Artificial Eye / Curzon Film World

[MichaelB]

I'm guessing AE or their PR company didn't send him the BD.

[manicsounds]

Why is it unfair? They both have Dolby Digital audio and an MPEG2 encoding.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Blu-ray.com review of Holy Motors says the subtitles are imposed and non-removable (but not burned-in)

apparently the subtitles on Holy Motors (BR UK Artificial Eye) are forced.
There's no subtitles option in the pop-up menu "set-up" (you can only choose between the 2 audio tracks)
I've tried to remove the subtitles when the movie started, (during the logo) and during the movie; it looks like the subtitles are forced, (not burnt-in) because my player try to... but it got a "forbidden" error message.
That's typical what I got with so many French BR with forced subtitles such as TF1.
I'm a bit pissed off because I didn't except some "forced" subtitles from A.E. This doesn't sound like A.E policy...
I guess it is related to their rights/contract clauses to use this movie.
I would like to know (since Blu-Ray.com rate the video 5/5 of the Artificial Eye) if someone compared it to the French BR (Potemkine) transfer.
which one has the better PQ ? is the bitrate different ? or/and is the place allocated to the movie superior on the A.E ?

by the way the bonus Conversation with Leos Carax at the 2012 Festival del Film Locarno (more than 1 hour) was really interesting (it's start with a odd atmosphere, but the last questions/answers towards the end were really interesting...)

there's no plan of a Blu-Ray release of "Mauvais Sang" ? by the way ? (not A.E, but anywhere in this place, the World ? [-o<

back to Artificial Eye, I should mention that for Berberian Sound Studio the English subtitles are not English SDH or English subtitles but English subtitles for all languages (Italian, etc...) except for English audio. And there's a lot of english in the movie, and a lot of english with italian accent..
so beware... it's the same kind of thing than on some Criterion titles (Furyo/Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence, Yi Yi, etc...)

[TMDaines]

If there's a menu option for English subtitles but they are still forced anyway, then it sounds like a botched job rather than a rights issue. I'd be very surprised if it was the latter. On how many occasions have there been rights issues with making subtitles optional for English-language labels? Only with the odd Japanese release? It's a complete non-issue.

[Rupert Pupkin]

If there's a menu option for English subtitles but they are still forced anyway, then it sounds like a botched job rather than a rights issue. I'd be very surprised if it was the latter. On how many occasions have there been rights issues with making subtitles optional for English-language labels? Only with the odd Japanese release? It's a complete non-issue.

no no there's no subtitles option in the menu (no subtitles options appears in the menu or pop-up menu) (English subtitles are automatically activated when you "launch" the movie) (and can not be removed with the remote-control of your stand-alone blu-ray player). There's only audio option in the menu. (sorry if I did not express myself more clearly )

[TMDaines]

Sorry. You were fairly clear but I thought I read elsewhere that there is an English subtitles option in the menu but that it just doesn't work properly. I now can't find that so I'm guessing I was mistaken.

I'm very fussy about burned in subtitles (forced, but removable on a PC, I can live with if the disc is otherwise fine) and I don't remember ever looking at reviews of an AE disc and seeing forced subs before on the feature.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Sorry. You were fairly clear but I thought I read elsewhere that there is an English subtitles option in the menu but that it just doesn't work properly. I now can't find that so I'm guessing I was mistaken.

I'm very fussy about burned in subtitles (forced, but removable on a PC, I can live with if the disc is otherwise fine) and I don't remember ever looking at reviews of an AE disc and seeing forced subs before on the feature.

perhaps here :
http://criterionforum.org/forum/viewtop ... 50#p423382" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
but apparently, it's a problem with their authoring : if you have a blu-ray multiregion platine A, subtitles doesn't show up. But the subtitles have been planned to be "activated" at the start, and make sure that the "subtitle" button can't be use during the movie to remove or activate the subtitles with some players, hence the problem... it's a breach in their authoring...
I will try to stop Blu-Ray playing. then press title 1 - play. Perhaps there's a way to relaunch the blu-ray and play movie without subtitles...

yes I think that's a premiere in the Artificial Eye world . And since everytime I complain about forced subtitles on a TF1 Blu-Ray release, the right/contract clause answer is given to me to explain why the subtitles are forced, I suppose it's the reason here. Of couse they could have pay more (perhaps) to give this option (for instance Match Point by TF1 has forced subtitles, Medusa BR (Italian Blu-Ray) has removable subtitles). Perhaps Potemkine ask this to A.E because the picture quality of the Artificial Eye Blu-Ray is better ? :-k
I like to have the liberty to watch a blu-ray without subtitles... subtitles are good when they are available, but I really don't like all what is forced... It's a good technology, I have the feeling because of (c) issue to go back in the past.
Of course VLC allow this, but well, things would be sooo simpler if they allowed the "basic"/"simple" function of a blu-ray disk (which were the same as on DVD).

oh and for the packaging matter the A.E has a green-tint blu-ray plastic case.

The Potemkine Blu-Ray has some subtitles (removable) - I will check if this Blu-Ray features English subtitles (that I'm really not sure). The subtitles I have seen are subtitles for the non-French dialogue + subtitles SDH in French (audiodescription).

[manicsounds]

Play around with the BD player menu settings, like the audio/subtitle initial settings. See if that helps out.

[criterion10]

It appears that no matter what I try, I can't seem to get the goddamn subtitles to show up. I should make it clear, that I am not using an official Region Free player, but a Region A Panasonic DMP-BD80 with a simple remote hack. And I assume that this is the primary cause of the problem.

When I bring hit the display button and try to go to subtitles, it shows them as being "Off". When I scroll over this to change it, it simply does not let me. And next to the on/off switch for the subtitles, it says something to the effect of "Main Eng-1". It's as if the player recognizes that there are subtitles available on the disc, but I guess that the authoring of it is too screwy for a region locked player to deal with.

Oh, well. Pretty annoying. One of these days I will get a proper Region Free player (I already have a Region Free DVD player). It's just annoying considering that it's worked on all of the Region B discs that I own at the moment, with Holy Motors being the only exception.

[TMDaines]

I've just abandoned a late-night screening of Sokurov's FAUST on Blu-ray due to what looks like massive embedded interlacing that I couldn't take my eyes off. I've tried it on two players, all my other Blus play great – it's definitely this disc. It's apparent right away from the opening text credits, which are noticeably lined. Stepping through on pause reveals that every frame of the film is interlaced and it looks like a badly encoded DVD.

...

Are there any other Blu-rays of this film available in other territories? Are they similarly afflicted?

The film was shot on film with Arricams. I'm wondering whether at some point in post, during all the digital FX work, someone somewhere has done a poor conversion to or from 1080/50i (25fps > 24fps, or 24fps > 25fps) and embedded the interlacing in a 1080/24p master that AE couldn't unravel? With AE simply encoding that to BD? (ie. the HD tape AE were sent looked like this?)

It beggars belief that these "lines" are part of Sokurov's aesthetic.

Anyone got the Italian Blu-ray yet? I bought the German as it was less than €10 when I was making an order but, while in transit, I found out that it is in 1080/50i; the French Blu-ray is the same. Is the Italian definitely 1080/24p and does it have the same problems as the AE? Or is there the slim chance that it is supposed to be seen at 1080/50i on home video and that may explain the AE disc's problems?

[peerpee]

The AE Blu was 24p but had *visible* interlacing.

If the film's HD master is 50i, it could explain why AE's Blu is fucked (poor 50i > 24p conversion). The correct route would have been 50i > 25p > 24p. Looks like the AE Blu went 50i > 24p (hence the interlacing).

A 50i HD master encoded as a 50i Blu-ray should look great! ie. just because it's 50i on Blu-ray, doesn't mean you see the interlacing, of course. It should be invisible if handled properly. You *see* the interlacing when something has gone wrong (as it clearly has with the AE Blu).

[Zot!]

Neither alternatives are English friendly from what I can tell. Regardless, I would be very interested what you find out TMDaines. It's not unthinkable that the film was actually shot 25fps even, so 50i would be optimal in that case.

[TMDaines]

I was going to send my German Blu-ray back when I found out that it was 1080/50i (because of the speed up - even though I wouldn't ever have a problem with a PAL DVD) but I think I'll hold on to it for now. It just seems very strange the German and French are at 1080/50i and don't have problems, but the AE at 1080p does have them. I can't find anything on how the film was shot.

[Kris]

The German Blu-ray (which looks good or rather as intended, but has no subtitles at all) has the same running time as the theatrical screening I visited in January last year: 134 minutes. No clue where the imdb's 140 minutes come from.

[TMDaines]

Hmm... the plot thickens.

[pro-bassoonist]

Neither alternatives are English friendly from what I can tell. Regardless, I would be very interested what you find out TMDaines. It's not unthinkable that the film was actually shot 25fps even, so 50i would be optimal in that case.

Indeed. You only need to know how the film was shot.

In fact, what peerpee has written above isn't entirely correct. Just because you have a 1080/50i disc it does not mean that the content on it is interlaced. You could effectively "lock" progressive content/frames inside a 1080/50i disc; the 50i flagging is only because Blu-ray does not support 1080/25fps and 1080/50fps.

If Faust was shot in 25fps, you could flag the content as 1080/50i, yet your player will receive and read progressive data. Very similar is New Wave Films' release of How I Ended This Summer. The high-definition transfer is flagged as 1080/50i, but it is progressive (there is no interlacing). StudioCanal also have such discs.

Finally, if the "master" that was used to source the high-definition transfer was indeed 1080/50i, you do not need to go from 25p to 24p. It is pointless. Naturally, you should assume that the "correct" disc to have is a 1080/50i one. This is a safe assumption even if it turns out that the film was shot in 25fps for reasons I noted above.

[peerpee]

In fact, what peerpee has written above isn't entirely correct. Just because you have a 1080/50i disc it does not mean that the content on it is interlaced.

What I said *was* entirely correct because I was talking specifically about a 50i master being encoded at 50i!... but, yes...

You could effectively "lock" progressive content/frames inside a 1080/50i disc; the 50i flagging is only because Blu-ray does not support 1080/25fps and 1080/50fps.

This additional point about encoding a 25p master as 50i is an interesting one. The problem is though, if the HD master *is* 25p, where has the interlacing on the AE Blu 24p come from? It has to have come from somewhere, and it suggests they used a 50i master, not a 25p.

If Faust was shot in 25fps, you could flag the content as 1080/50i, yet your player will receive and read progressive data. Very similar is New Wave Films' release of How I Ended This Summer. The high-definition transfer is flagged as 1080/50i, but it is progressive (there is no interlacing). StudioCanal also have such discs.

It's a very interesting area, this. I just wish we could see the back of films being shot in 25p/50i though!

Finally, if the "master" that was used to source the high-definition transfer was indeed 1080/50i, you do not need to go from 25p to 24p. It is pointless. Naturally, you should assume that the "correct" disc to have is a 1080/50i one. This is a safe assumption even if it turns out that the film was shot in 25fps for reasons I noted above.

Not necessarily "pointless" if the theatrical exhibition was 24fps. There are a number of films shot in 25p/1080i that are shown theatrically on 35mm at 24fps. In these circumstances, it's a very interesting option to do the same thing with the Blu-ray encoding and go 25p > 24p also. Particularly because there are issues with some players or displays playing 1080i encoded Blu-rays properly.

[Zot!]

It's a very interesting area, this. I just wish we could see the back of films being shot in 25p/50i though!

Finally, if the "master" that was used to source the high-definition transfer was indeed 1080/50i, you do not need to go from 25p to 24p. It is pointless. Naturally, you should assume that the "correct" disc to have is a 1080/50i one. This is a safe assumption even if it turns out that the film was shot in 25fps for reasons I noted above.

Not necessarily "pointless" if the theatrical exhibition was 24fps. There are a number of films shot in 25p/1080i that are shown theatrically on 35mm at 24fps. In these circumstances, it's a very interesting option to do the same thing with the Blu-ray encoding and go 25p > 24p also. Particularly because there are issues with some players or displays playing 1080i encoded Blu-rays properly.

I've raised this concern myself previously, but I find it insane that professional outfits are still finishing films in 25p. Jia Zhangke, Lars Von Trier, Sukorov?, get your shit together people! Besides interlacing concerns, they are also introducing slow-down, which also affects pitch. Done properly, it can be overcome....but why?!

[pro-bassoonist]

In fact, what peerpee has written above isn't entirely correct. Just because you have a 1080/50i disc it does not mean that the content on it is interlaced.

What I said *was* entirely correct because I was talking specifically about a 50i master being encoded at 50i!... but, yes...

And it is not a "correct" route to go from 50i > 25p > 24p. Assuming that the "master" they used was 1080/50i, which is what you speculate, the correct route would have been to just have a 1080/50i transfer.

This additional point about encoding a 25p master as 50i is an interesting one. The problem is though, if the HD master *is* 25p, where has the interlacing on the AE Blu 24p come from? It has to have come from somewhere, and it suggests they used a 50i master, not a 25p.

If I had to guess, I would say that a production house somewhere, possibly in Russia or France, did a "master" that has 25p content incorrectly moved to 24p. Then this new 24p "master" was offered to different distributors. I think that it is highly unlikely that someone at AE actually did the conversion.

There is also a French release of Faust and I will try to take a look at it in a couple of weeks if I could find it. It is not English-friendly.

In any event, I have not seen the AE release and therefore I don't feel comfortable speculating what is on it or how good it is. But I will do my best to get it soon.

[pro-bassoonist]

In fact, what peerpee has written above isn't entirely correct. Just because you have a 1080/50i disc it does not mean that the content on it is interlaced.

What I said *was* entirely correct because I was talking specifically about a 50i master being encoded at 50i!... but, yes...

And it is not a "correct" route to go from 50i > 25p > 24p. Assuming that the "master" they used was 1080/50i, which is what you speculate, the correct route would have been to just have a 1080/50i transfer.

This additional point about encoding a 25p master as 50i is an interesting one. The problem is though, if the HD master *is* 25p, where has the interlacing on the AE Blu 24p come from? It has to have come from somewhere, and it suggests they used a 50i master, not a 25p.

If I had to guess, I would say that a production house somewhere, possibly in Russia or France, did a "master" that has 25p content incorrectly moved to 24p. Then this new 24p "master" was offered to different distributors. I think that it is highly unlikely that someone at AE actually did the conversion.

There is also a French release of Faust and I will try to take a look at it in a couple of weeks if I could find it. It is not English-friendly.

In any event, I have not seen the AE release and therefore I don't feel comfortable speculating what is on it or how good it is. But I will do my best to get it soon.[/quote]

I've raised this concern myself previously, but I find it insane that professional outfits are still finishing films in 25p. Jia Zhangke, Lars Von Trier, Sukorov?, get your shit together people! Besides interlacing concerns, they are also introducing slow-down, which also affects pitch. Done properly, it can be overcome....but why?!

The filmmakers or these professional outfits you speak of should not be blamed for these conversion issues. If anyone is responsible it is the BDA, because 25p/50p very easily could have been part of Blu-ray's portfolio. And you won't have any of these debates you have now.

[Zot!]

In fact, what peerpee has written above isn't entirely correct. Just because you have a 1080/50i disc it does not mean that the content on it is interlaced.

What I said *was* entirely correct because I was talking specifically about a 50i master being encoded at 50i!... but, yes...

And it is not a "correct" route to go from 50i > 25p > 24p. Assuming that the "master" they used was 1080/50i, which is what you speculate, the correct route would have been to just have a 1080/50i transfer.

Perpee offered the argument that:

1. the film was finished at 25fps but intended for distribution on film at 24fps (a la Melancholia) and that a 24p release replicates the theatrical experience.

2.50i will not work on a large number of home displays. I think was part of the consideration for MoC release of The World in 24p.

Though I will agree that I rather have had 50i than a shoddy 24p.

[Zot!]

The filmmakers or these professional outfits you speak of should not be blamed for these conversion issues. If anyone is responsible it is the BDA, because 25p/50p very easily could have been part of Blu-ray's portfolio. And you won't have any of these debates you have now.

No argument here. For all the benefits of blu-ray, ample flexibility is not one of them. Still, it boggles my mind that for all the technical and artistic efforts made for the purpose of these films, that they settle on such an antiquated approach. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for using 25p, except that Zentropa are notorious penny-pinchers and want to continue using their PAL equipment for post.

[TMDaines]

Is it possible thought that the runtime at 1080/50i matches the runtime of the theatrical release (as Kris indicates)? It's funny but I'd never be allergic to PAL speed up but on a Blu-ray - where these things needn't really happen anymore - it would bug me.

[peerpee]

And it is not a "correct" route to go from 50i > 25p > 24p. Assuming that the "master" they used was 1080/50i, which is what you speculate, the correct route would have been to just have a 1080/50i transfer.

If the film was shot on HD at 50i but was theatrically presented on 35mm at 24fps (such as Jia's THE WORLD, which I produced for MoC Blu-ray), then it makes a great deal of sense to go 50i > 25p > 24p (which is what we did).

Quite a number of films have been shot at 50i/25p and theatrically displayed at 24fps. Because the HD master is the source for the Blu-ray, the question is: do you try to mimic the theatrical experience, or do you slightly cripple the Blu-ray by releasing it in 1080i which may cause problems for a fraction of the audience?

Criterion have regularly taken 50i/25p masters (ANTICHRIST, BERLIN ALEXANDERPLATZ) and slowed them to 24p because of 1080i incompatibilities on certain Blu-ray players/displays. Again, ANTICHRIST and BERLIN ALEXANDERPLATZ probably played theatrically at 24fps, so you can't definitively say one way or the other that something is "correct" or not.

For Blu-ray authoring options it seems that ultimately, 24p regularly wins, due to these incompatibilities with 1080i.

The elephant in the room here is that 50i/25p keeps cropping up due to Japanese HD television originating at 50i in the 1990s and the entirety of European television broadcasts still stuck at 50Hz/50i.

[peerpee]

Is it possible thought that the runtime at 1080/50i matches the runtime of the theatrical release (as Kris indicates)? It's funny but I'd never be allergic to PAL speed up but on a Blu-ray - where these things needn't really happen anymore - it would bug me.

PAL speedup only occurs if the film was shot at 24p and then put to PAL 25fps!

If the film was shot on HD at 50i/25p, then that is its natural speed, and a Blu-ray of it encoded at 1080/50i would be perfect speed. Going from: 50i > fusing the interlacing at 25p > and then slowing it down to 24p for 1080p Blu-ray would result in slowing the film down from its natural speed and increasing the running time.