criterionforum.org

FrauBlucher wrote:Hhhhmmm, how will this compare to the Arrow release, PQ wise.? I own the Arrow release which is solid, do I double dip?

Most likely the same Gaumont master.

eerik wrote:

FrauBlucher wrote:Hhhhmmm, how will this compare to the Arrow release, PQ wise.? I own the Arrow release which is solid, do I double dip?

Most likely the same Gaumont master.

If you have the Arrow, I'd stick with it. I doubt they'd do a better job, and I like the dual artwork on Arrow's reissue.

eerik wrote:

FrauBlucher wrote:Hhhhmmm, how will this compare to the Arrow release, PQ wise.? I own the Arrow release which is solid, do I double dip?

Most likely the same Gaumont master.

A racing certainty, I'd say. We know Criterion use Gaumont masters elsewhere, and this is one of their good ones!
Which means that it'll almost certainly look gorgeous, but there's very little point double-dipping.

The question should be : which Gaumont master will Criterion use ? We know that Arrow used the non-degrained one when Gaumont used the degrained one, with a visibly different result.

One of the most basic things a conscientious DVD/BD producer needs to do is examine rival editions with the proverbial fine-tooth comb. It's pretty much inconceivable that Criterion won't have done this, so they'll be more than aware that there's a good degrained master out there.

(I haven't seen it since it was released, but I daresay the Arrow still looks pretty stunning - back then, it was a benchmark for an HD presentation of a black-and-white film from the 1950s.)

tenia wrote:The question should be : which Gaumont master will Criterion use ? We know that Arrow used the non-degrained one when Gaumont used the degrained one, with a visibly different result.

Gaumont's own Blu-ray has a bit poorer compression, more tinkering. Doesn't mean that there's another master.

eerik wrote:Gaumont's own Blu-ray has a bit poorer compression, more tinkering. Doesn't mean that there's another master.

Oh, don't worry, it was confirmed that Gaumont used at the time to do 2 restored masters : one degrained, one non-degrained. So you just needed to add 2+2 to understand what happened. I'm also quite sure it has been confirmed by Gaumont themselves who used what on Rififi.

Dr. Svet gives the Criterion BD perfect marks in video and audio, though there are noticeable differences in contrast and framing between this and the Arrow release.

Is it just me or are none of the DVDBeaver screencaps for that review available?

They are not showing up on my screen too.

They show up fine for me (using Firefox), but they do take a bit to load, looks like big file sizes.

The Criterion is the only one that shows the full telegram message, but it is a bit darker than the other 2. I think I'll keep my Arrow edition.

I had no problem, but the images did load slower than usual.

I'm leaning towards picking up the CC even though I have the Arrow. I almost always prefer CC's contrast levels, along with more info in the frame make this more likely to be a get for me.

OK, for some reason they were not coming up through my hotel WiFi, but now I can see. Still very surprised Criterion opted not to include more extras than their old DVD, Arrow is clearly superior with extras.