criterionforum.org

Just curious why some of you are opting for the Clavis edition before even seeing the Artificial Eye release...

Telstar wrote:Just curious why some of you are opting for the Clavis edition before even seeing the Artificial Eye release...

Personally, there are a few reasons/rationales:

1) Upon seeing the screencaps encompassed in the dvdrama.com review, I am convinced that both editions will be of similar quality in terms of A/V (both are non-anamorphic). All three companies (Clavis, Artificial Eye, and Facets) claim that Bela Tarr approved the transfers featured on their discs. I seriously doubt that Tarr hopped from country to country approving transfers. Thus, the transfers featured on all three editions are most likely taken from the same master so they should all be about the same in terms of A/V (EXCEPT for the Facets edition, which will most likely sport improper PAL-NTSC conversion).

2) There may be differences in terms of the quality of the English subtitles. However, based on my past purchases of both British and French discs, I can only assume (rightly, I hope) that these differences will be slight. The subtitles may even be identical (as is the case with AE's ports of MK2 releases). Regardless, French DVD production houses typically create quality English subtitles (although it must be said that I have never bought a French R2 DVD from Clavis prior to this purchase. Perhaps other posters can speak specifically to the quality of Clavis' English subtitles).

3) Both editions have no special features.

4) Simply put, I cannot wait for the AE set. After having lived with the infamous DVD-Rs of Satantango for so long, I cannot wait to see an image of the film that is not transferred from a VHS source. I should receive the Clavis DVD set approximately 25 days before the release of the AE set. I take comfort in this fact.

5) I have the AE set on pre-order. Yes, I cover all my bases.

All and all, both editions will most likely be about the same, notwithstanding a few minute differences (menu design, etc.). However, if the AE set for some reason turns out to be about 10-15% better than the Clavis (if such a thing can be quantified), this is nullified by the fact that I am getting the Clavis DVD set 25 days earlier than the AE set (as well as the fact that I may indeed buy both). In the final analysis, I truly love this film. It is not beneath me to buy two DVD editions of the same film if the situation warrants such extravagant purchasing. Happy viewing, and I hope you make the decision that best suits your Satantango needs.

Telstar wrote:Just curious why some of you are opting for the Clavis edition before even seeing the Artificial Eye release...

I'm curious about different editions of this film.

Perhaps other posters can speak specifically to the quality of Clavis' English subtitles

I wonder if Clavis will continue to use yellow subs for b&w films...

I was unaware of the fact that Clavis utilizes yellow subtitles. Yellow subtitles always look terrible, especially when used on black and white films. Without question, white subtitles look better when placed over a particular film's image. I hope that Clavis did not utilize yellow subtitles for their edition of Satantango. If they did, then there is always the AE edition. To the best of my knowledge, AE always uses white subtitles.

livullmannfan wrote:I was unaware of the fact that Clavis utilizes yellow subtitles. Yellow subtitles always look terrible, especially when used on black and white films. Without question, white subtitles look better when placed over a particular film's image. I hope that Clavis did not utilize yellow subtitles for their edition of Satantango. If they did, then there is always the AE edition. To the best of my knowledge, AE always uses white subtitles.

I've been saying for years that subtitle colour should be a user-controllable DVD player option. OTOH it shouldn't be too difficult to hack the files on the disc, there ought to be a program that does that.

It's not too difficult, but not as easy as it should be either.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:It's not too difficult, but not as easy as it should be either.

Thanks! This looks like a great tool for all sorts of tweakage

Jan

JanPB wrote:Suddenly, it directed me to the PayPal page. I don't know what made that stupid button to work all of a sudden. The HTML source for that page clearly has a FORM there, perhaps the syntax is a bit off and it confuses the browsers (I tried Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Mozilla). We'll see.

Have you received your copy yet? It appears that you ordered the DVD about a week before me. I also live in the United States and, consequently, I am curious as to how long it is taking for copies to arrive here. Thanks in advance for your reply. If you receive your copy soon, please let me know if Clavis utilized yellow subtitles on this particular title. Thanks again.

livullmannfan wrote: Have you received your copy yet? It appears that you ordered the DVD about a week before me. I also live in the United States and, consequently, I am curious as to how long it is taking for copies to arrive here. Thanks in advance for your reply. If you receive your copy soon, please let me know if Clavis utilized yellow subtitles on this particular title. Thanks again.

They apparently sent it on Tuesday, so perhaps another week or two?

Jan

Good news, Clavis has used white subtitles.

JanPB wrote:They apparently sent it on Tuesday, so perhaps another week or two?

It appears that mine shipped this past Tuesday as well. Hopefully, my copy will arrive by next Friday or thereabouts.

Arn777 wrote:Good news, Clavis has used white subtitles.

Glad to hear it. This news makes me very happy.

Arn777 wrote:Good news, Clavis has used white subtitles.

Any other good news?

--
Jan

JanPB wrote:

Arn777 wrote:Good news, Clavis has used white subtitles.

Any other good news?

--
Jan

World War III hasn't started.
yet.

godardslave wrote:

JanPB wrote:

Arn777 wrote:Good news, Clavis has used white subtitles.

Any other good news?

--
Jan

World War III hasn't started.
yet.

Yes, no comment here.

There is some good news after all: the discs were waiting for me at home. That was very quick. They are Region 0, PAL, non-anamorphic, non-progressive. A typical frame with lots of motion looks like this. The combing is hardly visible during normal playback but this is one reason Masters of Cinema insist on progressive DVD compression. The same frame deinterlaced by hand using MPEG Streamclip (Mac) looks like this. A more typical frame (without so many violently moving objects) might look like this. Check Irimias' left arm though, a bit of combing there.

Again, this is visible in still frames, during normal playback this is practically invisible. But then it all depends on the definition of practically

--
Jan

JanPB wrote:They apparently sent it on Tuesday, so perhaps another week or two?

Jan, just to be clear: Your copy shipped on Tuesday (Oct. 10th), you received it today (Oct. 12th), and you live in the U.S.? Wow, if this is the case, then my copy should be coming soon. Or, it is possible that I may have misunderstood you. Perhaps you meant your copy shipped last Tuesday (Oct. 3rd), which was the day after you ordered it (judging by the time stamp on your post "Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:31 pm"). Please help. On another note, thanks for the screencaps. It's too bad about the combing.

livullmannfan wrote:Jan, just to be clear: Your copy shipped on Tuesday (Oct. 10th), you received it today (Oct. 12th), and you live in the U.S.? Wow, if this is the case, then my copy should be coming soon.

It was postmarked 6 October. I didn't know when they sent it because of their rather (cough) minimal e-mails.

It's too bad about the combing.

I suspect majority of DVDs out there are interlaced. I think some players deinterlace on the fly anyway, esp. those with progressive scan outputs?

Edit: In fact IIRC all players are supposed to do the deinterlacing when the DVD is flagged appropriately. It seems this DVD is authored correctly as there is absolutely no combing during the playback. When viewing a still frame, the interlacing may or may not be visible depending on the player's video filter.

--
Jan

My copy arrived from Clavis' headquarters this past Tuesday. I am very pleased with it. It only took about one week to get from France to the United States. Good stuff.

Well, tomorrow's the big day. UW Cinemateque will be showing Satantango starting at Noon. Be there

I looked at parts of the Clavis version of Satantango, and am very pleased with both the image and the audio quality. The only remaining question is about the aspect ratio. This is a 4:3 image. Without any other reference, I am unable to determine if this is the right presentation of this film. It will be a great pity if someone found this is not the right framing, because the DVD's are excellent in all other respects. I recall a wider framing when I saw it at MoMA, but sometimes theatrical presentations achieve wider ratios by masking out the top and the bottom, so I am unsure of what constitutes Bela Tarr's view on his work's correct presentation. Any views?

kekid wrote:I looked at parts of the Clavis version of Satantango, and am very pleased with both the image and the audio quality. The only remaining question is about the aspect ratio. This is a 4:3 image. Without any other reference, I am unable to determine if this is the right presentation of this film. It will be a great pity if someone found this is not the right framing, because the DVD's are excellent in all other respects. I recall a wider framing when I saw it at MoMA, but sometimes theatrical presentations achieve wider ratios by masking out the top and the bottom, so I am unsure of what constitutes Bela Tarr's view on his work's correct presentation. Any views?

My DVDs are 4:3 but letterboxed, like so. The framing looks correct but it's been almost 4 years since I saw it at the PFA in Berkeley.

AE's SATANTANGO confirmed at the bbfc website as being uncut. Yippee!

peerpee wrote:AE's SATANTANGO confirmed at the bbfc website as being uncut. Yippee!

The information at the link included says that the film presented was 419 min and 12 sec. This was passed uncut. The Clavis version has a duration of somewhere between 450 and 460 minutes (the front of the case says 7.5 hours, the back says 460 minutes). I have not gone in and added up the times on the individual 3 discs to verify the claim. But if it was true, then AI must be cut.

Very unlikely that the AE DVD is missing half an hour of footage. Much more likely that the Clavis box is using the theatrical 24fps length of the film (or from imdb) and the AE version has PAL speedup.

Best way to check is to add up the times on the actual Clavis DVDs themselves.

That's getting more and more curiouser. The times on the Clavis DVDs are:

DVD1 - 2.11.38
DVD2 - 1.59.28
DVD3 - 2.49.52

Toto: 7 hrs. 0 minutes 58 seconds (!)

Hmmm... The PAL speedup should have shortened 450 mins. to ~432 mins. but not to ~421 min. :-k

--
Jan