Criterion Blu-ray

[denti alligator]

Looks like bundling is the way to go if you want to hang on to the extras:

Yes, $5 shipping is fine if you send in all 3 titles at once. If the Blu-ray discs have different release dates I'll wait until all three are available until sending them to you.

The Last Emperor BD is only the theatrical version, but since you are only sending disc one of the 4-disc set, you won't be losing any content.

The Man Who Fell to Earth BD will not include the novel, but again, since you are keeping the novel from the SD release you won't be losing anything. It will come with the Graham Fuller essay, but not the appreciation by Jack Matthews.

The Third Man BD will have an essay by Luc Sante, but not the others. The booklet will not be as thick as the SD release.

However, since you will only be sending in disc one for an upgrade to Blu-ray, and keeping the other discs and packaging, you will still have all the materials.

Just to make sure it's clear (since this is important): only send us disc one from the title that you are upgrading to Blu-ray. Just the bare disc in an envelope. Do not send in other discs from that release, or any of the packaging materials. Once the check/money order has cleared (or the Paypal payment gone through) and the BD title has been published/released, then we will send you a DISC ONLY of the Blu-ray release.

I hope this is helpful, and please feel free to write in again if you have other questions!

Best,

Jon Mulvaney

[swo17]

Is Criterion removing essays from the BD booklets because of rights issues, or simply because the booklet needs to be thinner because the packaging is smaller? The latter concerns me.

I got a response back on the pictureboxing issue with Criterion's Blu-rays. It's not a complete answer, and it might be a little vague, but it looks like, at least for films in the Academy ratio, there will be no pictureboxing.

Um, hooray? :-k \:D/

Thanks for your email! The Blu-ray discs that we release in 1.33 will appear with only black to the left and the right, therefore preserving the 1.33 aspect ratio correctly. This is because the black is actually recorded into the picture and will display properly onto a 1.78 shaped screen. I hope this helps, and feel free to write in again if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,

Jon Mulvaney

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Academy ratio is 1.37:1. Releasing films in 1.33:1 loses about 3% of the image, which is just as bad as pictureboxing IMO.

[Cinephrenic]

Academy ratio is 1.37:1. Releasing films in 1.33:1 loses about 3% of the image, which is just as bad as pictureboxing IMO.

I always wondered why they did this?

[swo17]

Academy ratio is 1.37:1. Releasing films in 1.33:1 loses about 3% of the image, which is just as bad as pictureboxing IMO.

Pardon my ignorance on these technical matters. I may have referred to the Academy ratio improperly. My original question to Mulvaney was just whether Criterion would continue to picturebox with its Blu-ray releases. I made no mention of aspect ratios, and Mulvaney only brought up the 1.33:1 ratio, not the Academy ratio. Sorry if this has caused any confusion.

Does Criterion routinely present 1.37:1 films at 1.33:1, just so they fit neatly on a standard TV set?

[Morbii]

However, with Blu-Ray, doesn't the overscan go away completely? I was under this impression (particularly given one of my TVs options and I can't set overscan when a BD is playing - it just says full pixel or something). Am I wrong?

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

Blu-ray does nothing to eliminate overscan -- overscan is caused by the monitor. Most HDTVs use technologies that reduce or eliminate overscan (LCDs, for example) and often incorporate overscan reduction features to further minimize the problem. It's assumed that most Blu-ray owners will have a fairly recent HD display to go along with it; somebody watching a BD on a old standard-def tube would still get significant overscan, but that's not a segment of the market Criterion (or anyone else) is going to worry about.

[Morbii]

I guess maybe I'm not really thinking about blu-ray itself, but a 1080 source. With my (Sony) TV when I'm running a 1080 source the only option is "Full Pixel" whereas a non-1080 source I can set the overscan levels.

[fdm]

The (not very old, but no longer made, due to reliability issues) Sony SXRD rear projection sets have overscan in all the various picture modes, including 1080p. Likely this was done to hide distortion of the picture at the very edges; the picture has pretty much no obvious distortion during normal viewing in the part that's not subject to the overscan. No option to disable overscan available for it. But most of the non rear projections sets should offer settings for no overscan, as they have no such problems with distortion. (E.g., your "full pixel", somebody else's "pixel by pixel", etc).

Criterion should definitely not be pictureboxing the hi-def (overscan shouldn't be all that prevalent pretty soon, as rear projection sets are going the way of the CRT), nor standard def for that matter, regardless of their rationale.

[swo17]

At the risk of bringing up another technical issue of which I am largely ignorant, I'm curious what Criterion films were shot on 70mm film. The only one I know of off the top of my head is Playtime, since this is mentioned in the special features to that film. It would seem like such films would benefit the most from Blu-ray treatment, and I would personally love to see Playtime in all the detail that hi-def allows for. I'd just like to know what other competition it has in the collection.

[MichaelB]

If this Wikipedia list of films shot in 65mm (the additional 5mm is for the soundtracks) is complete, I believe Playtime is indeed the only such film in the Criterion catalogue - the vast majority of the rest, unsurprisingly, were major studio productions.

[Matt]

Films shot in VistaVision should also benefit on Blu-ray (provided VistaVision elements were used for the transfer): The Leopard, Richard III (Criterion's current transfer is from a 35mm element), and Vengeance is Mine (not sure, but Criterion's current transfer is probably from a 35mm reduction answer print).

[Darth Lavender]

I was about to say "Spartacus" but a quick bit of checking reveals that was actually shot on 35mm.

Playtime is, with the possible exception of The Last Emperor, easily the most obvious choice for Blu-Ray treatment and, unless there's further rights issues involved, I'd be very surprised if Criterion doesn't at least announce this one within the next year.
(Then again, Salo seemed like an obvious choice for blu-ray, too)

Personally, speaking purely hypothetically, I would have liked to see "Vampyr" get blu-ray treatment. I think all that grain would have looked even more natural in blu-ray. But, I have the SD now, and doubt I'd upgrade even if it did get a blu-ray release later.

[swo17]

Films shot in VistaVision should also benefit on Blu-ray (provided VistaVision elements were used for the transfer): The Leopard, Richard III (Criterion's current transfer is from a 35mm element), and Vengeance is Mine (not sure, but Criterion's current transfer is probably from a 35mm reduction answer print).

I found this on criterion.com's Vengeance Is Mine page:

This new high-definition digital transfer was created on a Spirit 2k Datacine from a new 35mm low-contrast print made from the original camera negative.

While I was there, I also noticed this about Playtime:

This new, high-definition digital transfer was created on a Spirit Datacine from the 35mm reduction internegative, made from the restored 65mm interpositive.

I will admit I only know what about half of these words mean, but I'll try with my question anyway: Would Criterion want to go back and source the 65mm interpositive directly before putting out a BD release, and how cost prohibitive would this be?

[Antoine Doinel]

Given, that a hi-def transfer was made for The Last Emperor before the BD line officially launched (thus pissing off a few people when it was announced), it's entirely possible they did the same for Playtime when they were revisiting the title, are waiting for the format to gain traction before releasing it.

I would find it highly unlikely they revisited the title without thinking of BD at the same time.

[miless]

A digital transfer at 2k is roughly the same as 1080 (and I'm assuming it's progressive)... which is the same resolution that BD's.
no new transfer is required, and it would end up being a waste of money for Criterion to just redo a title they already re-did.

[swo17]

Given, that a hi-def transfer was made for The Last Emperor before the BD line officially launched (thus pissing off a few people when it was announced), it's entirely possible they did the same for Playtime when they were revisiting the title, are waiting for the format to gain traction before releasing it.

I would find it highly unlikely they revisited the title without thinking of BD at the same time.

Well, yes, Playtime also touts an "all-new, restored high-definition digital transfer." But it appears that that transfer came from a 35mm source. I guess my question is: would Criterion try to go back to the 65mm source to make a Blu-ray transfer, and how much difference would this even make in a home theater setting (with, let's say, a 50-inch TV screen)?

It seems to me that if we're stuck with an HD transfer from a 35mm source, then Playtime would be no more a priority to bring to Blu-ray than any other title from such a source.

[Gregory]

At the risk of bringing up another technical issue of which I am largely ignorant, I'm curious what Criterion films were shot on 70mm film.

It might be worth mentioning (if only for the sake of completeness) that a couple of the films on By Brakhage -- Night Music and Rage Net, I think -- were originally on 70mm, but Criterion used regular-gauge interpositives. Even considering that, a Blu-Ray rerelease of By Brakhage or even a new or different Brakhage release on the new format would be a dream release for me and for many others on the forum I´m sure.

[Matt]

Given, that a hi-def transfer was made for The Last Emperor before the BD line officially launched (thus pissing off a few people when it was announced), it's entirely possible they did the same for Playtime when they were revisiting the title, are waiting for the format to gain traction before releasing it.

Criterion have been doing HD transfers for years, long before they re-released Playtime.

Any step away from the original camera negative requires a reduction (however slight) in quality, and moreso when that step involves reduction or enlargement. It is very, very, very expensive to do telecine of large-format films and the visible difference between a HD transfer from the 65 mm interpositive of Playtime and an HD transfer from the 35mm reduction internegative taken from it would not be appreciable by most viewers.

[swo17]

I got a response back on the possibility of Playtime or The Leopard on BD in the near future. Sorry folks, no dice.

We try to announce our new releases (including BD) as far in advance as possible, but neither of those films is currently on the schedule. Thanks for your email, and feel free to write in again if you have any other questions!

Best,

JM

[Matt]

In JM-speak, "currently on the schedule" means the next couple of months. There have been times when he has said something was not currently on the schedule, only to be announced the following month.

[swo17]

So is "not currently on the schedule" a step up from "no plans at this time"? If so, I may just have to dance around like in the dinner scene of Playtime.

P.S. Thanks Matt for reading a thread where I had the last post.

[kaujot]

In JM-speak, "currently on the schedule" means the next couple of months. There have been times when he has said something was not currently on the schedule, only to be announced the following month.

I believe that happened with the High and Low re-release. Someone asked about it, was told it wasn't currently on the schedule, and then two months later it was announced.

Something like that, anyway.

[Matt]

So is "not currently on the schedule" a step up from "no plans at this time"?

I think we used to have a glossary of what all of the stock JM responses meant, but when they switched Mulvaneys and started letting staff respond under their own names, the system went haywire. I believe "no plans at this time" usually means they don't even have the rights to what you're asking about or have never even considered releasing it. "Not on the schedule" usually means that it's something they are planning to release at some time between next month and 2050.

[Matt]

Eons ago, I asked why certain essays were being dropped from the Blu-ray releases. I got a nice, thoughtful Mulvaney answer today:

As for the question about the novel and essays, that will be a difference between the original and BD releases. For a combination of reasons, some economical, some environmental, we're trying to use a little less paper going forward. We'll still be producing the same audiovisual supplements, and we'll still be dedicating ourselves to creating beautifully designed packages, but we'll be turning to the web as a means for delivering some text that in the past we might have included in a printed book. All the content will eventually be available online, and in fact, we expect to be assigning and publishing even more film essays, about new releases and classics from the catalog, since on the web we won't have to keep such a close eye on the page count.

In the end, we're doing what we think makes the most sense for the films and our audience, putting more content into the hands of more people, in digital if not physical form. We think it's the right thing to do. I hope this information is helpful, and feel free to write in again if you have other questions!

I'm assuming that all of the essays that used to be on the Criterion website until a recent crash will be restored on the "new" website that was mentioned in the Engadget interview with Lee Kline.