creativity
Member
Very nice. Just grabbed Fanny & Alexander and The Rules of the Game. Now I'll just have to find the time to rewatch F&A. : |
Amazon had a good price for World on a Wire a few weeks back so I pre-ordered it.
I sent Jon Mulvaney an email about 3-4 weeks ago about the audio issue with the White blu-ray (from the Three Colors trilogy). I just got a reply from him that the new discs are in, and in order to get a replacement, you need to send in your disc. They'll send out a corrected one, along with a $10 GC to criterion.com.
If you sent them an email when Three Colors first came out, be sure to check for that email.
I really need that Hara-Kiri BR.
I really need that Hara-Kiri BR.
What was wrong with the White disc? I never heard anything about it.
Did that Coney Island line up for anything yet? Requiem For A Dream mebbe?
Well Criterioncast posted a link to the wiki page for Coney Island showing about 30 films it could be.
No, their print has a shredded edge. (ie, it's damaged)Did they fix the cropping issue with it?
No, their print has a shredded edge. (ie, it's damaged)
Yet they still knowingly released it when a modern transfer exists that has all sides in tact, they just chose not to use it.
Isn't that other "better" version cropped as well, just on a different side? I seem to remember Criterion saying that their print showed a lot more on the top and bottom, and was just showed a little bit less on the one edge.No, their print has a shredded edge. (ie, it's damaged)
Yet they still knowingly released it when a modern transfer exists that has all sides in tact, they just chose not to use it.
Isn't that other "better" version cropped as well, just on a different side? I seem to remember Criterion saying that their print showed a lot more on the top and bottom, and was just showed a little bit less on the one edge.
Here's dvdbeaver's page with screenshots from both discs.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReview3/harakiri.htm
To me, the Criterion transfer looks better (clarity-wise), even though it is missing quite a bit of material on the left side. I don't think that's going to detract from the film though, and definitely not enough to be a "horrible transfer" as some have stated in the past.
Something about they felt their transfer had superior clarity (it doesn't) because it was giving more detail to less image or something (???)Nappucino said:Did they explain their decision? It just seems like a really stupid decision when they are all about preserving film in its true, intended form.
The transfer has the rough look of a stereotypically old transfer. Which isn't surprising, because it is an old transfer. Digitally overprocessed appearance, complete with EE, blown out whites, and crushed blacks.To me, the Criterion transfer looks better (clarity-wise), even though it is missing quite a bit of material on the left side. I don't think that's going to detract from the film though, and definitely not enough to be a "horrible transfer" as some have stated in the past.
I hope you're not suggesting that you'd like to see Criterion to digitally muck around with a fine looking transfer. O__OSeems like there is more on both sides in the other transfer but yes, Criterion's looks nicer. I do wonder how that other tranfer, run through Criterion's supervision, would look.
I hope you're not suggesting that you'd like to see Criterion to digitally muck around with a fine looking transfer. O__O
any good italian flicks in this "criterion collection" ?
Well, they have the "pop" associated with contrast boosting, but there's also the lost detail to consider as well.Maybe it looks better in motion, but in stills the Criterion version's contrast levels appeals to me more.
Well, they have the "pop" associated with contrast boosting, but there's also the lost detail to consider as well.
I'd kill for some David Lynch movies on Criterion.
That's because of the EE on the Criterion version. It's not detail, you could achieve the same effect by ramping up the sharpness setting on your TV. (but you shouldn't! :<)I guess to me the other version feels too smooth, as if someone has taken all the detail in clay and rubbed their hands over it, flattening it. So it seems like there is less detail.
Eraserhead almost happened many moons ago. Alas, Criterion couldn't keep their excitement contained.
Lynch seems to be more into self-distribution (after a manner) these days.
That's because of the EE on the Criterion version. It's not detail, you could achieve the same effect by ramping up the sharpness setting on your TV. (but you shouldn't! :<)
I just put a Shochiku/MoC screenshot through a sharpening filter so you can see what I mean: click
Compare that with the Criterion and then the untouched Shochiku/MoC on DVDBeaver.
Both are very good, and the best available [to consumers] versions of the movies.hm..
out of curiosity, what do you think of Criterion's transfers on the blurays of Seven Samurai and Yojimbo?
Both are very good, and the best available versions of the movies.
Their High & Low transfer is great too.
Unfortunately not Their treatment of titles seems to be very uneven.Interesting. I own both of those and I guess I assumed they treated Hari Kari similarly.
Why haven't they released [an uncropped unshitty version of Landscape in the Mist]?
And "you're the only one that cares about it icarus" is not an acceptable answer.
indiscretion of an american wife/terminal station should be seen by more people.
Le Havre is all sorts of terrible by the way.
Will probably trade Days of Heaven too but I suppose I should eventually watch it first.
Here is my My Criterion page:
Le Havre is all sorts of terrible by the way.
Le Havre is all sorts of terrible by the way.
Is Three Outlaw Samurai any good?
Le Havre is all sorts of terrible by the way.