Stalker on DVD

[Tommaso]

I disagree, a 160 minute film with no audio, extras, or menu could only have a maximum bitrate of 6.76Mb/s on single disc, which is already too far off the maximum DVD bitrate especially for such a visually rich film as Stalker where much of it is shot in deep focus and there's heavy detail throughout the frame (so nowhere for the encoder to sacrifice bits from non-detailed areas to boost bitate in more important areas).

Of course, 6.76 doesn't sound like a lot. On the other hand, Criterion managed to get the whole 185 min. version of "Kagemusha" on one disc, and it does look really good. Same goes for the 160min+ Rivettes on the French 8-discer. So I suppose, something approaching that quality should be possible for "Stalker", too.
The great problem with the Ruscico/AE 2-discers of "Stalker" is not so much that you have to change the disc in between, but that you have to go through all these annoying logos, copyright warnings and set-up procedures again before you can finally watch disc 2. In the time, all the spell the film has exuded up to the middle point is broken.

[MichaelB]

Of course, 6.76 doesn't sound like a lot. On the other hand, Criterion managed to get the whole 185 min. version of "Kagemusha" on one disc, and it does look really good. Same goes for the 160min+ Rivettes on the French 8-discer. So I suppose, something approaching that quality should be possible for "Stalker", too.

You also need to bear in mind that just because the average bitrate is 6.76, that doesn't mean that this is invariably going to be the maximum bitrate - and I'd recommend a variable bitrate transfer with a film like this given the wide range of visual challenges, as well as the large number of relatively static shots where you can get away with dropping the bitrate with no obvious visual penalty.

As I've said elsewhere, people do tend to fetishise bitrate a little too much, perhaps because it's a measurable and therefore quantifiable figure. But as we've seen in this very thread, a high bitrate doesn't necessarily mean a great transfer, and neither does a low bitrate mean a poor one.

(And in any case, 6.76 isn't low. The theoretical maximum in the standard DVD spec is 9.8 MB/sec, but many players can't handle that without stuttering or other glitches so a good rule of thumb is to aim for 9.2 as an absolute upper limit - including audio. So in practice it's unlikely too many video transfers will go significantly above 8 - meaning that 6.76 is actually a very healthy bitrate which should be able to handle most eventualities, provided the people and software encoding it are up to the job)

[Gigi M.]

Also Gigi, what's up with those screenshots? They have horrible horizontal lines throughout, I'm assuming it's something to do with how they were captured?

I guess so. I captured them with PowerDVD. I don't see those lines on my screen.

[Dr Mabuse]

any chance anyone has any news on Tarkovsky's 'Stalker'?... a proper Criterion release?

[miless]

any chance anyone has any news on Tarkovsky's 'Stalker'?... a proper Criterion release?

Kino's got it... and Tamara has written to me that there are no Tarkovsky films in the works at the current time (I was asking about Nostalghia, a film which definitely needs a DVD release)

[Dr Mabuse]

any chance anyone has any news on Tarkovsky's 'Stalker'?... a proper Criterion release?

Kino's got it... and Tamara has written to me that there are no Tarkovsky films in the works at the current time (I was asking about Nostalghia, a film which definitely needs a DVD release)

yeah i own the Kino version... which i think is simply a re-release of the Ruscico version?... and some of the controversial sound effects added by Ruscico to the trolley car scene are still there on the Kino version... instead of silence and only the sounds of the wheels with an oscillating pitch, which is what i have always seen as the original way that scene sounds...

i think the picture could look better with some work too...

i totally agree about Nostalghia...

[miless]

I have the old version of Stalker from Ruscico (that cost a ludicrous $45) and it has the original Mono track (does the Kino not come with this?), and that journey is how you describe it (it does, also, come with the 5.1 re-mix with the added sounds and music, which is pretty much unwatchable). The one thing about the mono track is that a few seconds are missing in Part 1 (specifically a gun-shot is cut out, but we see the scattering of bullets on the water).

I would suggest trying to switch the audio track on Stalker to the mono version (if it's even included)

[HerrSchreck]

I have the older-- corrected-- RusCiCo Stalker, and am really surprised the materials supplied to Kino don't have the mono... the original RusCiCo Stalker release from a few yrs ago (If im remembering this correct) had only the 5.1 w the horrid overdubbing. They got a lot of complaints from folks wanting to hear the film as released without corruption, so they then rereleased the package with the original mono stuck in there as an option alongside the 5.1 to squelch the complaints. Pretty odd if they reverted back to the 5.1-only when passing the package to Kino.

Actually, before posting, I checked out the digitally obsessed review, which indicates that both the mono & 5.1 are on the release.

Audio Transfer
Language Remote Access
Mono Russian yes
Dolby Digital
5.1 Russian, English, French yes

So I think the kino's just a dupe of the "corrected" ruscicio.

[Dr Mabuse]

So I think the kino's just a dupe of the "corrected" ruscicio.

that's what i think also...

[swo17]

I just recently bought the Kino version of Stalker and can attest that it does include the mono soundtrack (and by all indications, is just a dupe of the corrected Ruscico). However, it is practically an easter egg. The box doesn't advertise it, and you can't switch to the mono soundtrack while watching the movie. The only way to watch it with the mono soundtrack (and yes, the 5.1 is the default) is to manually change the settings in the Subtitles option on the main screen. (Actually, DVDBeaver says you can easily switch between the two--maybe I have just not figured this out yet.) Otherwise, the Kino DVD is probably the best you're going to find for this movie until (knock on wood) an HD release comes out.

[bunuelian]

Switching to the mono track is pretty odious on the Ruscico release, also. Maybe Kino ported the menu structure also, and just replaced the skin.

I'd love to see a better release of Stalker, though I'd happily trade that for a proper Rublev. I saw a beautiful print in DC a couple years ago, which gave me a brief spark of hope.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Switching to the mono track is pretty odious on the Ruscico release, also. Maybe Kino ported the menu structure also, and just replaced the skin.

I'd love to see a better release of Stalker, though I'd happily trade that for a proper Rublev. I saw a beautiful print in DC a couple years ago, which gave me a brief spark of hope.

I know there is not much chance to see a Criterion release of Stalker, but I've always wondered about what happened to the first footage of Stalker. This is discussed in the zone 2 UK bonus and we learn that the first footage was really different : much more money was available at that time for the set; especially all the army wreckage around the Zone, etc...
But different how?

I've never seen picture of the first set of the footage of Stalker which is a bit strange, and in the bonus of the zone 2 UK DVD from one person to another we have a different version : some says the movie was "unsuable", which doesn't mean that it was destroyed, but "unsuable" in a theatrical purpose. Of course you know what I'd like to know : is this first footage definitely destroyed, or could it be watched one day ?

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

I've never seen picture of the first set of the footage of Stalker which is a bit strange, and in the bonus of the zone 2 UK DVD from one person to another we have a different version : some says the movie was "unsuable", which doesn't mean that it was destroyed, but "unsuable" in a theatrical purpose. Of course you know what I'd like to know : is this first footage definitely destroyed, or could it be watched one day?

I've read that Tarkovsky's editor (Lyudmila Feiginova) kept the rushes from the first version, but as of 1991 she was claiming that the original material was lost except for some individual frames.

[HerrSchreck]

I dont know the technical name for it-- or if it happens in the Kino-- but the thing that bugged me most in the "corrcted" RusCiCo Stalker was the drift of light image data vs dark image data vs one another, even in a static frame. To understand what I mean, imagine that the Criterion logo up in the lefthand corner of this page seemed to wobble & drift a bit in it's proximity to other image data of variant levels of dark/light as if it were floating in water. On the Stalker disc, especially in scenes of very high contrast (and with the bleaching, there's quite a bit of them), it's most notable... white faces sleeping against a dark background seem to wobble & drift in unison... lights in the ceiling dont seem stable vs the black walls, but it's all purely a digital phenomena: the objects should be totally stationary. Brightness temperatures have their own correspondence with one another, and these corresponding objects have their own wobble rhythm vs other objects of other contrast temperatures which have their own wobble, etc etc. I'd heard this mentioned years ago about the RusCiCo release. I wonder if this happens on the Kino.

[miless]

When someone asked Ruscico about that problem, they countered that Stalker employs various visual techniques that make things wobble... but I'm fairly certain that they don't know what they're talking about (and Tarkovsky might have employed them with certain pieces, like the shot over the water when you see the fish in (what appears to be) a glass dish... maybe).

I'm fairly certain that the Kino disc has the same problem (it's also compounded by the fact that the whole movie is crammed onto one disc)

[bunuelian]

I thought the first shoot's negatives were irreparably damaged by the lab, which apparently applied the wrong process to it. I seem to remember it being a confusion about how to handle the type of film stock they used, but it's been a while now. Interesting that there might be some rushes out there.

[HerrSchreck]

When someone asked Ruscico about that problem, they countered that Stalker employs various visual techniques that make things wobble... but I'm fairly certain that they don't know what they're talking about (and Tarkovsky might have employed them with certain pieces, like the shot over the water when you see the fish in (what appears to be) a glass dish... maybe).

I'm fairly certain that the Kino disc has the same problem (it's also compounded by the fact that the whole movie is crammed onto one disc)

That totally blows-- now I'm really glad I have the previous Ruscico version. I'm not home to check but I could swear the Image-Ruscico had the film spread over 2 discs.

And I'm sure the bleaching is not responsible for the wobble. Do those with PAL releases see this phenomena? My understanding is that the NTSC editions are not preconverted and so the ghosting could be the culprit for the unstable lights vs darks.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I thought the first shoot's negatives were irreparably damaged by the lab, which apparently applied the wrong process to it. I seem to remember it being a confusion about how to handle the type of film stock they used, but it's been a while now. Interesting that there might be some rushes out there.

yes me too: we have 2 interviews in the RusciCo bonus DVD : one of the two interviewed said that the first shoot's negatives were damaged (I think that it was an experimental film). Besides the fact that some think that this film was intentionally and damaged , and some don't, we don't know exactly if this film is definitely lost because destroyed or if it was "unusable" for theatrical purpose. Which doesn't mean in this case that it was destroyed for an matter of "archival view" now as a bonus of a Criterion deluxe edition.

This is more intriguing when came as said previous in this thread the 2 interviews : on what she said that it was lost, on another no...
I'm really intrigued about this. At least their should be some short excerpts and or/at least some set photoshoots...

[Hashi]

When someone asked Ruscico about that problem, they countered that Stalker employs various visual techniques that make things wobble... but I'm fairly certain that they don't know what they're talking about (and Tarkovsky might have employed them with certain pieces, like the shot over the water when you see the fish in (what appears to be) a glass dish... maybe).

Yes there was discussion about this in some of the early Criterion forums, don't remember which one. I remember the Nostalghia site had the same info. Couldn't find it anymore though there are some mentions in this page

[SoyCuba]

And I'm sure the bleaching is not responsible for the wobble. Do those with PAL releases see this phenomena? My understanding is that the NTSC editions are not preconverted and so the ghosting could be the culprit for the unstable lights vs darks.

Yes, the Artificial Eye edition also has this problem. It must be a problem with the digital transfer since I just bought this edition of T-Men and it has the same wobble phenomena. Very annoying and I don't remember seeing this effect in any other DVD but these two.

[Hashi]

And I'm sure the bleaching is not responsible for the wobble. Do those with PAL releases see this phenomena? My understanding is that the NTSC editions are not preconverted and so the ghosting could be the culprit for the unstable lights vs darks.

I have the PAL (RusCiCo) edition and it's there. So ghosting is not the culprit though I guess it can make it even worse.

[Hashi]

Yes, the Artificial Eye edition also has this problem. It must be a problem with the digital transfer since I just bought this edition of T-Men and it has the same wobble phenomena. Very annoying and I don't remember seeing this effect in any other DVD but these two.

I've seen this phenomena in many many DVD's. By zooming the image reveals it more effectively (and no, I'm not looking my movies zoomed). So sometimes when doing comparisons and looking at the image more closely like searching for halos, compression aftefacts, zooming in etc. I've seen this very often - too often. I think it is some kind of noise-reduction filter which is applied -way- too much.

[shostakovich1]

In mid 2006, when I bought the Artificial Eye version of this, I contacted the company regarding the "jitter/float" issue, as I thought it might be a faulty DVD. Their reply implied that this was a technique that Tarkovsky had used deliberately!

..."It seems that as strange as the effect appears, it is in fact deliberate. I have done a little research into the matter and it seems that Tarkovsky employed a technique whereby he would place one layer of film on top of another and move them, thus creating this de-stabilising effect. I hope that your viewing of the film will be enhanced by the knowledge that the look of the film is very much intentional."

Not being totally satisfied with this explanation, I then submitted my original correspondence plus their reply to the Nostalghia news board, who then added the following:

"Artificial Eye are clearly talking out of their gluteus maximus again. Are they saying that Tarkovsky "deliberately and carefully manipulated one layer of film on top of another" on the close-up of Solonitsyn's face in order to cause his cheek and ear to move independently of his face? Ludicrous. We have prepared a video clip which clearly and unambiguously shows that the effect is, as has been pointed out here numerous times, an (unnecessary) artifact of the video compression scheme used. We digitized a portion of the "Stalker's home" sequence as found on the Fox Lorber VHS (which of course exhibits no digital jitter whatsoever) and ran it through the default AVI compression in iMovie—the result was an effect identical in every respect to what is seen in the AE/RusCiCo DVD. The URL to our video clip, which shows the uncompressed and compressed sequences back-to-back, is available upon request (it's rather large, about 50 MB).

We find Artificial Eye's bold-faced attempt at deceiving one of their more intelligent and quality aware customers totally unacceptable.

(Another problem with RusCiCo transfer (used by AE, MK2,...) is total highlight blocking in many scenes. The VHS version actually contains more image information, despite having a much lower image quality.)

So, a compression problem. It's a great pity that there is no better version of this film classic on the horizon.

[HerrSchreck]

That whole filmstrip over filmstrip explanation is one of the weirdest (and unintentionally hilarious) customer service flops I've ever read in my life.

Though you hafta give credit where it's due: it's pretty inventive.

[Barmy]

The float does appear in the 35mm in the bar scenes. I've never watched this on DVD, so I'm not sure if that's what you are talking about.

Whatever floats your boat.