criterionforum.org

Adam wrote:Still waiting for it to arrive...

I've just received the shipment notification from Amazon.co.uk (for Satyajit Ray Collection Volume 1)

peerpee wrote:

HerrSchreck wrote:Combing (result of nonprogressive) is the result of the transfer itself-- it has nothing to do with the original print's disposition.

I'd take a guess that the masters are NTSC. AE should probably have considered issuing an NTSC master as an NTSC disc (like MoC did with ABHIJAN). Instead of doing an NTSC > PAL conversion -- which introduces the combing.

Would ghosting be the result of improper pal-ntsc? Combing being the result of the knitted/interlaced frames? At least stereotypically...

I havent seen the Ray so cant say 4 sure myself..

zone_resident wrote:

Adam wrote:Still waiting for it to arrive...

I've just received the shipment notification from Amazon.co.uk (for Satyajit Ray Collection Volume 1)

I got the shipping announcement yesterday as well. Looking forward to it.

HerrSchreck wrote:Would ghosting be the result of improper pal-ntsc?

Actually, it's the result of normal PAL-NTSC conversion. There's nothing "improper" about it: it's how it's always been done, but it's only recently that people have been taking the trouble to step through such conversions frame by frame and comment on them.

It's certainly possible to do a smoother conversion job, but it requires much more intensive frame-by-frame processing and is consequently much more expensive - so justifiable for a flagship release, but arguably not for a triple-film box like this.

MichaelB wrote:

HerrSchreck wrote:Would ghosting be the result of improper pal-ntsc?

Actually, it's the result of normal PAL-NTSC conversion. There's nothing "improper" about it: it's how it's always been done, but it's only recently that people have been taking the trouble to step through such conversions frame by frame and comment on them..

I think folks notice-- in some cases-- the ghosting caused by the extra frames, particularly on nontube screens, with their naked eye. When done well, where the extra frame may appear in one out of every 4 or 5 frames, then it's hardly noticeable for sure. But when you have cases where the extra frama appears in more than half of the vidframes.. it's atrocious and causes the eyes to shatter and fall into your lap.

As to what's "normal" or "improper" or not-- I'm simply using the common buzzwords that typically appear in dvd reviews.. which are basically employed to communicate the idea "Pal master used without modification in NTSC" or vice versa (I can't count the number of times Tooze slams a disc for "improperly converted master"..
for example, from his comparison of Kino/MoC Metropolis discs, the first line of the review reads:

beev wrote:This appears to be a classic example of PAL-NTSC ghosting derived from improper conversion. The Kino - Region 1- NTSC edition uses the same PAL master from the German Transit-Universum (Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau Stiftung), BUT they did not pre-convert to NTSC for their standards' (Region 1) audience. I imagine it was done for monetary reasons as it was far less expensive than paying for the conversion.

and as for the results-- i e combing vs ghosting-- of this phenom of PAL tape used without modification in an NTSC encode:

beev wrote:Unfortunately, the result is that those viewing the Kino edition DVD will see all the prevalent flaws that this common transference practice produces - 'ghosting' in motion sequences (see below), blurriness, artifacts and in this case some dis-colorization.

As to "normality", CC use masters provided by other sources within the PAL standard (Weronique, Pickpocket) but convert them to the NTSC standard prior to the encode... and the discs exhibit no artifacts-- and do not run at the same feature-length, due to speedup-slowdown.

The same thing applies I'd imagine viz the shared telecine between Moc & CC Vampyr: same Lee Kline transfer, encodes in different standards.

MichaelB wrote:I wasn't wildly enamoured of Songs from the Second Floor, which is why I was so pleasantly surprised by You the Living - about which I'd had no real expectations, having somehow failed to clock the reviews.

I loved 'You The Living', which surprised me as I was disappointed by 'Songs'.
But I think the fact that I was particularly tired when watching 'Songs', and dozed off a few times probably more from tiredness than 'ennui' has convinced me to give it another look, particularly after being so totally charmed by 'Living'.

Meanwhile I'm waiting for the price of 'Living' DVD to drop.

Looks as though Michael Haneke's Hidden is coming out on Blu-Ray.

And it should look terrific, given that the film was shot on HD in the first place - so provided they haven't cocked up the encoding, it should be all but identical to the theatrical version.

MichaelB wrote:Looks as though Michael Haneke's Hidden is coming out on Blu-Ray.

And it should look terrific, given that the film was shot on HD in the first place - so provided they haven't cocked up the encoding, it should be all but identical to the theatrical version.

The theatrical version was surely an HD-to-film transfer. The DVD, if it is encoded directly from the original HD, should look quite different then, no?

yoshimori wrote:

MichaelB wrote:Looks as though Michael Haneke's Hidden is coming out on Blu-Ray.

And it should look terrific, given that the film was shot on HD in the first place - so provided they haven't cocked up the encoding, it should be all but identical to the theatrical version.

The theatrical version was surely an HD-to-film transfer. The DVD, if it is encoded directly from the original HD, should look quite different then, no?

The US DVD released by Sony Classics has one of the cleanest, sharpest transfers I've ever seen.

yoshimori wrote:The theatrical version was surely an HD-to-film transfer. The DVD, if it is encoded directly from the original HD, should look quite different then, no?

Digital 'prints' of Caché were distributed quite widely in the UK, a practice which has become standard for Artificial Eye thanks to the struggling arthouse circuit and Digital Screen Network (pretty much everything I've seen from AE recently has been projected digitally - it was a rare pleasure to see Summer Hours on 35mm a few weeks ago). I assume that a Blu-Ray transfer would be able to replicate the HD master sent to cinemas better than the standard definition DVD does.

I remember Michael's letter to S&S about the subtitles being out of sync on the digital projection he saw theatrically, so in this particular instance, the projection he saw would not have involved celluloid.

(edit: sorry Foggy, didn't see your post)

That makes sense. Here in the US, we got an HD-to-film release.

peerpee wrote:I remember Michael's letter to S&S about the subtitles being out of sync on the digital projection he saw theatrically, so in this particular instance, the projection he saw would not have involved celluloid.

Indeed not - and in that respect the Blu-Ray should be a considerable improvement.

And Foggy Eyes is quite right - digital projection is becoming increasingly common in British cinemas across the board, thanks in part to generous grants from the UK Film Council to subsidise the equipment. My wife dragged me to Mamma Mia! the other night, in one of the smaller screens in a Brighton multiplex, and that was digital - as was 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days in a smallish arthouse venue a few months ago.

MichaelB wrote:digital projection is becoming increasingly common in British cinemas across the board, thanks in part to generous grants from the UK Film Council to subsidise the equipment. My wife dragged me to Mamma Mia! the other night, in one of the smaller screens in a Brighton multiplex, and that was digital - as was 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days in a smallish arthouse venue a few months ago.

I'm finding the burgeoning onset of digital projection quite frustrating, to be honest. When in London a few months ago, I spent a day at Curzon Soho catching up with new releases, and every one (Heartbeat Detector, California Dreamin' & Let's Get Lost) was digital, causing me to think twice about paying such steep prices to see things at that venue again. One major problem is that I don't like 'digital glare' - the majority of projections I've seen have been unnaturally bright, and by the end of that particular day my eyes had begun to ache. I usually check with the cinema first now, so if there's an opportunity to see a film on 35mm later I'll just wait.

Also, what I've heard about the Digital Screen Network is quite alarming - the system doesn't seem to be providing the opportunity for non-multiplex cinemas to show an increased number/wider variety of films (the obvious benefit of less expenditure on striking/transporting prints and the resultant potential for greater flexibility in programming). Apparently the UK Film Council stipulated that only the largest auditorium of many cinemas should be kitted out with digital equipment, so programmers are understandably reluctant to book more 'niche' films that would have to play in a screen often reserved for bigger/safer financial draws. Also, a fixed fee has to be paid to the outfit who originally provided the equipment to cinemas (can't remember what they're called) whenever a film is projected. The UK Film Council didn't cover the costs in the first place, so distributors are having to pay an additional fee just to get their films screened. AE, Soda and others will be understandably reluctant to send a digital 'print' for one-off screenings as the cost of paying the flat fee against potential admission returns means that the effort won't prove viable - I've noticed that digital projections are still largely block-booked (usually a handful of screenings over two or three days). It seems to be utterly counter-productive, and I can't see a single benefit - the fact that it's getting increasingly difficult to see films shot on film in 35mm across the arthouse circuit is a real pain.

Apologies for the rant, but I'd be interested to hear from anybody who knows more about this than I do (also, please correct me if I'm wrong about certain things).

Can anyone explain to me the wild variation in pricing for AE discs on Amazon? They have the barebones Lady of Musashino for 19.97, while the equally barebones Short Film About Killing is 5.98, or for a more direct comparison Life of Oharu at 7.98? This is pretty much the case for most of the discs, some are surprisingly inexpensive like the Jean Vigo Collection at 9.98, while others are very costly like the Apu Trilogy at 29.98 (although I got that one for about 10 pounds through the hut, and have seen it for a good price several times).

Yes, it's strange... Amazon is offering good prices also on AE's 3 Nuri Bilge Ceylan sets, but I just ordered them even cheaper - for a total of just £21.67 for all 3 (2 x 5.89 + 1 x 9.89 for 2 disc set) including free postage @ Sendit.com... Grab 'em while you can!...

Sendit also have The Andrei Tarkovsky Companion 2 disc set for £6.89 (incl. free postage)...

DVD Beaver on The Last Mistress.

Histoire du Cinema still seems to be on target for this month according to Amazon. Anybody confirm that it's actually going to happen?

I would be most amused if after all this time the subs are no different from the French release...

AE never ceases to amaze - just picked the 3 Nuri Bilge Ceylan sets at bargain prices in their current sale... But in the EARLY WORKS 2 disc set Disc 1 containing KASABA is letterboxed while Disc 2 containing CLOUDS OF MAY is anamorphic... Truly mysterious...

ellipsis7 wrote:AE never ceases to amaze - just picked the 3 Nuri Bilge Ceylan sets at bargain prices in their current sale... But in the EARLY WORKS 2 disc set Disc 1 containing KASABA is letterboxed while Disc 2 containing CLOUDS OF MAY is anamorphic... Truly mysterious...

Why is that mysterious? MoC's recent Franju set had a similar combination of anamorphic (Judex) and non-anamorphic (Nuits rouges) material.

It depends entirely on what kind of masters Artificial Eye were able to get from the rightsholder. With ultra-niche titles like this, they're going to want to bend over backwards to avoid having to pay for a new telecine, and if an otherwise perfectly decent non-anamorphic Digibeta is available, there's no real incentive.

MichaelB wrote:

ellipsis7 wrote:AE never ceases to amaze - just picked the 3 Nuri Bilge Ceylan sets at bargain prices in their current sale... But in the EARLY WORKS 2 disc set Disc 1 containing KASABA is letterboxed while Disc 2 containing CLOUDS OF MAY is anamorphic... Truly mysterious...

Why is that mysterious? MoC's recent Franju set had a similar combination of anamorphic (Judex) and non-anamorphic (Nuits rouges) material.

It depends entirely on what kind of masters Artificial Eye were able to get from the rightsholder. With ultra-niche titles like this, they're going to want to bend over backwards to avoid having to pay for a new telecine, and if an otherwise perfectly decent non-anamorphic Digibeta is available, there's no real incentive.

Thanks for clearing that, Michael - actually just found your original review in S&S archive online... I see Ceylan's latest THREE MONKEYS has gone to New Wave Films, the fresh company set up by former AE stalwarts/founders Robert Beeson and Pam Engel... But more power to them previously releasing through AE Ceylan's entire catalogue to date...

I think the early Ceylans were initially available on Turkish DVDs with English subs - if the AE discs aren't ports, there might be alternatives.

foggy eyes wrote:I think the early Ceylans were initially available on Turkish DVDs with English subs - if the AE discs aren't ports, there might be alternatives.

Yes, they do have it seems English, French & German subs... All info including specs and links to where the Turkish discs can be purchased on Nuri Bilge Ceylan's website here It appears the Turkish discs have Dolby Digital 5.1 mixes, whereas the AE discs carry 2.0 mixes (no matter)...

Histoire(s) du Cinema is now on the AE page. Three discs with 92, 109 and 64 minutes on each individual disc. No extras are listed but do these minutes match the French DVD release?