criterionforum.org

hearthesilence wrote:Have no idea if those caps are an accurate representation, but the Criterion looks the best in terms of color and picture quality. The other two look surprisingly crappy (crushed blacks, off color and/or mushy detail). Don't know if the Criterion is (wrongfully) cropping the sides, but I'd still watch it over the others.

These compressed SD captures are only useful for broadly assessing the colour correction and composition. Composition-wise, the old Pathe looks best to me, but the restoration runs a close second. The BFI/Criterion is shockingly cropped on the left hand side, just awful. Colour correction: I prefer the restoration too. The darker colours are not crushed, just more muted and subtle. This will really come to life when projected. The BFI/Criterion is artificially boosted to suit consumer television sets.

When you consider also the superior level of detail and tighter grain structure on the Pathe/Restoration, the Criterion/BFI really has been knocked out of the park.

tenia wrote:From what I remember, there are still 2 questions left with the new restoration : where the 2.55 ratio and the very hot colors come from ?

Apart from that, the Pathé BD blows away any other BD of the movie so far. When comparing the BFI / Criterion VS the Pathé, it's like comparing a DVD and a BD.

I'm not picking on you, tenia, because I've seen a plethora of similar statements on this forum and elsewhere, but what you're saying is like me saying, "Apart from my thinning grey hair, expanding waistline and dark brown eyes, I could be Paul Newman's twin brother." I'm not sure what the vested interests are or even if they are the same, but there seems to be a concerted effort to declare the Film Foundation resto the finest version of Gattopardo while at the same time declaring the Crit/BFI crap. Each and every declaration I've read usually begins by eliminating the problem areas of the FF version (AR, crushed blacks, over-saturated/hot color palette) from consideration and then waxing rhapsodic about the detail and grain structure (largely from looking at screen grabs as far as I can tell). What we seem to have in reality is two flawed presentations each of which excel in certain areas that compliment rather than correspond with each other.

oneshotmonkey wrote:The darker colours are not crushed, just more muted and subtle. This will really come to life when projected. The BFI/Criterion is artificially boosted to suit consumer television sets.

I presume you are able to assert the former because you have actually seen both versions in motion on a calibrated system, either display or projection, and the latter because you have confirmed the artificially boosting and its purpose with both BFI and Criterion.

Once again for the record I don't particularly care which is the "bestest, coolest ever". I own the Crit and the Medusa is in transit. Between the two I expect I'll have - one way or another - the best available now which, as a fan of the film, is what I seek. What I rail against is the breathless hyperbole used in announcing one is superior and the other dreck without even a pretense of applying the scientific method. No listing of the system/software, etc used to view the film(s). Nothing offered on the viewing conditions (ambient light, extraneous noise, etc). Most of the time it's not really clear if the correspondent has actually compared both version side-by-side in motion. Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man, but if you are going to make assertions about the technical superiority of one over the other, shouldn't you be expected to tell what you did to arrive at those conclusions? Otherwise, all the posts belong here.

Relax mate. It's just a Blu-ray, not the Large Hadron Collider. You don't have to go through the scientific method just to have a valid opinion, nor do you have to own both to make a judgement on which you'd prefer to have. That's why there are reviews on the Internet after all.

You'll pardon me, buddy-boy, but my substandard education as a scientist makes me want to know how people arrive at conclusions. Particularly when those conclusions are delivered like Moses descending from the mount, tablets in hand. And I'm not buying the Medusa because I'm dissatisfied with the Criterion but because the hyperbole piqued my curiosity and because I haven't found any reviews that compare the BFI/Crit to the Pathé/Medusa in a useful way. Finally, because of my past experiences in high end audio, I tend to be skeptical of reviewers unless I have established a track record for them.

What's wrong with comparing screen captures? Sure it's often not very scientific but it works for 99% of us. I can look at dvdbeaver - despite their compression problems, and despite my macbook monitor, and say that the Criterion has deeper blacks or say that the colours on the Criterion Red Shoes are warmer than on the ITV. Likewise you can look at these screen caps and say that the Pathe has hotter colours and crushed blacks than the BFI/Criterion. No it's not a scientific analysis, but it's enough...

None of The Leopard releases are ideal, I don't see a problem with people trying to work out which is the best, all things considered...

Peacock wrote:What's wrong with comparing screen captures? Sure it's often not very scientific but it works for 99% of us. I can look at dvdbeaver - despite their compression problems, and despite my macbook monitor, and say that the Criterion has deeper blacks or say that the colours on the Criterion Red Shoes are warmer than on the ITV. Likewise you can look at these screen caps and say that the Pathe has hotter colours and crushed blacks than the BFI/Criterion. No it's not a scientific analysis, but it's enough

You will note that Gary and his other reviewers provide detailed information on their systems and Gary has provided detailed info on how the captures are achieved. He's been taken to task more than once in this forum for his captures.

There's nothing wrong with taking a look at reviews based on screen caps and making a purchasing decision. I presume we all do it. My issue is with proclaiming one BD definitive or obviously far superior and the other crap - strong terms - without sharing how you arrived at that conclusion - and I don't think looking at someone else's screen caps on a computer monitor supports that level of certainty.

(FWIW, I reach exactly the same conclusion as you comparing the screen caps for The Red Shoes and Il Gattopardo which is why I take issue with eliminating the problems and then pronouncing one version superior. It's also why I want to do an actual comparison myself to determine how much difference the flaws affect enjoyment of the film in motion.)

triodelover wrote:I presume you are able to assert the former because you have actually seen both versions in motion on a calibrated system, either display or projection, and the latter because you have confirmed the artificially boosting and its purpose with both BFI and Criterion.

I have a calibrated broadcast monitor and anyone accustomed to looking at such things should be able to make the same observations. It really doesn't matter whether or not the images are in motion. Certainly, the blacks on the Pathe are not crushed, it just has a more natural, film-like gamma curve. I'm still not seeing how these releases compliment each other.

Okay, I just revisited the Criterioncast blog and the caps there were much more revealing. Opened up at 100% resolution (for the caps, I should say), the Criterion captures looked gritter, like it had more and larger grain, while the other Blu-Ray looked cleaner and crisper and sharper and not in a DNR way. Again, don't know if their caps are accurate, but if they are, it's pretty startling.

I recall being mightily impressed by the BFI back when I first got it (so impressed, in fact, that I watched it about four times in one week), but if the caps on Criterioncast are accurate (and the BFI caps do look fairly accurate - although they undermine how good the disc looks in motion) then it seems pretty clear that the new restoration is miles better.

Subs are pale yellow... although lying outside image frame...

Somehow I've developed a profound dislike of yellow subs, but maybe that's just me!...

How hard would it be to offer a choice between white (suitably outlined) subtitles and yellow ones? (for those of us whose eyesight is bad enough that easy legibility might trump purely aesthetic concerns)

If I remember rightly, Mondo Vision's Andrzej Zulawski DVDs do indeed offer that choice - and also a choice of sizes.

But that's the only example I can think of.

I can't imagine it would be very difficult at all - the subtitle files would otherwise be identical, so it would just be a case of re-rendering them in a different colour.

I picked up the Madman bluray recently and have done a quick A/B comparison with the Criterion on a few scenes (sorry, I can't do sceenshots).

The yellow subtitles on the Madman are fine with me - it's a fairly pale yellow, not the lurid acid yellow on some DVDs.

My impressions would generally support what the previously available screenshot comparisons between the French/Italian versions of the later restoration and the Criterion/BFI edition have shown. The Madman is definitely from a different restoration to the Criterion - there's more image on the Madman, often to the left side of the frame. The colours are somewhat juicier on the Madman compared to the Criterion. I don't know which version is more 'truthful', but after watching the two versions for a while, I generally liked the Madman better - blacks were deeper and the image just looked more lively. There was probably a bit less detail visible in the blacks on the Madman, but nothing to be concerned about. The Criterion looked somewhat faded and drab in comparison - it looks like an older print, whereas the Madman looks like it has been restored to resemble a more modern film.

My preference for the Madman's image relates also to other image differences - the Criterion seemed to have a more variable grain pattern, some of which seems at times to be digital noise or shimmering. This is evident in the opening shot right after the credits when the camera pans and zooms across the side of the stone building. On some other scenes the grain/noise is quite intrusive in motion. On the Madman, grain or noise is much finer.

I also noticed a scene or two where the Criterion exhibited pulsing of brightness - the scene where the carriage is going across the dry barren hills. There was none of that pulsing on the Madman.

I'd be happy with the Criterion of the Madman didn't exist.