criterionforum.org

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2020 1:34 am**

dwk wrote: Sat May 02, 2020 2:50 am Despite the recent BD-R, it appears Clueless is getting a 25th Anniversay Blu-ray on July 14th. Probably the same Blu as the previous release, but at least it'll be pressed not burned.

Nice looking Steelbook version also coming for cheap

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2020 1:35 am**

tenia wrote: Tue May 12, 2020 12:45 pm Looks like Paramount managed to screw up badly their new disc/4K restoration of To Catch a Thief.
What a tremendous way to inaugurate a new collection ! Way to go, Paramount.

Holy shit

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2020 1:51 am**

It looks like the Thief stole the grain and the color

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2020 7:03 am**

And most of the extras and the original 2.0 track.

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2020 12:58 pm**

I'm actually curious over what explains incompetence like this, or is it just another obvious signpost of the decline of western civilization?

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2020 1:06 pm**

Rayon Vert wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 12:58 pm I'm actually curious over what explains incompetence like this, or is it just another obvious signpost of the decline of western civilization?

It's sadly nothing new with Paramount. Amongst studios' usual suspects in terms of digital tinkering, they're barely above Universal. Considering how Uni treated their Hitchcocks, they sure make a great couple on these.

It also seems that King Creole has been noticeably filtered, and it's possible Fatal Attraction has been too. It reminds me of Studio Canal's two teams theory, with one yielding Peeing Tom and Don't Look Now (the older disc) while the other was doing wonders on the Ealing titles.

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2020 3:26 pm**

Paramount "requested" Robert Harris to substitute a post of his on Blu-ray.com with the studio's position regarding the new To Catch a Thief Blu-ray:

Paramount undertook a full restoration of To Catch A Thief from a 6K 16-bit scan of the original VistaVision negative, making it the first time the original negative has been directly sourced for a home entertainment release. The 2012 Blu-ray was sourced from an interpositive (IP) that was printed in 2006 from the Vista Vision negative (IN).

The original negative contained some duplicate negative that was added to replace damaged sections in 1999. For this restoration, those duplicate sections were replaced with original YCM material so that we were sourcing the most original elements available.

The blue in the original negative was slightly faded in sections so the 35mm yellow separation master was scanned and recombined with the negative to restore the blue channel. An original IB print was used to verify that the color and optical fades matched the look of the original theatrical release. We find IB prints extremely valuable for restorations because they are known for their more stable, permanent dyes.

For the opening titles, the textless background from the original negative was scanned and the titles were rebuilt and overlaid on the original negative. This allowed us to improve the resolution and quality of the main titles while minimizing issues inherent to the older title creation technology.

This restoration also includes a new 5.1 audio mix that was created after cleaning up the 2007 mix and we also created UHD HDR-10 files for future use.

We made every effort to accurately restore this beautifully produced film by referencing the original print throughout the process. In addition, using the original negative allowed us to minimize the need for digital noise reduction. With these facts in mind, we stand by this restoration. We continually endeavor to restore Paramount’s great films using the best technology available alongside every resource we can find to bring the original vision of the filmmakers to audiences.

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2020 3:34 pm**

If the caps are accurate, there is no possible defense for this. Paramount here is basically Trump and anyone who furthers this fiction is the Blu-Ray equivalent of a MAGA-loving Facebook relative

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2020 3:44 pm**

I haven’t seen screencaps because they don’t work on my phone from that site, but I watched the old Blu-ray last year and it looked superb.

That said, a 6k O-Neg scan of a large format film is going to have way less grain than a 35mm reduction Interpositive from the same large format O-Neg.

This gets at an interesting wrinkle with o-neg vs interpositives for home video, interpositives are several times better quality than theatrical 35mm prints but grain wise are closer to what was seen theatrical than a negative scan, which is not reflective of theatrical exhibition.

though 99.99% of the time in the modern era you’d see a fourth generation 35mm print, (O neg—>interpositive—>internegatives—>release prints) though megarelease films with thousands of prints any 35mm release print was likely to be a sixth generation element which is a printing tree that create enough internegatives to print release prints at massive scale.

In a very real sense deriving home video from negatives instead of inter-positives is creating a new experience that doesn’t reflect anything anyone has ever seen (other than the negative cutter who was looking at the negative witha Loupe at max).

Negatives have massive amounts of information, a 35mm negative can easily have 5000 lines of resolution, but an interpositive will Max out at about 3500 lines of resolution (generational loss is massive) and a release print realistically won’t have more than 2000 lines of resolution.

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2020 3:48 pm**

You have to see the screencaps before you can weigh in on this.

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2020 3:50 pm**

The problem with the screencaps isn't that they appear to have less grain but less detail, among other things

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2020 4:42 pm**

The cropping too. Tight is being generous.

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2020 4:59 pm**

Cremildo wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 3:26 pm Paramount "requested" Robert Harris to substitute a post of his on Blu-ray.com with the studio's position regarding the new To Catch a Thief Blu-ray:

Except for that last marketing bit, it's pretty much saying exactly the same than his old post, right ?

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2020 5:00 pm**

Such a wilfully ignorant response from Paramount. The problem is the transfer on the blu-ray and not the source restoration. It doesn't matter how many Ks they scanned it at if in the end they cropped it improperly and smeared the image.

Also, what is Harris' current relationship with Paramount that he has to do their bidding regarding changing the contents of his post?

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2020 5:20 pm**

There are a few blu-ray review sites that have reviewed the 2020 To Catch a Thief blu ray, and compared it to the 2012.

This one was rewritten after making the comparison, and shows the changes in the text before making the comparison. (from "great" to "wow, maybe not so great after all").

This is another one less fooled right from the start.

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2020 5:25 pm**

Apparently Paramount had the right idea when they sat out the whole Blu-ray thing for the last 13 years, as every title in this new line seems to have one issue or another.

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2020 5:33 pm**

Remember Hatari!? Paramount has always had an uneven release history with Blu. Which is weird because their DVDs always looked amazing

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2020 7:41 pm**

Tenia, I gather you're right. I imagine the original version is what's quoted in the post immediatly below RAH's updated one.

Robert A Harris wrote:I was given a quote by someone at the studio, which was apparently not ready to go. This was for use in my review over at HTF. I appended it here.

Yesterday, someone in publicity requested that I update my postings with a slightly different version, which I was happy to do.

They do not speak through me, but do supply occasional background for publication. When I publish that information, it is posted as is, and with no cuts, or changes.

RAH

Robert A Harris wrote:From what I’ve been led to believe, there’s no problem.

My mind is going. I can feel it.

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2020 8:55 pm**

domino harvey wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 3:48 pm You have to see the screencaps before you can weigh in on this.

holy shit what the fucking hell did they do to this poor movie? in a million years you would never convince me the 2020 release was NOT just an uprezzed DVD. Jesus it's completely awful.

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2020 9:01 pm**

I'm glad that companies want to continuously tend to one of Hitchcock's best underappreciated works, but the 2012 blu is excellent. Still, if there would be anything to prompt me to take the plunge into UHD it would be somehow managing to make Kelly's dress even more stunning in the moonlight.

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2020 10:12 pm**

I don't get the compulsive need (of any boutique or studio) to generally keep releasing new transfers of films when the previous, still very recent ones, were and are, as you say blus for this case, "excellent". Especially when the risk is sufficiently high that incompetence will produce an inferior product that will take the place of the existing product in the marketplace (something like this 2020 transfer is really sacrilege, rape of cinematic history), and keeping those funds away from restoring or upgrading other films that haven't had a proper blu release.

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2020 10:19 pm**

Or even another Hitchcock! Isn't the current blu of The Birds pretty lackluster? (If not, I'm going to order it immediately)

Posted: **Fri May 22, 2020 10:50 pm**

On my rewatch of a few months ago, I didn't have any major problems with it, although it's definitely much inferior to the 2012 To Catch a Thief.

Posted: **Sat May 23, 2020 8:20 am**

david hare wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 10:59 pm The new BD transfer l0oks like shit. Apart from having "correct" color grading, there is nothing else good to say about it...

So, forgetting the other issues for a moment, do we have any way of knowing which transfer has truly correct - as in accurate and authentic - colour grading? In the last screencap comparison (Cary on the roof at night), the 2020 transfer is a relatively naturalistic blue over all the image, apart from reddish skin tones, where as the 2012 has only the sky blue and both Cary and the roof bathed in green, similar to Hitch's expressionistic use of colour in, say, the Vertigo dream sequence (unless there's a green outdoor light in that scene that gives a realistic explanation?)
https://screenshotcomparison.com/compar ... /picture:9

Posted: **Sat May 23, 2020 12:34 pm**

Adam Grikepelis wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 7:41 pm Tenia, I gather you're right. I imagine the original version is what's quoted in the post immediatly below RAH's updated one.

Exactly.
There is, however, an important addition in this "marketing" bit : "we stand by this restoration."

criterionforum.org

Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu

Re: Paramount Catalog Titles on Blu