criterionforum.org

perkizitore wrote:Even if they were created, i doubt Kino would use them anyway. I thought their practice of using only English intertitles was common knowledge, but i thought in this case i should give them the chance of doubt.

perkizitore wrote:You don't own Battleship Potemkin!?!

Jeff wrote:Does anyone know if Richard Lorber retained the rights to The Umbrellas of Cherbourg and La Dolce Vita? I'm hoping that he has taken them to Kino, who will be releasing gorgeous Blu-rays soon.

Tribe wrote:

Jeff wrote:Does anyone know if Richard Lorber retained the rights to The Umbrellas of Cherbourg and La Dolce Vita? I'm hoping that he has taken them to Kino, who will be releasing gorgeous Blu-rays soon.

I know this question has been asked else where (it may have been me, and I'm too lazy to go look for it), but doesn't Zeitgeist have The Umbellas of Cherbourg?

kino's facebook page wrote:me: can you confirm that you're releasing wkw's fallen angels on blu-ray 3/16?
kino international: confirmed!

Tribe wrote:OK, I've had it...no more making excuses. Just got the new Loren Cass release. It's 2010, right? A 2006 production, right? 1.85:1 aspect ratio...you'd expect a transfer that covers the screen with black bars above and below the image, right?

This fuckin' thing is letterboxed...black bars on all four sides!!

Tribe wrote:OK, I've had it...no more making excuses. Just got the new Loren Cass release. It's 2010, right? A 2006 production, right? 1.85:1 aspect ratio...you'd expect a transfer that covers the screen with black bars above and below the image, right?

This fuckin' thing is letterboxed...black bars on all four sides!!

Am I being utterly unreasonable finding this utterly unacceptable?

EDIT: In all fairness, what's there looks very good...but this isn't the dawn of the DVD age anymore.

fiddlesticks wrote:I think he means it's non-anamorphic, which I guess you could think of as an extreme form of pictureboxing.

TMDaines wrote:You mean it's pictureboxed then? Letterboxed is what it should be.

Loren Cass was shot on 16mm film (with one sequence appearing to be on videotape), but there is no excuse for Kino’s decision to release it on DVD in a 1.85:1 letterboxed transfer without 16:9 enhancement. We’re not demanding an expensive high-definition transfer here; we’re talking about utilizing basic DVD technology to make the most of the available NTSC resolution that most people now have on their 16:9 sets. In a world where many PC-based software packages have the ability to format a DVD image for 16:9, there is simply no reason for a DVD ever again to be released in standard letterbox.

Video:

Loren Cass was shot on 16mm film (with one sequence appearing to be on videotape), but there is no excuse for Kino’s decision to release it on DVD in a 1.85:1 letterboxed transfer without 16:9 enhancement. We’re not demanding an expensive high-definition transfer here; we’re talking about utilizing basic DVD technology to make the most of the available NTSC resolution that most people now have on their 16:9 sets. In a world where many PC-based software packages have the ability to format a DVD image for 16:9, there is simply no reason for a DVD ever again to be released in standard letterbox.

As grateful as I am to Kino for providing HTF with a review copy of Loren Cass, I think it’s important that I convey this message to anyone from Kino who may be reading. The constituency that reads these reviews cares very much about technical quality. If you don’t take that seriously, you will lose sales, no matter how groundbreaking or significant the film you are releasing and no matter how well the transfer has otherwise been handled.

And in fact the transfer is remarkably good, given both the 16mm source and the depleted resolution of a non-enhanced transfer. Even though much of the film takes place at night, the black levels are solid enough, and the detail is sufficiently delineated, that you can always make out what’s happening. Features, expressions and events are all distinct. But they could have been better.

Colors appeared generally muted and washed out on my 72" screen, and at first I thought that was deliberate. Then I remembered a print review that talked about the film’s bright colors, and I looked at scenes on my computer monitor and was reminded how the weaknesses of video mastering become more evident as screen size increases. The colors in Loren Cass are vivid and distinct at small screen sizes, but realistically so, which is to say that the color has not been pumped up artificially beyond the intensity it would have in everday life. But since the resolution on the disc is so poor, the colors pale as the screen size increases. Here again, Kino’s failure to provide 16:9 enhancement damages the home viewing experience.

I want to preface this by pointing out that I've been a long time supporter of Kino (I have around 130 Kino titles in my DVD collection). Kino has released movies on DVD that otherwise would likely not have been available.

So, I'm not just picking on Kino.

But, why in the world, in 2010 is Kino releasing Loren Cass, with... a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, in a non-anamorphic transfer? I was so disapointed when I popped this into the DVD player and saw a picture-boxed image with thick black bars all around it. I truly appreciate what Kino has done in the past, but I respectfully suggest this is unacceptable today by any standard.

We had no choice with this, unfortunately. The filmmaker shot the film in 2005 on standard-def video and never made an anamorphic master. We would never willingly release a DVD with such low technical standards, but we had no other options -- the situation is a casualty of a (very talented) young filmmaker having no money and very little knowledge about how to prepare a film for distribution.

kino wrote:We would never willingly release a DVD with such low technical standards,

perkizitore wrote:Derzu Uzala blu-ray notification has appeared on Amazon.