Joined
·
7,205 Posts
Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom comparison *PIX*
1 - 20 of 110 Posts
Joined
·
7,205 Posts
Holeee craaap!
![]()
Who is the f****** r***** that approved this? Anyone?
Come on there has got to be a rational, logical explanation to this umm, errr, hmmm I don't really know how to describe this transfer.
Ok so we have DNR or a mutant version of it. We have EE or halos or ringing or edging or "Wonder Twin powers activate! Form force fields!" We still have that oh so annoying dust and hair that pops out once in a while in the bottom of the frame. The Criterion DVD has it. This blu-ray still has it. Funny how they manage not to DNR that
![]()
Let's get serious here. There are a lot of classic cinema - Translation: movies only A/V people or filmlovers have heard about - out there that will eventually get remastered for high definition release. Its very important that these companies must take the priority of preserving the look and style of the film. Even Criterion is not immune to this (see other *PIX* threads. Not DNR but EE and questionable AR). DNR must be used only when its absolutely necessary and when you do for f*** sake don't dial it to 11!
FUBAR
Who is the f****** r***** that approved this? Anyone?
Come on there has got to be a rational, logical explanation to this umm, errr, hmmm I don't really know how to describe this transfer.
Ok so we have DNR or a mutant version of it. We have EE or halos or ringing or edging or "Wonder Twin powers activate! Form force fields!" We still have that oh so annoying dust and hair that pops out once in a while in the bottom of the frame. The Criterion DVD has it. This blu-ray still has it. Funny how they manage not to DNR that
Let's get serious here. There are a lot of classic cinema - Translation: movies only A/V people or filmlovers have heard about - out there that will eventually get remastered for high definition release. Its very important that these companies must take the priority of preserving the look and style of the film. Even Criterion is not immune to this (see other *PIX* threads. Not DNR but EE and questionable AR). DNR must be used only when its absolutely necessary and when you do for f*** sake don't dial it to 11!
FUBAR
Joined
·
7,205 Posts
DVD Criterion Collection
Blu-ray File size: 19.50 GB
Bitrate: 20.22 mbps
Code:
![]()
Blu-ray File size: 19.50 GB
Bitrate: 20.22 mbps
Code:
Code:
Total Video
Title Codec Length Movie Size Disc Size Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track Secondary Audio Track
----- ------ ------- -------------- -------------- ------- ------- ------------------ ---------------------
00007.MPLS AVC 1:56:39 21,818,370,048 24,373,664,720 24.94 20.22 LPCM 1.0 768Kbps (48kHz/16-bit) LPCM 1.0 768Kbps (48kHz/16-bit)
DISC INFO:
Disc Title: SALO
Disc Size: 24,373,664,720 bytes
Protection: AACS
BD-Java: No
BDInfo: 0.5.1
PLAYLIST REPORT:
Name: 00007.MPLS
Size: 21,818,370,048 bytes
Length: 1:56:39 (h:m:s)
Total Bitrate: 24.94 Mbps
Description:
VIDEO:
Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
MPEG-4 AVC Video 20222 kbps 1080p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / High Profile 4.1
AUDIO:
Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
LPCM Audio English 768 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 16-bit
LPCM Audio English 768 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 16-bit
SUBTITLES:
Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Presentation Graphics English 26.858 kbps
Presentation Graphics English 44.752 kbps
Presentation Graphics English 0.640 kbps
FILES:
Name Time In Length Size Total Bitrate
---- ------- ------ ---- -------------
00004.M2TS 0:00:00.000 0:03:15.278 804,956,160 32,977
00006.M2TS 0:03:15.278 1:53:23.755 21,013,413,888 24,708
CHAPTERS:
Number Time In Length Avg Video Rate Max 1-Sec Rate Max 1-Sec Time Max 5-Sec Rate Max 5-Sec Time Max 10Sec Rate Max 10Sec Time Avg Frame Size Max Frame Size Max Frame Time
------ ------- ------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
1 0:00:00.000 0:03:11.191 28,023 kbps 31,746 kbps 00:00:01.710 31,059 kbps 00:00:21.938 30,895 kbps 00:00:21.938 146,068 bytes 204,891 bytes 00:00:01.751
2 0:03:11.191 0:10:08.274 22,783 kbps 35,837 kbps 00:07:03.881 35,240 kbps 00:07:01.337 35,050 kbps 00:06:56.290 118,782 bytes 351,208 bytes 00:11:21.806
3 0:13:19.465 0:09:48.045 23,259 kbps 38,234 kbps 00:18:32.820 35,289 kbps 00:18:36.907 35,177 kbps 00:18:36.907 121,264 bytes 344,451 bytes 00:13:32.186
4 0:23:07.511 0:12:56.192 24,284 kbps 35,654 kbps 00:25:06.213 34,955 kbps 00:25:05.212 33,956 kbps 00:25:00.498 126,608 bytes 255,402 bytes 00:33:23.876
5 0:36:03.703 0:10:55.404 20,085 kbps 30,626 kbps 00:44:08.437 29,771 kbps 00:44:07.728 28,893 kbps 00:44:07.811 104,714 bytes 250,799 bytes 00:36:29.395
6 0:46:59.107 0:09:49.088 19,514 kbps 31,846 kbps 00:56:24.172 29,571 kbps 00:55:57.562 27,723 kbps 00:55:56.728 101,739 bytes 241,486 bytes 00:55:57.604
7 0:56:48.196 0:11:42.201 19,244 kbps 34,698 kbps 00:56:49.739 29,443 kbps 00:56:48.196 27,143 kbps 01:04:03.714 100,330 bytes 229,093 bytes 01:00:25.955
8 1:08:30.397 0:07:03.047 20,275 kbps 26,086 kbps 01:13:07.299 25,244 kbps 01:13:04.171 24,731 kbps 01:14:39.349 105,703 bytes 220,761 bytes 01:13:44.962
9 1:15:33.445 0:11:28.312 18,168 kbps 29,468 kbps 01:18:56.440 27,209 kbps 01:18:53.061 26,797 kbps 01:18:48.056 94,720 bytes 223,094 bytes 01:21:18.540
10 1:27:01.758 0:09:39.996 17,527 kbps 35,231 kbps 01:27:01.883 28,622 kbps 01:29:35.411 24,552 kbps 01:29:35.411 91,380 bytes 223,315 bytes 01:29:12.680
11 1:36:41.754 0:09:46.836 17,763 kbps 27,725 kbps 01:46:02.230 26,266 kbps 01:45:59.227 25,204 kbps 01:41:05.100 92,606 bytes 239,313 bytes 01:38:52.051
12 1:46:28.590 0:10:10.443 16,289 kbps 36,440 kbps 01:56:35.947 35,314 kbps 01:56:31.943 33,497 kbps 01:56:27.480 84,927 bytes 257,328 bytes 01:49:13.797
STREAM DIAGNOSTICS:
File PID Type Codec Language Seconds Bitrate Bytes Packets
---- --- ---- ----- -------- -------------- -------------- ------------- -----
00004.M2TS 4113 (0x1011) 0x1B AVC 195.112 28,024 683,469,805 3,717,234
00004.M2TS 4352 (0x1100) 0x80 LPCM eng (English) 195.112 1,544 37,649,984 234,336
00004.M2TS 4353 (0x1101) 0x80 LPCM eng (English) 195.112 1,544 37,649,984 234,336
00004.M2TS 4608 (0x1200) 0x90 PGS eng (English) 195.112 0 70 7
00004.M2TS 4609 (0x1201) 0x90 PGS eng (English) 195.112 0 70 7
00004.M2TS 4610 (0x1202) 0x90 PGS eng (English) 195.112 0 70 7
00006.M2TS 4113 (0x1011) 0x1B AVC 6803.588 19,999 17,007,941,147 92,529,440
00006.M2TS 4352 (0x1100) 0x80 LPCM eng (English) 6803.588 1,542 1,311,764,928 8,164,512
00006.M2TS 4353 (0x1101) 0x80 LPCM eng (English) 6803.588 1,542 1,311,764,928 8,164,512
00006.M2TS 4608 (0x1200) 0x90 PGS eng (English) 6803.588 28 23,497,494 133,922
00006.M2TS 4609 (0x1201) 0x90 PGS eng (English) 6803.588 46 39,152,139 221,326
00006.M2TS 4610 (0x1202) 0x90 PGS eng (English) 6803.588 1 559,841 3,224
Joined
·
67 Posts
I know this is off topic, so mods delete if you wish...
but, I bought this film on DVD during dvdplanets 25 percent sale...
it was the only dvd I've ever sold.
I became a first time craigslist seller.
Thankfully I was able to get as much for it as I paid.
It was wrong.
Perhaps you need to be a scholar to find the joy of watching children sodomized and forced to eat crap...
but, I bought this film on DVD during dvdplanets 25 percent sale...
it was the only dvd I've ever sold.
I became a first time craigslist seller.
Thankfully I was able to get as much for it as I paid.
It was wrong.
Perhaps you need to be a scholar to find the joy of watching children sodomized and forced to eat crap...
You might have gotten "screwed," depending on when you sold it. If ti was the criterion version, a few years ago, during the several years when this had been discontinued and extremely rare, you could have easily gotten some 100 bucks for it.
as for the film; it is not that one expects to find joy in the imagery. quite the opposite.
art seeks to extract emotional responses from the viewer. One would hope that there is not one single repeated response that all art attempts to achieve
![]()
You might have gotten "screwed," depending on when you sold it. If ti was the criterion version, a few years ago, during the several years when this had been discontinued and extremely rare, you could have easily gotten some 100 bucks for it.
as for the film; it is not that one expects to find joy in the imagery. quite the opposite.
art seeks to extract emotional responses from the viewer. One would hope that there is not one single repeated response that all art attempts to achieve
Personally, I don't think that the film managed to convey the true reality of its subject. All of the victims seemed over willing, the acting was poor. I would like to see a remake, but with acceptable boundaries, however focusing on the actual torment, and breaking of the victims. Hopefully with some sort of objective, where perhaps a strong person cannot be broken, and gains revenge on the participants. Sort of Salo, combined with Hard Candy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfamous /forum/post/15522917
You might have gotten "screwed," depending on when you sold it. If ti was the criterion version, a few years ago, during the several years when this had been discontinued and extremely rare, you could have easily gotten some 100 bucks for it.
as for the film; it is not that one expects to find joy in the imagery. quite the opposite.
art seeks to extract emotional responses from the viewer. One would hope that there is not one single repeated response that all art attempts to achieve![]()
Personally, I don't think that the film managed to convey the true reality of its subject. All of the victims seemed over willing, the acting was poor. I would like to see a remake, but with acceptable boundaries, however focusing on the actual torment, and breaking of the victims. Hopefully with some sort of objective, where perhaps a strong person cannot be broken, and gains revenge on the participants. Sort of Salo, combined with Hard Candy.
Have to strongly disagree.
Salo was not made for the torture porn and revenge flick crowd. It's a deep misunderstanding if you think the film needs improvement in that direction. And that's why the film is after 30 years still as disturbing and powerful as ever, although it was made before all the 'progress' in splatter sfx and dehumanisation of the audience happened.
Have to strongly disagree.
Salo was not made for the torture porn and revenge flick crowd. It's a deep misunderstanding if you think the film needs improvement in that direction. And that's why the film is after 30 years still as disturbing and powerful as ever, although it was made before all the 'progress' in splatter sfx and dehumanisation of the audience happened.
Actually, it looks the opposite to me, it looks too porn, and not disturbing enough. People just do as they are told, and most of it is just silly. It makes it look like anyone could just do these things, and not have a struggle on their hands, which is scary if anyone did think it was this easy.
Actually, it looks the opposite to me, it looks too porn, and not disturbing enough. People just do as they are told, and most of it is just silly. It makes it look like anyone could just do these things, and not have a struggle on their hands, which is scary if anyone did think it was this easy.
The film was an allegory for fascism and the abuse of absolute power, so the victims being "unable" to defend themselves served a purpose. It's also strenuously accurate to the lengthy writings of de Sade, in which he often didn't write characters so much as he did these personifications of vice and the victims that satisfied them. (There's some neat psychology hiding in that pretensions wank material, though.)
Looking forward to these getting updated. I know the Blu-ray is crap already, but I'm curious if the Criterion DVD is much worse...
Edit: Nobody else is seeing screencaps yet, right...?
Looking forward to these getting updated. I know the Blu-ray is crap already, but I'm curious if the Criterion DVD is much worse...
Edit: Nobody else is seeing screencaps yet, right...?
Joined
·
455 Posts
For those wondering just what the hell what happened here, it's worth reading the Blu-ray.com thread on the subject, which has some good info amongst the disgusting apologetics for what might go down in history as the Worst HD Transfer Ever. Of particular note is Torsten Kaiser's post, which details the provenance of the master and specific mistakes made along the way -- apparently they didn't even have the telecine equipment configured correctly!
Joined
·
226 Posts
Um, wow, can't believe I am going to say this, but going by those screenshots I think I actually like the look of the DVD better.
KT
KT
1 - 20 of 110 Posts
Join the discussion
