criterionforum.org

I just watched this (on Blu-Ray) and will say I do enjoy it, though granted I like novels that read exactly like this.

My main question though is if anyone else had a sort of checkered grain during the film at all? I found it happened on large single colored backgrounds mostly but sometimes over entire shots, like the slow-motion shot of

Spoiler

the character Charles being brought hand-cuffed into a police carriage.

I'm trouble-shooting the problem right now trying to figure out if it's the disc, the transfer, my player, my TV, etc. Any similar situations?

Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. I noticed the same thing and hopped online to look at reviews of the Blu-Ray. While a lot of reviews actually praised the film's transfer, some were as disapointed as you and I.

What would cause such an unusual issue?

Hello! I stumbled upon your thread about this strange grid and blocking in the Howards End blu-ray and joined the site just so I can say:

YES, this is a disaster of a blu-ray. I have been battling this issue on and off since the disc was released. Jon Mulvaney, who claimed that "complaints are beginning to role in on this title" offered to send me a replacement disc if I should send Criterion my so-called faulty one. I accepted, knowing full well that this wasn't a bad batch problem with the discs. I work in the film industry as an editor and this kind of horrible image, with Tetris-like blocks marching diagonally up the screen in darker shots and a powdery pale grain covering the bright scenes, does NOT come from a bad batch of discs.

So the replacement disc was just as bad and I contact Mr. Mulvaney about it. His reply was full of praise for other Criterion Blu-rays released but still answered no questions. I brought the issue up on Hometheaterforum, actually posted the problem with a screen cap on Robert Harris' review (which was glowing), illustrating what a horrible transfer, or at least encode, this was from Criterion.

And from the responses I received, you'd think I had burned the Koran. Because I had questioned Criterion's infallibility, I was attacked, criticized, told my television was inferior or that I MUST have had it on the wrong setting. Some were sympathetic and Robert Harris himself, seeing the stink I'd raised, looked into the problem using several different monitors. He got back to us admitting that there was occasional "unpleasant noise that might not please some viewers." I stuck to my guns and soon more people began to see this horrible transfer for what it was. My main ally - out of fifteen Blu-ray reviews of the disc on Amazon, ELEVEN were shocked at how horrible it looked. Jon Mulvaney told Mr. Harris that Criterion would "not be visiting this title again" and that the C-Reality Datacine wouldn't be used again for scans. That, of course, is not the problem. Something, somebody, did something very wrong in harvesting the image and Criterion is not admitting it, lest they have to do a major recall on a title that is hardly mainstream.

What has always bothered me is that the scan they used was five or six years old, from the last DVD release back in 2005. Simply do a new scan - and please not from an IP but from the o-neg, since the film was shot Super 35mm and cropped for 2.35:1, so an IP, back in the days of film, were dupy opticals.

The latest installment of this Howards End saga happened just a few weeks ago, when I suddenly thought of trying something I hadn't before: I switched my Blu-ray player to output 720p rather than 1080p and BOOM the image of the disc cleared up and was actually watchable. Switching to 720p also cropped the image by 5% on the sides, resulting in a near 2.20:1 aspect ratio rather than the original 2.35:1. It is interesting that Howards End was shot Super 35mm for 70mm blow ups, so the framing of the image is actually better in 2.20:1. It was framed for 2.20 (70mm), 2.35 (Scope) and 4x3 (Standard Def TV). I have seen it in all three aspect ratios.

Anyway, I realize this thread is nearly a year old but was wondering if any of you had looked into the matter some more. It is a shame Criterion did not do a recall and just release the disc correctly. But since this is such a low key title, who is going to fight them about it?

Except me. :)

***crickets chirping***

Agree, this bluray image is quite terrible. Love the film though!

Howard's ended:

Criterion on Facebook wrote:All the films in our Merchant Ivory collection, plus our Criterion releases of HOWARDS END (pictured), are going out of print.

We’re selling them through the end of June.

It seems that every Barnes and Noble in San Antonio received notice to return all of the Merchant Ivory titles immediately after the OOP date. This is the first time I've seen OOP titles be immediately pulled right at the cut-off date. I guess the lawsuit might have something to do with that. Either way, I never saw much of purpose for a Merchant Ivory collection, only a few of those films were worthy of a release.

It's in stock at both B&Ns in my area.

24fpssean wrote:Hello! I stumbled upon your thread about this strange grid and blocking in the Howards End blu-ray and joined the site just so I can say:

YES, this is a disaster of a blu-ray. I have been battling this issue on and off since the disc was released. Jon Mulvaney, who claimed that "complaints are beginning to role in on this title" offered to send me a replacement disc if I should send Criterion my so-called faulty one. I accepted, knowing full well that this wasn't a bad batch problem with the discs. I work in the film industry as an editor and this kind of horrible image, with Tetris-like blocks marching diagonally up the screen in darker shots and a powdery pale grain covering the bright scenes, does NOT come from a bad batch of discs.

So the replacement disc was just as bad and I contact Mr. Mulvaney about it. His reply was full of praise for other Criterion Blu-rays released but still answered no questions. I brought the issue up on Hometheaterforum, actually posted the problem with a screen cap on Robert Harris' review (which was glowing), illustrating what a horrible transfer, or at least encode, this was from Criterion.

And from the responses I received, you'd think I had burned the Koran. Because I had questioned Criterion's infallibility, I was attacked, criticized, told my television was inferior or that I MUST have had it on the wrong setting. Some were sympathetic and Robert Harris himself, seeing the stink I'd raised, looked into the problem using several different monitors. He got back to us admitting that there was occasional "unpleasant noise that might not please some viewers." I stuck to my guns and soon more people began to see this horrible transfer for what it was. My main ally - out of fifteen Blu-ray reviews of the disc on Amazon, ELEVEN were shocked at how horrible it looked. Jon Mulvaney told Mr. Harris that Criterion would "not be visiting this title again" and that the C-Reality Datacine wouldn't be used again for scans. That, of course, is not the problem. Something, somebody, did something very wrong in harvesting the image and Criterion is not admitting it, lest they have to do a major recall on a title that is hardly mainstream.

What has always bothered me is that the scan they used was five or six years old, from the last DVD release back in 2005. Simply do a new scan - and please not from an IP but from the o-neg, since the film was shot Super 35mm and cropped for 2.35:1, so an IP, back in the days of film, were dupy opticals.

The latest installment of this Howards End saga happened just a few weeks ago, when I suddenly thought of trying something I hadn't before: I switched my Blu-ray player to output 720p rather than 1080p and BOOM the image of the disc cleared up and was actually watchable. Switching to 720p also cropped the image by 5% on the sides, resulting in a near 2.20:1 aspect ratio rather than the original 2.35:1. It is interesting that Howards End was shot Super 35mm for 70mm blow ups, so the framing of the image is actually better in 2.20:1. It was framed for 2.20 (70mm), 2.35 (Scope) and 4x3 (Standard Def TV). I have seen it in all three aspect ratios.

Anyway, I realize this thread is nearly a year old but was wondering if any of you had looked into the matter some more. It is a shame Criterion did not do a recall and just release the disc correctly. But since this is such a low key title, who is going to fight them about it?

Except me.

My suspicion is that it's an older scan courtesy of Merchant Ivory (note the random window-boxing during the credits). Just because Criterion's booklet claims it's a new transfer (or something to that effect) doesn't make it so.

Howard's End & the rest of the Merchant-Ivory Collection going to Cohen Media Group.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/bu ... films.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“I’d always thought it was a superbrand that had high respect,” Mr. Cohen said

SUPERBRAND. How fucking mortifying.

On Friday August 26 a 4k restoration of this film premieres at Film Forum. I saw the trailer the other day for it at the theater, and it specifically said the restoration was playing "in theaters only" so I wonder if there will even be a forthcoming home video release?

The online trailer has the wording, too. "In Theaters Only."

The "in theaters only" disclaimer doesn't preclude a Blu-Ray release later, at some point.

I did some side by side comparisons of Cohen vs Criterion screenshots, and I think I prefer the Criterion one.

I certainly prefer Criterion's saturation, contrast and aspect ratio.
Now, in some cases the colors in Cohen are better, but in the grain department... I don't know..though it seems some times to have better detail than the Criterion (although the difference is minute), maybe the compression is not very good that's why it doesn't look as good as it should for a 4k restoration?
of course, some say that in the Criterion you see noise and not grain, but I think i prefer it..

What everyone else thinks?

Costa wrote:I did some side by side comparisons of Cohen vs Criterion screenshots, and I think I prefer the Criterion one.

I certainly prefer Criterion's saturation, contrast and aspect ratio.
Now, in some cases the colors in Cohen are better, but in the grain department... I don't know..though it seems some times to have better detail than the Criterion (although the difference is minute), maybe the compression is not very good that's why it doesn't look as good as it should for a 4k restoration?
of course, some say that in the Criterion you see noise and not grain, but I think i prefer it..

What everyone else thinks?

I don't have the Cohen release - I think the Criterion looks fine but I've been viewing it on my 42inch Panasonic plasma all the while and never saw the widely reported grids, moires and issues as others have. The Criterion is very film like to me on this set.

I'm thinking this could show up on my other Sony LED Bravia or a bigger projected screen?

The Criterion has what looks like machine/scanner noise but IMHO it's not visible unless viewing on a 60"+ screen or from short viewing distances.

I think the Criterion has terrible compression artifacts and micro-blockiness. There is terrible noise in some of the dark scenes, and the final credits are a total mess. I remember some strange apologetics going around to the effect that these problems were system-dependent, but they seemed blatantly obvious on my old 40-inch LCD TV.
The Cohen looks a whole lot better from the caps I've seen - but there seems to be an AR issue...

Kenneth Lonergan has scripted a four-part miniseries adaptation of the source novel for Starz

Stumbled on this just now on IndieWire:
Shoot in Super 35. If there was ever an advertisement for working from a larger negative, “Howards End” is it.
That was cinematographer Tony Pierce-Roberts’ idea—he wanted the bigger image from punchy, brighter, contrast-y Super 35 mm Kodak stock, which could be printed in 35 mm anamorphic as well as blown up to 70 mm. Cohen’s restoration team brought the original negative down from the George Eastman film archive in Rochester NY, did a 4K scan that was sent to Portugal to clean up all the dirt, spots and scratches, then did color corrections at DeLuxe in London with Ivory and Pierce-Roberts on hand. The reason the restored “Howards End” is so stunning is that even the release prints weren’t drawn from the original negative, but from a dupe negative, thus losing color, sharpness, and texture. “Now in the restoration, we’re seeing it for the first time coming from the original negative,” said Ivory. “It’s more subtle, finer, more beautiful, more what was intended.”

I thought a dupe neg was always a given when striking theatrical prints but maybe they meant something else?