criterionforum.org

i've got a fairly simple question: i'm looking at a few different versions of tarkovsky's stalker on ebay, one of which (the mk2 edition) alleges to be region 0 Pal. does the fact that it is pal preclude the possibility of viewing from a region 1 dvd player, despite its lack of specific region constraint? any help is appreciated. they have another listing for a stalker dvd that's ntsc region 0, but its cover art is atrocious, especially when compared to the artwork of the mk2 edition.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but Kino just came out with a 2-disc Stalker last month

i stumbled upon that a few minutes ago on dvdbeaver, but that cover lacks a certain grace that the mk2 package has. perhaps it's just too lamentably shallow to make decisions on things as inconsequential as cover art (even if the font and enormous head evokes something which would adorn the front of a grindcore band)

Re your PAL question, unless your player is capable of PAL-to-NTSC conversion it won't play PAL discs. Many players aren't advertised as capable of converting, so google your player to find out if it can convert, or be set to convert with a code. Some ultra-cheap players are capable of region-free and PAL-to-NTSC conversion.

The Kino is probably the best best, only because the other discs out there aren't that great. The Ruscico splits the movie over two discs, which the Kino appears to not do. The Kino also contains the original mono soundtrack, which is essential (stay as far away as possible from the 5.1 abomination).

Review here

General info about Tarkovsky on dvd here

The MK2 is, like the Artificial Eye, a port of the RusCiCo edition. The AE can currently be picked up for a very reasonable price here and here.

ah, thank you thank you

So has anyone seen this new Kino disc of stalker? The reason I never bought the R1 original 2discer was because it was garbage. Kino usually doesn't exactly deliver the goods, but if anyone can vouch for it I'll scoop this one up (Besides, the other R1 was $40, while this one seems to be hovering around the 20-25 mark on Amazon.)

I can't vouch for the quality of the Kino disc over other Ruscico ports, but yep, I've seen it.

bunuelian wrote:The Kino is probably the best best, only because the other discs out there aren't that great. The Ruscico splits the movie over two discs, which the Kino appears to not do. The Kino also contains the original mono soundtrack, which is essential (stay as far away as possible from the 5.1 abomination).

How does that effect the bitrate though? A 160 minute film on a single disc is probably pushing it.

Artois wrote:How does that effect the bitrate though? A 160 minute film on a single disc is probably pushing it.

A single-layer disc, yes - but you should certainly be able to fit a lot more than 160 minutes onto a dual-layer disc without affecting bitrate or picture quality. This is especially true of a very slow-moving film like Stalker, where there'll be less in the way of significant alterations from frame to frame.

Like it actually mattered the Image (which was the R1 distributor of the RusCiCo DVD) release was spread over 2 discs. The first disc was a single-layer and the second one was dual, but the film was still only on one layer on that disc. It looked pretty brutal. I was pretty pissed with that DVD. If the Kino release offered a significant improvement I might think about upgrading it.

cdnchris wrote:Like it actually mattered the Image (which was the R1 distributor of the RusCiCo DVD) release was spread over 2 discs. The first disc was a single-layer and the second one was dual, but the film was still only on one layer on that disc. It looked pretty brutal. I was pretty pissed with that DVD. If the Kino release offered a significant improvement I might think about upgrading it.

Yes it does. The new Kino edition looks great in my book.

Is the massive video jitter ("judder"?) still present? I have the Ruscico NTSC release, and it's terrible. Everyone notices the bed in Stalker's place, but it affects so much throughout the film. At one point, it appears that his left cheek is trying to crawl up his face. Very distracting.

I've been considering the various PAL releases, as these are supposed to represent slight improvements. Are all the NTSC release - especially the new one from Kino - non-preconverted PAL>NTSC jobs?

Gigi M. wrote:Yes it does. The new Kino edition looks great in my book.

Are you claiming Kino did a whole new digital transfer of the film?

No, the same transfer

I'd give my left nut if Criterion could release this film on DVD. I hoped since Image had the distribution rights (at least my DVD says Image on it) that they might get it. I didn't even know Kino had it now until reading this thread, so I must admit I'm heart broken.

By the sounds of it, though, the Kino isn't that much different from the version I have, so I'll be holding off hoping for a better one sometime down the road.

It might not be a new transfer, but the image looked great when I projected it on a 81" screen.

You don't hafta run a new transfer to get a better representation of what's on the digibeta, and have two discs from the same source that look totally dif-- the MoC FAUST (vs Divisa) & KEATON's (vs Arte) being just the latest examples.

Gigi M. wrote:It might not be a new transfer, but the image looked great when I projected it on a 81" screen.

Well, you would certainly see the incredibly distracting defects that plague my NTSC Ruscico disc at that size. Is this a situation comparable to Mk2's release of "Ivan's Childhood", where they somehow took a horrible digital transfer and cleaned it up beyond anyone's expectation? (How the hell did they do that anyway?)

The dvdtalk review does make it sound like the jittering effects are still present in spots, but it mentions the effect on the bus roof. The opening bedroom shot is by far the worst in my book - Gigi M. could you look at that opening shot to see if the jittering is there? It might be worth the upgrade if they've cleaned up at least some of the issues. As Rich said, though, how do they do such things, or is it even possible? What's the source of the problem to begin with? Seems odd to have a 2-dimensional picture suddenly take on 3-dimensional characteristics without direct human intervention. Maybe someone thought Stalker should be in 3D.

bunuelian wrote:The dvdtalk review does make it sound like the jittering effects are still present in spots, but it mentions the effect on the bus roof. The opening bedroom shot is by far the worst in my book - Gigi M. could you look at that opening shot to see if the jittering is there?

Will do tonight and post. I will also try to take some pictures of my screen for you guys.

Unfortunately, I don't think the jitter will be all that noticeable in a screen-grab as it's motion-dependent. Just keep your eye on the bed in the opening sequence, and see if it appears to be moving independently of the background. It's a very unusual artifact.

I'm afraid the jittering is present at the bedroom scene. I can't find my camera to take some pictures, but I managed to capture some shots for you guys. I will post picture as soon I'll find my camera.

Thanks much, Gigi. Looks like the same transfer top to bottom. I'd say I was disappointed, but it's Kino. At least it's on one disc!

MichaelB wrote:A single-layer disc, yes - but you should certainly be able to fit a lot more than 160 minutes onto a dual-layer disc without affecting bitrate or picture quality. This is especially true of a very slow-moving film like Stalker, where there'll be less in the way of significant alterations from frame to frame.

I disagree, a 160 minute film with no audio, extras, or menu could only have a maximum bitrate of 6.76Mb/s on single disc, which is already too far off the maximum DVD bitrate especially for such a visually rich film as Stalker where much of it is shot in deep focus and there's heavy detail throughout the frame (so nowhere for the encoder to sacrifice bits from non-detailed areas to boost bitate in more important areas).

According to the Beav, the AE discs are 6.83 + 7.8 respectively so considering the fact it's the same transfer, and Kino aren't known for particularly nice encodes, I have reservations about the new Kino set having a nicer image than the AE discs...(you also have NTSC vs PAL in there too)

Also Gigi, what's up with those screenshots? They have horrible horizontal lines throughout, I'm assuming it's something to do with how they were captured?