criterionforum.org

peerpee wrote:The Universal HD master we evaluated in July has now been replaced by a newer Universal HD master, with a number of improvements. We have Criterion to thank for these improvements, and Eureka to thank for holding on, when we needed to wait.

That's probably the best reason possible for a postpone.

david hare wrote:It sounds odd for me to say it but I really have arrived - to my own immense surprise - at a point where I would rather watch something like a really well executed WBArchive (including print damage and other scuffles) like Travels with my Aunt , or better still the amazingly gorgeous Yolanda and the Thief which looks like a vault IB master/to digibeta. The Oppo I play back with these days upscales the SD WBAs for instance like cream for a cat, but the Oppo is ruthless in revealing every flaw in the master (and the encode) for a not so good BD. Like the hideous new Kino Nothing Sacred. Or the totally dreadful Fox/Paramount My Fair Lady fuckup ofalltime.

I know what you mean. My fear is that a lot of the companies responsible for issuing Blus really have little idea what they're doing, and have thus focussed on a couple of factors (e.g. sharpness, absence of grain, absence of 'damage') without regard to the age or provenance of the material they're working with. And I suspect we're going to see more and more incompetently scrubbed and messed-with transfers like that Don't Look Now one, or (my eyes!) Le Samourai. Fortunately, we have Criterion, MoC and - most of all, in my opinion - the BFI doing things right (when they're holding the reins), but as David says, by now I've seen a number of Blu transfers that are distinctly inferior to a great DVD transfer up-rezzed by my Oppo. A good player can make a silk purse out of an unadulterated SD sow's ear, but if a clumsy technician has already added a hideous clasp and sequins and thick canvas shoulder-strap to the sow's ear, you're stuffed.

But then wasn't that always the case, even with DVD? Partly it will involve a learning curve as companies get more used to encoding for the format (there will always be some element of skill involved while an image still needs to be compressed to fit onto a disc), and partly it will be down to pure skill against *shudder* a presumption of what the potential paying audience will expect from the picture quality, even if that means buffing it to an unnatural sheen (along with the costing out of any restoration or search for better elements).

Well, I think one big problem is that the things these companies are focussing on in their transfers are the things that a majority of customers are 'demanding'. These customers being as ignorant as swans.

Isn't that an unfair comparison to the swans?

Damn right, Michael doesn't like bad transfers either.

But what about extras? In the Criterion commentary, Gregory Mank specifically states doing a "Criterion DVD and Blu-ray commentary", so I wonder if that would be ported over. Or if anything else exclusive.

zedz wrote:

david hare wrote:It sounds odd for me to say it but I really have arrived - to my own immense surprise - at a point where I would rather watch something like a really well executed WBArchive (including print damage and other scuffles) like Travels with my Aunt , or better still the amazingly gorgeous Yolanda and the Thief which looks like a vault IB master/to digibeta. The Oppo I play back with these days upscales the SD WBAs for instance like cream for a cat, but the Oppo is ruthless in revealing every flaw in the master (and the encode) for a not so good BD. Like the hideous new Kino Nothing Sacred. Or the totally dreadful Fox/Paramount My Fair Lady fuckup ofalltime.

I know what you mean. My fear is that a lot of the companies responsible for issuing Blus really have little idea what they're doing, and have thus focussed on a couple of factors (e.g. sharpness, absence of grain, absence of 'damage') without regard to the age or provenance of the material they're working with. And I suspect we're going to see more and more incompetently scrubbed and messed-with transfers like that Don't Look Now one, or (my eyes!) Le Samourai. Fortunately, we have Criterion, MoC and - most of all, in my opinion - the BFI doing things right (when they're holding the reins), but as David says, by now I've seen a number of Blu transfers that are distinctly inferior to a great DVD transfer up-rezzed by my Oppo. A good player can make a silk purse out of an unadulterated SD sow's ear, but if a clumsy technician has already added a hideous clasp and sequins and thick canvas shoulder-strap to the sow's ear, you're stuffed.

I don't know if I could even begin to agree with this statement.

You make it sound as if there is some ongoing problem with companies consistently producing disappointing releases. Precisely the opposite is true, and precisely companies such as Kino, who used to routinely produce very problematic DVDs, have become rivals of Criterion and the likes.

This year we saw such an impressive slate of catalog titles done right. From Warner to Gaumont in France, I could not manage to add everything I wanted to my library. And each month I add a pretty large number of discs.

And when it comes to the likes of BFI, for example, let's just say that I would have never bet on them to produce such beautiful BDs for Barbet Schroeder's More and The Valley. Add to the mix Before the Revolution as well.

I am sorry. The various companies that release on Blu-ray actually put a lot of care into their releases, and it clearly shows.

You want to talk about consistency and problems , well, you can look at Facets and Televista, they are still as "consistent" as they were during the glory days of DVD.

As far as DVD-R's (archive) are concerned, I've added around 15 from Warner/MGM and 7 from Sony to my library. The only ones I am somewhat pleased I have are Le streghe and Riot On Sunset Strip, because they were so difficult to get for years. However, no amount of upconverting magic can hide how terrible the transfers these discs have are. It literally feels like you are watching with goggles on. Of course, if you are watching your films on a 40-46' inch TV, then maybe the goggles-on effect may be a little easier to tolerate.

Hey David,

Good to see you posting again

That's fine. It was clear to me what you and Zedz were concerned with. But what I wanted to point out is that there were only a few serious gaffes this year, and the trend has clearly been to have stronger and a lot more competent releases than we had in the past. Really, the only major studio that has not shown any desire to dramatically improve its catalog output - quality-wise - has been Universal.

Nothing Sacred - I am not sure I agree with your criticism. I viewed this disc two days ago and I tend to side with those who think that the color-scheme isn't as problematic as implied/argued.

For me, the big and indisputable disasters this year have been only a few: Coppola's The Outsiders, Roeg's Don't Look Now, Melville's Le Samourai, and possibly Betty Blue. I really cannot think of any other discs that I've been seriously disappointed with. As I said earlier, everything that I've seen this year points to a different trend - which is that the studios are paying attention to what they are doing.

Around 2001-2002, there were far more problematic DVD release coming out from companies that very obviously did not know what they were doing. And amongst them were some of the majors.

Good to 'see' you again, David.

peerpee wrote:RUGGLES and ISLAND are both down for a Charles Laughton double-bill in May.

As you probably know, next year (December) will be the 50th anniversary of Laughton's death.
I expect rights issues would prevent it, but I'd love to see Callow's Laughton released. It's probably the most perceptive documentary I've ever seen about (and, of course, by) an actor, and an important corrective to the Barry Norman travesty Criterion included with Hobson's Choice.

It was made by Yorkshire Television, so is in theory licensable at a reasonable rate - the problem, which I suspect is what you meant by "rights issues", will probably be the clips.

Yes, and the problem is that narration or interview sound sometimes overlays the clips. It would require fairly complex editing if some of the extracts could not be licensed at a reasonable rate though of course other DVD companies have done this kind of thing, sometimes substituting stills for clips while the original sound continues. A fair number of the clips should be owned by Universal - the licensor of MoC's two Laughtons - including (in the UK) the RKO ones.

...and some of the British films may well be in ITV's library - and ITV would be the people I'd approach for clearing Yorkshire TV material too.

This is certainly true of the Korda titles and Jamaica Inn, although I'm pretty sure Hobson's Choice is owned by Studio Canal.

Announced for May release. Specs added to the first post.

Is Callow's Laughton available anywhere? I'd love to see it.

This was in my very low priority list as I already have the Criterion Blu-ray, but now I have to get it before the steelbook is sold out. Luckily, this seems to be the least popular steelbook release of the Q2 titles.

First post updated with additional special features. (Both this and Ruggles will now include an interview with Laughton biographer Simon Callow.)

I've already gotten to experience the entire Criterion disc by getting it for my girlfriend's father for Xmas, so I look forward to picking this one up for myself!

The final SteelBook design is this:

amazing <3

even though im not a steelbook guy, that is a thing of beauty.

Bürgermeister wrote:even though im not a steelbook guy, that is a thing of beauty.

Just to be sure, the steelbook will not say Island of Lost Souls on the front?

Cash Flagg wrote:Just to be sure, the steelbook will not say Island of Lost Souls on the front?

Correct - as per the MoC website.

We can't do anything about older images that have already gone out and are hosted at other websites.

neilist wrote:BBFC anniversary: How banned horror film Island of Lost Souls got a PG rating

Fascinating article, but then again censorship as a whole often is. It seems preposterous to consider what used to be deemed unsuitable for viewing. By spending a lot of time in Ukraine, however, you soon realise that other topics are still very much a no-go in 2012. It's bizarre that Borat, and indeed Bruno, are banned in much of the second world.

The BBFC podcasts are also are really good listen.