criterionforum.org

Criterion on Facebook wrote: We want to assure you that when we spend a ton of time and money making a new 4K master for a classic film like High and Low, we don't do it with the secret aim of ruining the filmmaker's framing. Looking at the comparisons you refer to, here are a few observations:

On HIGH AND LOW, the new Criterion DVD & BR aspect ratio is 2.32:1 (consistent with our HD master). The Madman/BFI DVD aspect ratio appears to be about 2.56:1. That transfer clearly shows more at the sides, but they have also cropped the top (significantly) and bottom, probably to avoid showing the splices on every cut. We chose to maintain the 2:35 framing and restore the cuts. Also, on HIGH AND LOW capture #3, which someone pointed out, notice that on the Madman and BFI you can clearly see the soft edge of the film, especially on the left. That definitely shouldn't be there.

HARAKIRI is a more complicated case. The Criterion DVD/BR again is 2.32:1, and the new Shochiku restoration released by Masters of Cinema appears to be about 2.41:1, which accounts for a small part, but not all, of the difference in side information. What is notable here is that the Shochiku restoration shows significantly more on the left hand side but not much more on the right edge. We bought a new 35mm fine grain preservation master from the original camera negative to serve as the source for our master, and our transfer conforms to that element. There was some evidence that the left edge of the negative had shredded, and that may account for the left-side cropping, which would have occurred at the photochemical stage, when making our fine grain. The new Shochiku restoration appears to have addressed that issue, but at the expense of some detail. Both are solid presentations, but we still like ours better for the difference in image quality.

In the end this is very subjective territory. When it comes time to make these judgment calls, we apply what we call "the good projectionist rule." The good projectionist has to show the film to best effect, balancing objective guidelines, like aspect ratio, with the realities of what is on the film. There is an art to it. A good projectionist wouldn't put up a 2.56 matte for a 2:35 film or show the soft edges of the film. Width is not the only measure. Headroom is important too. So is centering. So is image quality. It's a balance, and we really do try our best to get it right. You may disagree with the some of the choices we have made, but to suggest that, as some on this wall have, we don't care about Japanese classic cinema is just ridiculous.

Criterion on Facebook wrote: HARAKIRI is a more complicated case. The Criterion DVD/BR again is 2.32:1, and the new Shochiku restoration released by Masters of Cinema appears to be about 2.41:1, which accounts for a small part, but not all, of the difference in side information. What is notable here is that the Shochiku restoration shows significantly more on the left hand side but not much more on the right edge. We bought a new 35mm fine grain preservation master from the original camera negative to serve as the source for our master, and our transfer conforms to that element. There was some evidence that the left edge of the negative had shredded, and that may account for the left-side cropping, which would have occurred at the photochemical stage, when making our fine grain. The new Shochiku restoration appears to have addressed that issue, but at the expense of some detail. Both are solid presentations, but we still like ours better for the difference in image quality.

knives wrote:I think it's admitting they're within the window of acceptability.

Criterion on Facebook wrote:The new Shochiku restoration appears to have addressed that issue, but at the expense of some detail. Both are solid presentations, but we still like ours better for the difference in image quality.

Peacock wrote:It doesn't destroy the compositions, but it does HURT them, at least in the case of Harakiri missing a substantial portion of the left edge. Just like DVDs don't look terrible in comparison to Blu-ray, but obviously DVD doesn't look as good.

The reason the question was asked was because almost all, or possibly all (?), Japanese DVDs and Blus released by Criterion seem to be cropped at the sides compared to other releases, something noticeable even with the recent Suzuki Blu's. While often it isn't a major issue (High and Low Blu, Onibaba, the Suzuki's), it did seem quite strange and others have consistently commented on it in review comparisons for dvds, on the old Masters of Cinema website and here on this board. I still can't work out why the Suzuki's were cropped when Criterion's own old dvds weren't; but I think this still clears some things up.

dwk wrote:Criterion didn't say their master was damaged. They said the negative is and when their master was made, the damaged area was cropped.

Those people on facebook are awful melodramatic, this slight cropping doesn't destroy the compositions. (we are not talking about the film being Storaroed)

movielocke wrote:My opinion of Kobayashi completely reversed after seeing this. Previously, I had only agonized through a film screening of the first film of Human Condition. Empathetically, I couldn't handle that film, it was too severe a stressor on me to experience the pathologically naive protagonist intent on making his own life as miserable as possible through overt confrontation that will only increase his hardship. I could get the point and context of the film, I just couldn't handle actually experiencing the film, at some point the sledgehammer dashed in my skull, but it kept pounding on.

I watched HaraKiri without even knowing it was the same director, and I was shocked to find out he had directed both, though it quickly made sense. This film, I was not crippled by the bleakness underwriting the picture, I felt everything about the darkness of the human condition and man's inhumanity to man was illustrated far more effectively in this form and this method. I think it is the story and the structure here that I find superior. The way Kobayashi unrolls this scroll allows him to layer each scene and fill in nuance and detail at just the right moment. He builds momentum and dread beautifully, structuring the revelations so the impact is cumulative and reinforced in a way that the theme climaxes perfectly with the plot.

Max von Mayerling wrote:my reaction to the first film was necessary in order to get me to where the films were taking me.