or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › #422 The Last Emperor Criterion Collection comparison *PIX*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

#422 The Last Emperor Criterion Collection comparison *PIX* - Page 2

post #31 of 187
It doesn't really apply to their DVDs either.
post #32 of 187
I saw this in 70mm six-track Dolby stereo A type around the mid 1990’s at special 70mm event month where lots of 70mm films where shown at the ABC screen 1 Westover road Bournemouth.

I see to remember having the SPL db meter and the level never really went over 100dbc it was dialogue at most film, not really an effects blast you out of your seat with Baby Boom.
post #33 of 187
The images are all dreadful they don't reflect what I saw in 70mm, now then!
post #34 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Average View Post

Storaro has said, point-blank, that 2.35:1 "could never work in television", HD or otherwise (he was speaking of Apocalypse Now,...

Reading this I wonder where he gets his technical information from. He obviously has no computer background the way he throws the bit depths and pixels around:
Quote:


In one, you've got at least 32-bits; the other one, normally you record at 10-bits.

Well, it's news to me you get 32 bits per channel with film. And if you count all 3 channels you get 30 with HD too. 36-48 with new digital cameras (nominally, part of it is just noise).
Then he assumes 35mm is real 6K which is very questionable to begin with.
His obsession with 2:1 is interesting but asking for this to replace 16:9 is unrealistic. So is origination everywhere in 25 fps. The beauty of digital is that you can get rid of these rigid standards. You can have a multi frame rate multi resolution system that does justice to all we got from the past and opens up new possibilities for the future. Forcing everything to be 2:1 and 25 fps is not progress, it's a 'straight-jacket'.
The right side halos in "Last Emperor" BD are disappointing. At least the DVD ringing is gone, though.
post #35 of 187
My power amp. monitor showed the center was the only speaker that working(POA A1HD) in PL2X.
post #36 of 187
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlsmith View Post

If you have one of the laserdiscs, it might be interesting to see the difference in the aspect ratio.

I have been comparing my Japanese LD (aspect ratio 2.35) to the Blu-ray (2.00). In many scenes, useful information has been cropped off of the sides on the Blu-ray.

Even if I still have the LD I have no plans on capturing the A/V file on that. Too much work. But I could take screenshots or someone using digital camera and pointing it at the PJ. It may not be accurate but it should be enough to show what we are missing from the sides.

Laserdiscs. Good times
post #37 of 187
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Average View Post

The French DVD from Gaumont/Columbia is also 2.35:1.

Out of print?
post #38 of 187
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmishFury View Post

ok i'm getting glare on my monitor but i could swear i saw ringing in those shots... please tell me i'm either seeing things or it can be explained as something other than EE

Its EE. That scene is where it becomes prominent. It comes and goes the rest of the movie.
post #39 of 187
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

While it may be true with their DVDs, I would say that Criterion's reputation for "the best presentation possible" doesn't apply to their BD releases (if TLE is used as an example).

For this release I agree. Not the best presentation available. The AR is the main culprit. I don't like it.
post #40 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

Out of print?

The Gaumont version is, yes. A movie-only budget edition was released about a year later (by a different distributor) and is still in print; unfortunately I can't find any confirmation on the AR.
post #41 of 187
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBLsound4645 View Post

I saw this in 70mm six-track Dolby stereo A type around the mid 1990's at special 70mm event month where lots of 70mm films where shown at the ABC screen 1 Westover road Bournemouth.

I see to remember having the SPL db meter and the level never really went over 100dbc it was dialogue at most film, not really an effects blast you out of your seat with Baby Boom.

You heard this on a six-track Dolby STEREO?

All we got on this disc is TWO-TRACK stereo.

I want to see the manager!
post #42 of 187
I saw TLE in 70mm at the Northpoint Theatre in SFO on 3 viewings in 1988. It was advertised as "6 track magnetic", although the actual configuration for such films was generally 4 tracks with subwoofers on channels 2 and 4.

A far cry from Criterion's offering let me tell you.

By comparison, Sony's Close Encounters and Warners' Blade Runner really do justice to films originally shown in 70mm (but filmed in 35mm). Not to mention Warners' reworking of the Cinerama film How the West Was Won, which sets a new standard for handling a wide-screen classic on Blu-ray.

I am waiting to cool off before composing a letter to Criterion. It will be sent FEDEX and I may even write it by hand in order to demonstrate my sincerity.
post #43 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlsmith View Post

By comparison, Sony's Close Encounters and Warners' Blade Runner really do justice to films originally shown in 70mm (but filmed in 35mm). Not to mention Warners' reworking of the Cinerama film How the West Was Won, which sets a new standard for handling a wide-screen classic on Blu-ray.

Exactly right.
post #44 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlsmith View Post

I saw TLE in 70mm at the Northpoint Theatre in SFO on 3 viewings in 1988. It was advertised as "6 track magnetic", although the actual configuration for such films was generally 4 tracks with subwoofers on channels 2 and 4.

A far cry from Criterion's offering let me tell you.

By comparison, Sony's Close Encounters and Warners' Blade Runner really do justice to films originally shown in 70mm (but filmed in 35mm). Not to mention Warners' reworking of the Cinerama film How the West Was Won, which sets a new standard for handling a wide-screen classic on Blu-ray.

I am waiting to cool off before composing a letter to Criterion. It will be sent FEDEX and I may even write it by hand in order to demonstrate my sincerity.

It's often referred as the



Channel
post #45 of 187
The framing on Apocalypse Now truly sucks mega talk about poor man’s framing nearly 15 or 20% of the films image is gone and how many times have (we all) been MILKED OVER for this dud!

The only place you can view this film that beats the carp out of DVD and Bluray is the cinema, now then!

I did manage to catch it years ago at Odeon screen 4 in Dolby stereo A type a little scratched, way more viewable over what the consumer home cinema theatre gets which is second best and will always remain second cheap best.
post #46 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBLsound4645 View Post

It's often referred as the



Channel

Yes, quite right. Having subwoofers on channels 2 and 4 of a 6 track magnetic mix was referred to as "baby boomers".

A very unfortunate situation. The original 5 channel stereo front soundstage of 70mm (known as "ToddAO sound") was fantastic, with subtle directional dialogue and effects. Heard on films during the 50's and 60's, up to the arrival of "Dolby Stereo".

Often today these movies are converted to "5.1" by channeling all of the dialogue into the center channel. Very disappointing.
post #47 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlsmith View Post

I guess I should have had Mr. Storaro sitting next to me at the Northpoint in SF when I saw the film in 70mm. He could have pointed out all of the artistic reasons why 2.0 was the correct aspect ratio rather than the 2.2 I was looking at.

Unhappily for me, I was "imprinted" with the artistically wrong version of the film, and that is what I now crave to see.

Seriously, as Gordon Willis has said as quoted by Robert Harris, the movie was already "done" and put on the screen. We should see what it was, not someone's revision of it. It doesn't matter whether the reviser is named Storaro or Lucas, he shouldn't be doing it at all.

I have no objection to making a new version of something as long as it does not supplant the original.

Well said. I just don't get this at all. I am curious as to what went on behind the scenes on this decision. How did Criterion agree to this? Aren't they the ones (formerly) known as the company who would always give us the OAR!?

Sheesh. And I post this right after posting in the Salo thread about how disappointing that (Criterion) transfer appears to be.

What the hell is going on here?!
post #48 of 187
I'm impressed by the four other titles Criterion has released on Blu-ray. However, the quality of this release leaves me flat.
post #49 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

Well said. I just don't get this at all. I am curious as to what went on behind the scenes on this decision. How did Criterion agree to this? Aren't they the ones (formerly) known as the company who would always give us the OAR!?

Sheesh. And I post this right after posting in the Salo thread about how disappointing that (Criterion) transfer appears to be.

What the hell is going on here?!

Criterion doesn't always deserve its rep.
I outta know, I have quite a few of their releases.
post #50 of 187
Any word on a release from some other company (who might do it better)?
post #51 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

Well said. I just don't get this at all. I am curious as to what went on behind the scenes on this decision. How did Criterion agree to this? Aren't they the ones (formerly) known as the company who would always give us the OAR!?

Criterion will always defer to the filmmakers' stated wishes. If the filmmaker (in this case Storaro) feeds them a line of bull about how he always intended the OAR of the movie to be 2.0:1 even though there were no venues at the time of release that would ever display it at that ratio, Criterion is not in a position to argue with him over it.
post #52 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

If the filmmaker (in this case Storaro) feeds them a line of bull about how he always intended the OAR of the movie to be 2.0:1 even though there were no venues at the time of release that would ever display it at that ratio, Criterion is not in a position to argue with him over it.

Or, more precisely, they elect not to.
post #53 of 187
It's a pity Coppola doesn't step up to the plate and get involved in this aspect ratio issue because i would imagine he most of all would surely want original aspect ratio as Storaro is screwing with his masterpiece Apocalypse Now.

I would think a film maker like Bertolucci would want to say no to such cropping of his films too...Thus i don't get how Storaro has final say ?
post #54 of 187
You'd think that, but Bertolucci and Coppola have both okayed Storaro's cropping. What Storaro wants, Storaro gets, apparently.
post #55 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

It's a pity Coppola doesn't step up to the plate and get involved in this aspect ratio issue because i would imagine he most of all would surely want original aspect ratio as Storaro is screwing with his masterpiece Apocalypse Now.

I would think a film maker like Bertolucci would want to say no to such cropping of his films too...Thus i don't get how Storaro has final say ?

After seeing Apocolypse at 2:1 a number of times, I saw the recent 35mm TECHNICOLOR (yes, real dye-transfer) print at the Metreon in SF. There was a full audience, very hushed and involved.

This was a wonderful experience. Unhappily, the LD presentation I own (and likely the Blu-ray) will be at 2:1, and the film will be gone forever.
post #56 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

Thus i don't get how Storaro has final say ?

Neither do I.
I was under the impression the Director chooses AR, not the DP.
This mystifies me....


Quote:
Originally Posted by rlsmith View Post

After seeing Apocolypse at 2:1 a number of times, I saw the recent 35mm TECHNICOLOR (yes, real dye-transfer) print at the Metreon in SF. There was a full audience, very hushed and involved.

This was a wonderful experience. Unhappily, the LD presentation I own (and likely the Blu-ray) will be at 2:1, and the film will be gone forever.

post #57 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by tai4de2 View Post

Any word on a release from some other company (who might do it better)?

None that I know.
But I will say any company releasing this with better AV quality and in OAR would make a nice return on investment.
post #58 of 187
I bought the BD knowing that the creators changed the AR and I just don't care. I like the movie and I enjoyed watching it. I paid Amazonia less than $24 for the disc. I wish they had not changed the AR but the BD is what it is.
post #59 of 187
I'm more disappointed with the sound than the resizing of the pix. If I decode the DTS HD in my player, I get plain L/R with the dialogue in both L/R (phantom center). If I decode the core DTS with my processor, I get 2.0/7.1 decoding but it's all mono from the center speaker anyway.
post #60 of 187
Thread Starter 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › #422 The Last Emperor Criterion Collection comparison *PIX*