criterionforum.org

Przeprowadzka, PL 1972 / DVD Propaganda (Restored)

http://www.ofdb.de/view.php?page=fassun ... vid=219701" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.imdb.de/title/tt0082952/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pardon me, as I don't have much experience making screen captures. I made all of these the same way, with the Snapshot function in VLC Media Player. I'm not sure why the grabs from the New Yorker DVD are smaller.

Theo Angelopoulos' Landscape in the Mist

New Yorker OOP R1 NTSC (first) vs. New Star R2 PAL (second)

swo17 wrote: I'm not sure why the grabs from the New Yorker DVD are smaller.

Your grabs are native size, they're fine. The size difference illustrates the pixel resolution difference between NTSC (640x480) and PAL (768x576). PAL has more pixels, and thus more resolution. HD is 1920x1080, and hence this is where 480p (NTSC), 576p (PAL) and 1080p (Blu-ray) comes from.

peerpee wrote:

swo17 wrote: I'm not sure why the grabs from the New Yorker DVD are smaller.

Your grabs are native size, they're fine. The size difference illustrates the pixel resolution difference between NTSC (640x480) and PAL (768x576). PAL has more pixels, and thus more resolution. HD is 1920x1080, and hence this is where 480p (NTSC), 576p (PAL) and 1080p (Blu-ray) comes from.

This is something I've always wondered about with those people who complain bitterly about Criterion's picture-boxing (slightly) reducing resolution. Shouldn't these people be boycotting NTSC in the first place? Aren't they losing much more that way, if there's a PAL option for the film in question?

(This post was NOT sponsored by Masters of Cinema)

zedz wrote:

peerpee wrote:

swo17 wrote: I'm not sure why the grabs from the New Yorker DVD are smaller.

Your grabs are native size, they're fine. The size difference illustrates the pixel resolution difference between NTSC (640x480) and PAL (768x576). PAL has more pixels, and thus more resolution. HD is 1920x1080, and hence this is where 480p (NTSC), 576p (PAL) and 1080p (Blu-ray) comes from.

This is something I've always wondered about with those people who complain bitterly about Criterion's picture-boxing (slightly) reducing resolution. Shouldn't these people be boycotting NTSC in the first place? Aren't they losing much more that way, if there's a PAL option for the film in question?

(This post was NOT sponsored by Masters of Cinema)

Well, no is the short answer, because a lot of purists hate the slight (and unnoticeable to most) 4% speed-up and pitch change of PAL. It's the lesser of two evils really.

TMDaines wrote:Well, no is the short answer, because a lot of purists hate the slight (and unnoticeable to most) 4% speed-up and pitch change of PAL. It's the lesser of two evils really.

Though with NTSC you're also losing the integrity of the frames. But when it comes to purists, I'm a purist purist, so unless you're insisting on 35mm, I don't think you're the real deal.

peerpee wrote: Your grabs are native size, they're fine. The size difference illustrates the pixel resolution difference between NTSC (640x480) and PAL (768x576). PAL has more pixels, and thus more resolution. HD is 1920x1080, and hence this is where 480p (NTSC), 576p (PAL) and 1080p (Blu-ray) comes from.

I don't doubt that you're right since you produce DVDs professionally, but could you explain why most sources I've come across list resolutions of 720x480 NTSC and 720x576 PAL as the standard DVD resolutions for MPEG-2 video? I'm afraid there's something here that I'm missing.

DVDs are actually 720x480 (NTSC)/720x576 (PAL), but in non-square pixels. PC monitors typically use a square (1:1) pixel aspect ratio, so a DVD image will appear distorted if displayed at its native resolution. Thus the image is resized during playback. Without resizing, your caps would have an AR of 1.5:1 (NTSC) or 1.25:1 (PAL), which obviously isn't right.

Le gai savoir (Godard, 1969)

R0, Koch Lorber vs. R4, Madman

R0, Koch Lorber:


R4, Madman:


R0, Koch Lorber:


R4, Madman:


Some white speckles are visible on both releases (not visible on these screecaptures but otherwise very noticeable because of the deep black background which dominates throughout the film). The US disc is interlaced (Berto's hand on image 1) but it is a genuine NTSC transfer (not from PAL master with speedup). Madman's disc is progressive (PAL speedup). Madman has two subtitle options: White or yellow font, while Koch Lorber only offers one option: yellow font.

The Australian disc has an audio commentary featuring Adrian Martin.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:DVDs are actually 720x480 (NTSC)/720x576 (PAL), but in non-square pixels. PC monitors typically use a square (1:1) pixel aspect ratio, so a DVD image will appear distorted if displayed at its native resolution. Thus the image is resized during playback. Without resizing, your caps would have an AR of 1.5:1 (NTSC) or 1.25:1 (PAL), which obviously isn't right.

Thanks for the clarification! I had forgotten about the difference in pixel aspect ratios.

Konopielka (1982)





DVD: http://www.ofdb.de/view.php?page=fassun ... vid=151089" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:DVDs are actually 720x480 (NTSC)/720x576 (PAL), but in non-square pixels. PC monitors typically use a square (1:1) pixel aspect ratio, so a DVD image will appear distorted if displayed at its native resolution. Thus the image is resized during playback. Without resizing, your caps would have an AR of 1.5:1 (NTSC) or 1.25:1 (PAL), which obviously isn't right.

It's all a bit of a mess. I work in square pixels when making menus, so I'm used to 720x540 (NTSC) and 768x576 (PAL) in 4:3, and 854x480 (NTSC) and 1024x576 (PAL) in 16:9. These get resized, on CRTs with non-square pixels, to 720x480 (NTSC) and 720x576 (PAL).

Blu-rays are a damn sight easier, no anamorphosising, and no square/non-square confusion -- just pure 1920x1080.

Could anyone please point out to me how to take captures the right way. Available software: PowerDVD 9, VLC Player, Windows Media Player, KMPlayer and every other freeware solution for Windows 7. I've tried several times in the past but always end up with some problems. I'd prefer it if both (anamorphic) 16:9 titles as well as 4:3 titles would end up without any borders on the snapshot. I've been able to do this with VLC but those shots always seem to have other problems, mainly visible interlacing or ghosting. Needless to say the captures should have the right aspect ratio! Thanks in advance.

Okay, I gave it another try with VLC, seems to have worked out!

Indiscreet, Universal RC2 UK, Anamorphic 1.78:1

The Unbelievable Truth (1989)
[OOP] Starz/Anchor Bay (Region 1) VS. C'est La Vie (UK, Region 2)

Starz/Anchor Bay


C'est La Vie


The C'est La Vie release doesn't look much better than a VHS, and the cover art looks amateur, I thought I was sent a bootleg. It certainly looks like one.

Here are some additional snaps from the C'est La Vie release:

Trust (1990)
[Dir: Hal Hartley]

Artificial Eye (Region 2, UK)

Welt am Draht (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1973) - Arthaus Premium

Come and See (1985)

DVD Icestorm Entertainment (GER) http://www.ofdb.de/view.php?page=fassun ... vid=155585" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


2DVD RUSCICO (RUS) http://www.ofdb.de/view.php?page=fassun ... vid=132390" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


2DVD Nouveaux Pictures (UK) http://www.ofdb.de/view.php?page=fassun ... vid=176932" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


DVD Icestorm Entertainment (GER)


2DVD RUSCICO (RUS)

I'm assuming the RUSCICO is the same as the Kino?

Bob le flambeur (Melville, 1956)

Optimum (6-disc Melville Collection, Region 2) vs. Criterion Collection:

Optimum:


Criterion:


Optimum:


Criterion:


Not much difference, I think, but CC has better contrast (boosted? too much?). There's more dust and speckles on Optimum. Optimum has burnt-in subs.

Partie de campagne (Renoir, 1936) - Madman, Region 4

Another user, feckless boy, has made screencaptures of the Bfi- and the French Studio Canal in this post. I've tried to capture the same frames for easy comparison:





Imagewise the Madman release seems on par with the French Studio Canal, but the framing is a little bit different. Subtitles are optional, and the extras overwhelming!

(I could post feckless boys' captures here as well for even easier comparison. Maybe just one of the two scenes?)

A Night in Casablanca [1946]

Lighthouse Home Entertainment (DVD) Germany:


Warner Home Video (DVD) UK:


Lighthouse Home Entertainment (DVD) Germany:


Warner Home Video (DVD) UK:


Arte (TV) Germany:

Grabs from Mr Bongo's surprisingly good disc of Dovzhenko's Earth, deliberately chosen to match these grabs from the 2002 Image release (which is clearly significantly inferior - poorer image quality and heavy cropping).

Quite a good dvd
Excellent transfer
Not anamorphic though. There is an english audio track and no forced subtitles.
Here are a few caps.




Still an extraordinary achievement by director Richard Fleischer. You can buy the dvd on several paying spanish sites.

The Man Without a Country (Warde, 1917) - Televista, Region 0