actual detail is not the be-all end-all of Blu-ray; perfect reproduction of the source is. A fresh HD transfer of a soft film will still usually look different from a poorly transferred or upscaled one. And obviously there are other benefits to Blu-ray, like compression, and that even if you can prove there is nothing there that wouldn't be reproducible at 720x480, the same thing can often be done with the DVD as well.

Of course Criterion has rendered the entire issue moot since they're pricing their BDs and DVDs the same.

Where is the best deal for the last emperor?

Not sure right now, but Amazon's price dropped down to $23.95 at one time. I've had my copy of "The Last Emperor" pre-ordered from Amazon since it became available and with their lowest price guarantee that's the price I'll be paying... unless it drops any lower between now and the release date.

Also, it's been stated before that Best Buy is supposed to be having some sort of Criterion blu-ray sale in January, so that could be the best bet since it comes out on January 6th.

CC

The review for "Bottle Rocket" is finally up over at blu-ray.com!

CC

sold again

I do have it on pre order for that price.
thnx

Look what I picked up today. I had to wait for them to unpack the cds from the box.

Very nice, flipside. How is the packaging on your copy? I've heard of people receiving their copies, but the cardboard was slightly crushed. From your picture, though, it looks as if you've obtained a pristine copy.

CC

yeh the cardboard was slanted a little bit inside the plastic, but just bended it the other way and its fine.

The same with mine. The slanting is a non-issue. I will say, though, as someone who love different packaging, cardboard, Digibooks, etc. that I wish these were a bit sturdier. I bought Chungking Express in a store, and could examine it before I bought it, but I wonder how many copies put into the mail are going to get dinged, etc.

Asking over $20 for a catalog tittle with the packaging is a joke. I will definately not buy one of their releases on Ebay.

Dude, for a stunning 1080p transfer of The Third Man or Chungking Express, I'd buy it if it was sold in a cupcake wrapper with a wad of chewed bubblegum stuck to it!

Then how do Warner Bros, Universal and Paramount get away with it?

Those 3 are studios, for the most part they don't pay anyone for the rights to distribute movies(unless one studio handles an international release for the other).

Criterion isn't a studio(I don't think). They pay for the rights to sell movies from different studios. That's why they can release movies like The Rock(Buena Vista) and 2001(Warner) and Spinal Tap(Fox).

They aren't Criterion's films so I guess region coding works as some form of accountability.

BTW - Who else wants a Criterion documentary? I have no idea how the company actually works so it would be kind of cool to find out.

And - cardboard packaging sucks(Warner's book things look more thought out).

There are plenty of films that those 3 studios release in the US, to which they do not own the rights in the rest of the world, yet they still do not use Region Coding.

Can you post a picture of it next to a normal Blu-Ray case?

Those big studios basically run the industry, so they can get away with a lot more. And, in at least some cases where multiple studios are releasing the same title in different parts of the world, each studio has contributed to the cost of the production of the film.

But Criterion does not produce any movies, and they have no involvement in the industry outside of the movies they license for distribution and the work that goes into those releases. If they license a film from, for example, WB, they have to follow whatever procedures are mandated. If they didn't, studios wouldn't license films to them any longer and they'd be screwed. Whereas if WB wants to release a film without region coding, what could really happen? Not a whole lot.

see pg 15
post 445

I was able to pick up "Chungking Express" last night from Newbury Comics in Warwick, RI with a "$5 off over $25" e-mail coupon that they sent out. My total after tax came to $26.74.

At the Warwick location, though, only "Chungking Express" and "Bottle Rocket" were $29.99. Both "The Man Who Fell To Earth" and "The Third Man" were priced at $34.99 and weren't on display up front.

Also, my "Chungking Express" has a small crack in the lower right-hand corner of the inner plastic case. Oh, well.

And honestly, it could be a bit sturdier cardboard, if that's the route Criterion's going to use for these blu-rays. Based on the packaging alone at the store, I would've picked either "The Man Who Fell To Earth" or "The Third Man" but they didn't have the lower price tag.

The first thing that you notice when looking from the top viewpoint is how the disc packaging has a slant to either the right or left. Due to the shrink-wrapping on the discs, the pressure pulls the cardboard one way or the other. Sturdier cardboard would prevent this, I think. Obviously, though, it's easily corrected once unwrapped.

All I can say is that it could be a lot worse.

CC

Oh, for Chungking Express in HD and four all-the-way...

Well, I'll definitely be hitting my local Newbury Comics this weekend, $5 coupon in-hand (actually, also with wife in-tow with another $5 coupon in her hand!).

Does anyone know if the Newbury Street Newbury Comics has stocked these yet? (Or Harvard Square? Definitely worth a train ride across the river!)

On Tuesday morning, the Newbury St. location had all 4 titles (Third Man, Man Who Fell To Earth, Bottle Rocket, and Chungking Express) in the New Releases display. I went in again yesterday and only saw Bottle Rocket and Chungking, though more of the others could be in the dedicated Blu-ray section.

The sleeper has awakened! Unlike most reviewers and critics. Yes Thunderbolt, 9 times out of 10 films are so colour-graded that any detached comment on 'accurate skin tones' or 'reduced tonal range' or even 'very cg-looking' and definitely 'too soft' or 'too grainy', 'too green' etc are completely redundant. They're also literal and technically-minded criticism on choices made for aesthetic and emotional-logic reasons. Apples and oranges.

The only way these have ANY meaning is if the comparison is made with the original theatrical presentation - and where picture sharpness/softness is involved then with a great print at a reputable theatre or say an answer print rather than the usual deplorable on-one-reel out-of-focus-fest at the multiplex. Or input by the original creative team.

The thing is everybody expects that technically films will look sharper and more grain-free and more 'natural' than ever in these hi-tech days. When actually the reverse is sort of true - digital technology has freed creative people up to be MUCH more daring with colour palettes than ever was possible with simple optical lab techniques. Directors are putting a past side-effect of film - grain - to creative use and utilise grain now for a patina and texture that has an emotional point and furthers the narrative and tone. Sure film is getting less 'realistic' but many (even on this forum) don't actually notice how visually stylised the thing is because the TONE of the scene is working on them. Less realistic, but more effective. How many noticed the extreme cross-processed look rife in the nineties and still in use in a more green-tinged fluoro-lit way by genre directors and especially Michael Bay today? Not many of you. Transformers sure as hell doesn't have a single shot where the skin-tones haven't been beefed up like an early 80s sunbaked Penthouse photo. And ironically the reason the effects look so great in that film isn't actually technically-based at all but to do with lighting and colour characteristics!

And 'reality' seems to be pretty subjective. Effects shots are often done 'flat' and THEN graded to match (with a digital process too) so it's getting a bit fuzzy when people criticise 'unrealistic skin tones' when the live actors' faces are completely colour-graded to a purplish-blue. The funny thing to me is that 9 times out of 10 when people criticise an effect for 'not looking real' they're actually talking about movement. And when I try to teach people to draw the biggest hurdle is getting through to them in making them draw what they actually see instead of what they think they see. Which is sort of the opposite but related to a lot of what I read here on the forums. People will make redundant arguments that go on for pages when if they thought about the original intent they'd arrive at a defensible conclusion so much quicker. This is one area where having a technical forum can fall short - don't get me wrong though, I'm so happy I discovered AVS!

One of the few times reviewers have noticed that directors have done this on purpose was with 300. Because they were being bashed in the face with the stylisation. But that was done in service to the look and feel of the comic's palette. Ironically they shot it on film and added the grain in after because that was the best technical solution to all the slo-mo needed. But they never would have got that literal grittiness and colour without grading it digitally.

The sharpness thing is also hilarious to me, as anyone with the slightest bit of film knowledge would know there's been intentional softness and 'uneven sharpness exhibited throughout the film' for oh, about a hundred years now. Every single time there's a shot of a woman, in fact. Vaseline, soft focus, a stocking over the lens, more front-based lighting, and on and on. I'm not just talking b&w and noir, either. Bay may not do that per se, but the amount of bounce light he throws into the actress' eyes and multiple shadows to play up eyelashes and so on is ostensibly the same thing.

It's weird to come on here and see so many intelligent people saying things about 'disappointing' BDs like Chunking Express. And not a single critical person asking themselves WHY it looks that way. Is it a horror movie? A gritty drama? Or romantic, with maybe a hazy reverie feel? Could it possibly be that it was SHOT that way? On PURPOSE? I say weird because without knowing it these intelligent people are ostensibly wanting the same HD video-ESPN-broadcast looking picture as all the idiots in the Best-buy who bitch about film grain and get excited about 200hz rather than 24fps playback and never ask themselves if the latest film-based drama SHOULD look like that. And yes, there's the problem that especially with older movies we may not be able to find out the original intention. Hell, even if we have Gordon Willis who worked in such a way that an accurate restoration IS possible, there are STILL people that cry foul! The strange thing is that in all these cases everyeno is missing the big picture (literally and figuratively speaking) because they're looking at the BD or DVD or HDTV with a magnifying glass rather than stepping back and thinking "wait, we've forgotten that the picture or sound is translated from a DIFFERENT source, so maybe our laser-like gaze should focus on that so we know what the end product SHOULD look like"! Keep in mind this isn't ignoring absolutely quantifiable factors like macroblocking and fringing etc that definitely are to do with the final media/transfer. Which is one of the greatest services of these forums and the big reason I come here. So don't misunderstand, I love you guys for that! But the things I'm talking about here seem to get all mixed up with that, which is why I made the initial crack.

Just in case people may jump to the wrongheaded conclusion that I'm making excuses, I'll make it even clearer. The promise of HDTV and HD media such as Blu-ray is that now we can have the most ACCURATE version of the original presentation ever. Not sharper, cleaner, dirtier or softer. ACCURATE. And if C Express was originally meant to be that way (and by extension, even Wall-E with it's soft lenses & narrow D.O.F.), then that's the way it SHOULD be, whether we can measure it on our meters or not.

Cheers Thunderbolt, and cheers everyone. Hope you all took this in the good-natured way in which it was intended, if you made it this far.

P.S. My good humour doesn't extend to Neanderthals who write off all foreign cinema and anything in B&W or with a subtitle though. I'm not sure if that's jingoism about America's 'right' and 'ownership' of film (animation is even worse), or just plain moronic myopia...