criterionforum.org

MichaelB wrote:By contrast, MoC's policy so far seems to be to encode SD material in NTSC, though the motive is the same: to maximise compatibility worldwide with players that can't handle PAL.

MoC's policy is to completely avoid putting any PAL SD material on a Blu-ray. We have encoded SD material in NTSC and we have also upscaled SD to 1080p (the English version of M).

peerpee, I'm curious, and this might be oddly phrased:

Is the region locking decision from BD release to BD release a friendly suggestion from whomever distributes the film in the US, or a firm insistence? I wish Criterion [for example] would realize that your bonus features always vary from theirs, and that region locking is just an inconvenience for those who want to purchase both editions of a timeless film like M but are still region locked.

Looks like a great Baader Meinhof release:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRevie ... lu-ray.htm

My only question: English (SDH) subs only? The screenshots show no evidence of them being hard of hearing subs, but if they are, why?! I hope this is just a mistake from Beaver as it looks like an otherwise great release.

mfunk9786 wrote:peerpee, I'm curious, and this might be oddly phrased:

Is the region locking decision from BD release to BD release a friendly suggestion from whomever distributes the film in the US, or a firm insistence? I wish Criterion [for example] would realize that your bonus features always vary from theirs, and that region locking is just an inconvenience for those who want to purchase both editions of a timeless film like M but are still region locked.

I discuss the region encoding of M in the MoC M thread.

I agree region encoding is an inconvenience (to put it mildly). All I can say is "get a multi-region player"! -- Let's make this practice utterly useless and demolish it from the outside.

peerpee wrote:

mfunk9786 wrote:peerpee, I'm curious, and this might be oddly phrased:

Is the region locking decision from BD release to BD release a friendly suggestion from whomever distributes the film in the US, or a firm insistence? I wish Criterion [for example] would realize that your bonus features always vary from theirs, and that region locking is just an inconvenience for those who want to purchase both editions of a timeless film like M but are still region locked.

I discuss the region encoding of M in the MoC M thread.

I agree region encoding is an inconvenience (to put it mildly). All I can say is "get a multi-region player"! -- Let's make this practice utterly useless and demolish it from the outside.

You aren't going to be very popular with mfunk for suggesting that. He's kind of sensitive about that issue.

TMDaines wrote:Looks like a great Baader Meinhof release:

Definitely have to see that film. I bet karaman wouldn't complain of censorship for two of those screengrabs of those norks

I agree, peerpee: and to be honest, if I had the budget to own two BD editions of M, I'd also have the money to own a region free BD player.

mfunk9786 wrote:Is the region locking decision from BD release to BD release a friendly suggestion from whomever distributes the film in the US, or a firm insistence? I wish Criterion [for example] would realize that your bonus features always vary from theirs, and that region locking is just an inconvenience for those who want to purchase both editions of a timeless film like M but are still region locked.

It depends entirely on individual circumstances. Criterion now seems to have a policy of locking everything, regardless of necessity, whereas MoC and the BFI only locked when contractually compelled to do so. Sometimes this is at the insistence of the individual rightsholder (or their agent) as a condition of being allowed to distribute the film at all, sometimes it's part of a deal with another distributor (like Criterion) who's handling the same title elsewhere, and on occasion it's at the insistence of the rightsholder specifically because they're hoping for a Criterion deal for the same HD master somewhere down the line.

If you have a look at my BFI Region Guide, you'll see the pattern - with hardly any exceptions, region-locked titles tend to be from major Hollywood studios (this includes the Pasolini titles, represented by United Artists) or equivalent outfits like Shochiku in Japan (i.e. the Ozu Blu-raya), while titles from smaller independent sources or those made/owned by the BFI themselves tend to be region-free.

MichaelB wrote: Criterion now seems to have a policy of locking everything, regardless of necessity, whereas MoC and the BFI only locked when contractually compelled to do so.

I am fully aware that every Blu Criterion has released has been locked, but what evidence do you have for your assertion that the decision is arbitrary? Just curious.

aox wrote:I am fully aware that every Blu Criterion has released has been locked, but what evidence do you have for your assertion that the decision is arbitrary? Just curious.

Well, I'm obviously not privy to Criterion's internal contractual arrangements with rightsholders, but about three or four years ago (I daresay a more dogged researcher could establish the exact date by trawling through Beaver reviews) their DVD releases changed from mostly region-free to entirely region-locked. And their Blu-rays have been region-locked from the get-go.

So you're looking at two explanations:

1. The rightsholders that Criterion licensed titles from, including major Hollywood studios and tiny independent outfits, more or less simultaneously decided to impose region-locking as a contractual condition - but only on Criterion, since other licensees (for instance Axiom, whose BD of Wings of Desire is region-free) clearly didn't have the same restrictions.

2. Criterion themselves decided, for whatever reason (my guess is they think it would make it easier to license their own HD masters to distributors elsewhere), to region-lock across the board, regardless of whether they actually had to.

Which do you think is easier to believe?

Yeah, that seems like fair reasoning. I would love to know the explanation; how does it affect the bottom-line?

This is complete guesswork, but I reckon they calculated that it wouldn't hurt exports that much, and it provides negotiating leverage when dealing with other distributors - "look, we region-lock our discs so there's no chance of them encroaching on your territory!".

And a deal to license the use of one of their HD masters would almost certainly be worth more to them than a handful of overseas sales. Especially bearing in mind that we're only talking a handful - the vast majority of current DVD importers will be multiregion, and I imagine Blu-ray importers will catch up quickly. I'm region-locked at the moment, but my second player will definitely be multiregion.

Is the Blade Runner Blu-ray out of print and if so, um, why?

Flike wrote:Is the Blade Runner Blu-ray out of print and if so, um, why?

Probably just making way for several more different editions. What were there, 10 different SD releases?

Flike wrote:Is the Blade Runner Blu-ray out of print and if so, um, why?

Seems to be available everywhere else.

Though... looks like Indecent Proposal is out of print on blu-ray. For the time being. Kind of odd.

peerpee wrote:MoC's policy is to completely avoid putting any PAL SD material on a Blu-ray. We have encoded SD material in NTSC and we have also upscaled SD to 1080p (the English version of M).

Thank you for this. Special features that are inaccessible on both my region free DVD player and my Blu-ray player are irksome to say the least.

Amazon sometimes puts things Out of Print when really they're just on order from the manufacturer

daniel p wrote:I have Amelie, I haven't watched it yet, but I had a quick look and the PQ was great - and the audio sounded great also. Can't help with the subs though sorry, just flicked through it a bit.

You weren't kidding - I am actually quite startled by what a significant upgrade this is from the DVD. The picture is sparkling clean, particularly in brighter outdoor scenes that don't make use of the yellow/green filters that permeate the film. I highly recommend this disc to anyone looking to upgrade!

Re: The Blue Angel (1930):

See, now this is where I have to ask, what can Blu do for a film of this vintage?

Noiretirc wrote:See, now this is where I have to ask, what can Blu do for a film of this vintage?

Really?

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:

Noiretirc wrote:See, now this is where I have to ask, what can Blu do for a film of this vintage?

Really?

Um....."the marks are marginally MORE prominent" in the Blu Ray. And, I see a bigger picture there for Blu Ray in each frame comparison, but not a sharper picture.

Or did I miss something?

The SD grab of CITY GIRL at Beaver is the native size. The larger BD grab is clickable. It links to a full 1080p grab from the BD. This *massive* increase in resolution is what all the fuss is about.

Films "of this vintage" were shot on 35mm, like most films today. Blu-ray can do just as much for these old films as it can for newer ones.

peerpee wrote:The SD grab of CITY GIRL at Beaver is the native size. The larger BD grab is clickable. It links to a full 1080p grab from the BD. This *massive* increase in resolution is what all the fuss is about.

Films "of this vintage" were shot on 35mm, like most films today. Blu-ray can do just as much for these old films as it can for newer ones.

At the risk of infuriating some of you, I clicked on those grabs, looked very carefully, and saw no "massive" increase in resolution anywhere. The lines and clicks were still there, the "fuzziness" was still there.

Sigh......I dunno.......

The point is that it's that much bigger. If you blew up the smaller SD image to be the same size and compared the two side by side you would see the difference we're talking about.

Talk about peculiar viewing habits!