I'm not sure any of them are or can ever be considered, for those unclear about my earlier tongue-in-cheek comment. They all look so different that it definitely boils down to personal preference or prior exposure. I definitely don't side with the Criterion and find somewhere split between the BFI and the Madman to my liking. So, a non-existent ideal transfer means everyone's a loser!Jeff wrote:While I'm not at all convinced that either one is "right"
I agree that my preferred version varies based on which set of caps I'm looking at. Generally, I'd say the BFI palette is perhaps more pleasing to look at, though the Criterion looks more naturalistic. In any case, no one seems to have brought up this little nugget yet:Jeff wrote:While I'm not at all convinced that either one is "right," I think I do have a slight preference for the BFI palette. It's not like the Criterion is atrocious though, and in some of the Beaver caps I actually prefer it.
Gary Tooze wrote:The Criterion transfer is almost double the size of the BFI and hence the bitrate is significantly higher.
There's now actual evidence for personal preference? You can show more detail of shit colors all you want, the BFI looks better to me, one consumer. It looks worse to you, one consumer. The Criterion would sell well even if it looked like the old Image disc regardless.zitherstrings wrote:It's also funny to listen to people, now faced with actual evidence the BFI is inferior
I would like to quickly comment on a couple of things:zitherstrings wrote:I, again, don't know which is accurate (neither matches any of the DVDs). But I do know there is definitely less detail in the BFI blacks.
It's also funny to listen to people, now faced with actual evidence the BFI is inferior, dismiss things to try and defend their original point. More detail? Higher bitrate? None of us will notice that anyway!
Or possibly Magnificent Obsession 1.33.domino harvey wrote:God, this thread is going to be Magnificent Obsession 2.0, isn't it
It's the colour balance in several stills in the book, published in 1964, I also refer to the original Italian DESERTO ROSSO colour press book also from 1964, which I have, and an original Italian colour DESERTO ROSSO poster from 1964 too, hanging on my wall...zitherstrings wrote:What proof do any of you have that the BFI is correct? That script scan isn't "proof." Is it even a still or just a photograph?
Assuming there are two issues here with both grain and color in "In The Realm of the Senses", one can possibly be answered as this film, along with "Empire of Passion", was filmed in VistaVision. The larger negative should have a very fine grain structure, unless you're seeing none at all in the Blu-Ray...david hare wrote:I got the Crit Blu of Empire of the Senses recently with the Oshima Eclipse pack and the image is almost too smooth and fine grained! It looked nothing as "glossy" as this theatrically 30 odd years ago and the (I assume) Eastman print screened here, censor cuts and all was fairly typical of the way the film originally looked on first release. I certainly don't dislike the image of the Crit Blu Oshima but I don't think it's quite "right".
I would add the absolutely ravishing Lola Montès BR to your list (although I haven't seen the Days of Heaven).Jeff wrote:My Blu-rays of Repulsion, Last Year at Marienbad, Pierrot le Fou, Days of Heaven, Bigger Than Life, and Vivre Sa Vie beg to differ with you.TMDaines wrote:The story of Criterion on Blu-ray continues to be underwhelming transfers.
Hate to be the one, but it's a completely nothing random shot from the film. The Beaver has a proficiency for making screencaps that utterly fail to capture the film under discussion (mostly because they rarely watch the whole thing, me suspects)joshua wrote: Not ever having seen this film, I'm pretty jazzed for it now.
I haven't checked recently but I noticed a while back (couple of years or so) that Beaver caps very often seemed to come from the very beginning of chapters.domino harvey wrote: The Beaver has a proficiency for making screencaps that utterly fail to capture the film under discussion (mostly because they rarely watch the whole thing, me suspects)
I don't know what your hangup with CC is, my friend. Stagecoach looks as good as can be with the available negatives, Days of Heaven is sublime in 1080p, Yojimbo can be argued to tie with City Girl for the best high def presentation of the year, Repulsion looks mighty nice and so does the recent Walkabout transfer. Even their early Blus like Wages are aesthetically tremendously pleasing. You make it sound as if the top-notch Blu from Crit is the exception.TMDaines wrote:The story of Criterion on Blu-ray continues to be underwhelming transfers.
I was in contact with Mr. Pomerance to see if he can offer some insight into this issue and he gave permission to share some of his thoughts after sending him the link to the Beaver caps:JAP wrote:Maybe it's common knowledge around here but the 'Notes on Some Limits of Technicolor: The Antonioni Case' article that Ovader mentioned (and linked) some posts above is really interesting.
I can easily enough see the color balancing extremities that have been reached in the division between companies, but nobody has any privileged information about what Antonioni wanted. One would need to have the original matrices that were produced, shot by shot or scene by scene, for him at Technicolor Roma and would probably have to have some of the experts at Technicolor now (Thompson) actually print from these; Antonioni had Eastmancolor prints struck from the Technicolor matrices. The fourth images look most "authentic" to me in terms of the way they reproduce M.V., but again, what looks right to me is irrelevant. His "intentions" for the film were specifically that he create the color, and he used a number of washable paints from Tintal (again in Rome) in order that roads, walls, terrain could be painted to his specifications. The issue beyond that, however, is what any such surface would look like in a particular color process. What I can tell you won't help much, and that is that a tremendous amount of work was done by Technicolor for some sequences to get the matrices that he wanted, which means, the matrices were struck again and again and again until they were satisfactory---something that didn't normally have to be done for filmmakers. There is one more little clue, and to work on it I'd have to see one particular scene in the film. The BFI is not available to me in Canada, but the Criterion will be here June 22 and I'll take a look at it then.
You understand that it's eminently possible that **none** of the available reproductions now actually give the color as Antonioni initially wanted or had it; indeed, possibly what he originally had isn't even what he "wanted." We cannot get inside his head. Further, we don't have the print as it was in 1964 or even as it was for the 1990s restoration. One thing I can say--- looking through the four or five versions of the various scenes in photographic stills on that web page you sent me I was able to see that in every single case there was a color cast to the image. One company had it a little red, the other a little blue, a third a little yellow, etc. But it's possible Antonioni wanted casts in his scenes, and we cannot know. There are no memos or notes about this, to my knowledge.
Even as astute a cinephile as Alfred Hitchcock found the colour techniques profoundly stunning, even inexplicable, but unlike Crowther, he knew exactly what he was loving to look at. Peggy Robertson, his assistant, reports that “Red Desert was the first time that he’d seen white on white with no shadows at all, looking beautiful” (15).
He had her write to Giulio Ascarelli of Universal Films in Rome early in April 1965:
“We have just screened Il deserto Rosso, would you please let us know if Technicolor desaturated the film [one could accomplish this, for example, by pre-flashing the film before shooting—MP]. Also we would like any information that you can get regarding types of filters used, etc. One of the credits on this picture reads: “I colori ‘TINTAL’ sono stati forniti dal COLORIFICIO ITALIANO MAX MEYER” I think the translation of this credit is: “The colors ‘TINTAL’ were provided by MAX MEYER ITALIAN COLOR INDUSTRY” What exactly is “TINTAL”? Did the MAX MEYER Company supply the prints for the sets or did they work in conjunction with Mr. Antonioni and Mr. [Carlo] di Palma to design the colors of the sets, or what? (16)
To which Ascarelli immediately replied:
Technicolor did not actually desaturate the film but made a great number of matrices to obtain the effects requested by Antonioni. Antonioni’s aim was to have a dominant grey colour, or should I say colours as soft as possible with the dominating grey tone. I understand that in shooting Antonioni avoided bright colours as much as possible and actually went as far as painting a street in order to get the desired colour effect.
Naturally Technicolor worked very closely with Antonioni. In the printing were not used any special effects or devices. MAX MEYER is a colour manufacturer in Italy. TINTAL is the trade-mark name of a washable colour used particularly for painting walls and it is similar to “Ducotone”. MAX MEYER Company supplied to Antonioni such kind of colours to obtain in filming the effects he wanted. (17)
The Tintal colours were durable but washable tints used by art director Piero Poletto at Antonioni’s direction for painting walls, streets, even a fruit vendor’s fruit, a black house in a swamp, and other objects and surfaces to be photographed for the film. The colours had to be washable so that after a day’s work, the location could be restored to its original colours. Ascarelli, by the way, is clearly wrong in his supposition that Antonioni utterly eschewed bright colours; occasionally, as in the factory and on the oil rig, he rather wallowed in playing with them.
As to the multiple matrices, Ascarelli is informing Robertson that Technicolor Rome went to extraordinary troubles to get the exact matrices that, when dyed, would make for the print Antonioni needed