criterionforum.org

cdnchris wrote:No, they're not in the booklet. They don't appear to be text features on the discs, either.

Chris, I'm assuming you've had access to the release...how do the films look?

Saturnome wrote:Are the original French titles mentioned somewhere (other than in the films)?

Yes, in the booklet (I'm just too lazy to list both.)

tribe wrote:Chris, I'm assuming you've had access to the release...how do the films look?

While I've only managed to get through the first disc so far (3 hours down, another 5 or so to go) they look better than I thought they would. The quality varies from film to film, and I assume it depends on the source materials used, some display plenty of scratches and marks, flickers and jumps, while others display very little in damage. Some of them start out rather horrendous over the opening credits, also look a little artifacty, but then after the credits and a little into the film the picture drastically improves. I don't know if age has anything to do with it because I think The Sea Horse and The Vampire (from 1933 and 1945 respectively) look better than a couple of the newer colour films. Colours in the colour films are, for the most part, very strong but can pulsate or fade at times.

The transfer is rather sharp, though, and the amount of detail in some of these films is rather impressive, the sea horse and octopus films standing out in my mind.

I think most everyone will be happy with the picture quality as long as they're realistic and realize that they're not going to be super clean.(I'll also throw out that I think these would look absolutely amazing if they could be released on Blu-ray, though I doubt that will happen any time soon.)

Thanks for once again a great, detailed review, Chris.

Judging from the screen caps alone, the transfers look stunning & even better than the BFI set. You might be a little too demanding, Chris - 6/10 is extremely harsh!

It's an average between all of the films. Using a grading system I'd rank some a 5 and then others an 8 and played with 6 and 7 as average but settled on 6. The caps show some of the best or better or so-so portions of the transfers and I realize I should have grabbed some of the worst moments (which are big blotches and tears) and I can do that tonight. Also it's hard to catch everything because the damage to the source material is more noticeable in motion. Stills don't capture everything unfortunately.

I still think overall they're nice transfers and you'll all be happy with them. I'm actually not too concerned about the condition of the source and I know many here aren't (and they're still better than I thought they would be,) but I try to be objective with the rating system and really try to fit the grades where I think the quality falls in comparison with other releases and I do this so that people have a good idea as to what to expect if they just go by the grade.

This all makes perfect sense, Chris, and it's the way it's generally done on other review sites as well. Still, I was never really happy with it because it doesn't reflect how good a transfer actually is IF/ALTHOUGH the source materials are compromised. This doesn't much apply to new(er) films, but it's important for older films, especially silents. For example: a perfect transfer of something like "Vampyr" or "Odna" would never get the high rating it deserves because the source materials are what they are; same for any old Japanese film. Wouldn't it be possible to give separate grades for transfer and source materials, at least in cases where the above applies? It would perhaps do better justice to what companies like CC, MoC and others manage to get out of such compromised sources. Of course people should read the whole review, but as you imply, there might be some who only skim through it or only look at the grade itself.

Thanks for the great review, btw!

Yeah, I'd like to give ya kudo's for providing a much more instructive set of screencaps than Gary - Beev's, but I'd have to agree with Tommasso that, as you said in your post above:

The caps show some of the best or better or so-so portions of the transfers and I realize I should have grabbed some of the worst moments (which are big blotches and tears)

"blotches and tears" aren't elements of the transfer, but of the source materials/prints.

Especially when dealing with older material-- particularly silent material-- I'd like to suggest (I hope I don't come off preachy) that it's most sensible when evaluating a transfer as a public service to assess strictly the process of telecine (to-encode, as a bad encode can add artifacts) in other words the entirely electronic end of the process: whether or not there's chroma, haloing from analogue, interlacing, faux-grain/digital noise or other transfer-induced artifacts, frame-ghosting from improper pal/ntsc conversion (or occassionaly a neccessary evil to 'progressively' spool off a silent film at the proper frame rate, i e one that is not divisible by the frame rate protocol of the region of the encode, to avoid the greater artifacting evil of interlacing).

Splotches, frame tears, tramline grooves and scratches can be removed via digital restoration tools (like all of the dirt and scratches removed from The Seven Samurai between CC's new and old editions... the same print was essentially used, and all that cleanup was done digitally), and you may or may not want give or take points away from CC for not budgeting for a cleanup extensive enough to remove the big blotches & tears you mentioned above... but again I don't know if it's fair in the case of big blotches and tears to take points off of the transfer score if the transfer is an excellent progressive high-bitrate HD transfer that doesn't impinge on the image frame borders and thereby as fully and accurately as is seemingly possible represents the image information sitting on the film reels. What you're really taking issue with there is the state of the reels themselves, and the budget for digital resto/cleanup, i.e. MTI'ing of the image, which takes place after the transfer takes place: the transfer data is thrown up onscreen and different techniques are used to identify those big damage marks and remove them either by hand, or automated tools that remove anomalies and go to the preceding or subsequent frame and fill in the now-blank zone of the removed defect with the clean(er) image.

(Of course some may know that wetgate telecine--old days was referred to as the 'Oliver' system-- removes some of the less severe nicks and scratches, and so in that case telecine is a small part of removing minor nicks dust & scratches-- but suffice to say in CC's case anything that is showing up on the screen on a dvd is beyond the bounds of Oliver, as are big blotches and tears.)

Outside of this minor issue, I think your review is more helpful than Beev's, Chris. Thanks.

HerrSchreck wrote: "blotches and tears" aren't elements of the transfer, but of the source materials/prints.

I know and I usually try to point this out. I know more people are concerned with the actual transfer but feel I should mention the quality of the materials and the quality of the restoration. I'm well aware that some films are beyond help and also try to point that out. If I recall with Vampyr I mention the print quality isn't great but tried to sell that the digital transfer itself was fantastic.

As to the scoring, I debated on even having them to begin with, but felt some people want some quick number or grade to go off of. When I come up with the scores I rate the digital transfer and then the quality of the source materials and combine them. But I like the idea of separating scoring for the actual transfer and the quality of the source materials and maybe I'll have to play with that.

At any rate, I'm glad you found the review helpful overall. This is a great set and I know everyone interested in it will be more than pleased.

Someone else said it somewhere on this board, but just ignore the numbers, the real worth is revealed in the words.

knives wrote:...(and I don't trust IMDb on this one) that still doesn't answer if there are any missing from both sets.

This was asked in another thread, but the answer is that Painlevé directed over 200 films, so these sets are just samplers. The French discs from lesdocs.com have a better selection than the Criterion set, although the latter is a great value.

Saw this(only the shorts scored) tonight at the Bell House in Brooklyn. Very interesting and I am amazed at the footage. I would buy this, but since I have gone Blu, I am getting to the point where buying a SD is painful. #-o

YLT soundtrack is back in print and available on iTunes.

I broke down and bought this DVD yesterday. What are the chances of the set being upgraded to Blu?

Interesting and far reaching review of a recent Painlevé exhibition at the Ikon Gallery.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n11/brian-dil ... on-gallery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is this set OOP or just between print runs?

if they dared to upgrade this to Bluray, I'd love to see them include a CD of Yo La Tengo's score this time much like they did for True Stories. YLT don't appear to be selling it on their site anymore (only MP3s) so this could be a good tie in

Listed as back in stock in Criterion's store.