It's not quite the same situation - the Criterion and BFI discs of The Leopard and Red Desert do indeed look almost identical (colour grading issues aside) because they were sourced from exactly the same telecines.

But I imagine Criterion's Salò will come from their own HD transfer, which they created from a 35mm print - as opposed to the DNRed master created by Technicolor in Rome was sourced from the negative. So it might well look superior, but "mega improvement" is still probably hyperbole.

Oh, OK. Thanks for that piece of information.

I think everyone's missing the point: Even if the releases are identical, it doesn't have any impact on Criterion what MoC or BFI do with their releases. They're responsible for putting out a definitive North American release of film X Y or Z. Comparing the two releases is irrelevant.

That's not really true here as there are plenty of people on here who have the freedom to purchase and play either or both releases.

To the vast majority of their customers, is it largely irrelevant? Provided the release is of a reasonable standard, then sure.

No offense to anyone, but the "screengrabs are inaccurate" argument will only get you so far. I defy anyone to look at the caps on blu-ray.com, or anywhere else for that matter, and tell me they look the least bit good. I can believe that caps don't tell one hundred percent of the tale, but they are usually a good indicator. A good transfer will look good in caps, and a bad transfer will look like, well, thispixelated, washed-out, smeary, blurry garbage. I don't need to spend thirty bucks or more to import that disc to see it on my TV. That's what reviews are for: they save you the trouble of losing money on a crummy disc. The text is positive, but good God, man. Either A) the critics computer totally chewed the pic files up (which has never been evident in any other review they've posted), or B) they're lying to themselves trying to make this sound better than it is. Why? I don't know. But my eyes say that looks like crap. And every capture they posted looks bad, not just the one.

Let me be clear: I respect the BFI, and I've bought some of their discs (the Jane Arden trio, which are all lovely editions). I just can't help but notice how awful this looks. If it's the fault of someone in Rome, so be it, but the disc still looks bad enough to make me say "no thanks".

But it's good enough for TMDaines though!!

And all the reviewers Michael added above...

Criterion's transfer "was made from an interpositive (IP) off of the original camera negative, which exists at Technicolor in Rome."

Still, as you said, a generation removed. Did BFI actually scan the cut negative? Is that done frequently?


I'd have to agree with mfunk that it is largely irrelevant to the vast majority of Criterion's customers. I think the key is "on here." This forum is a gathering of informed film lovers and home theater enthusiasts who are aware of the possibility of ordering films from other countries and who frequently have the equipment and means to order these discs. Most dvd consumers, even Criterion buyers, aren't aware that such a thing is even possible. I doubt Criterion spends much time thinking about what MoC, the BFI, and other international distributors are doing because it only slightly affects the portion of their customer base (5-10% at most?) that posts on this and similar forums. I would imagine that Criterion still sells most of its non-institutional product at Best Buy, Barnes and Noble, and other chain and local video outlets. For most people, that's just how you buy movies. I'm pretty sure that 90% of Best Buy customers (and employees) aren't even aware of the existence of the United Kingdom.

^^^ That's where James Bond works, right? :-)

But Jeff, I'd say a large section of the customers likely to buy a Pasolini bluray would be aware of the possibilities of buying discs from other regions. These are not your average Joe Bloggs consumers.

You don't know how Salo has penetrated (pardon the pun) the public conscious than. I know people who have never seen a subtitled movie before that have watched it.

Salo routinely shows up on lists of the "most shocking films evrrrrrrrrr" along with I Spit on Your Grave, Cannibal Holocaust, and the like. I heard of it years before I knew Pasolini by name, or had even really gotten into film.

That's absolutely true, and the BFI's Salò has been far more successful than their four other Pasolini titles.

Which is why it was the first one chosen for a Blu-ray upgrade.

I emailed last week to ask if they were using the same scan they used for the DVD and they finally replied:

amazon.ca:



I understand that there are rights issues in QC for some discs (a lot in these times!) but what about BC?! Right issues? Censored?

So it looks like the BFI is a bit green, but has the full image & is unedited, whereas the Criterion is cropped on the bottom and on the right & is still missing a scene. The BFI has better extras. While Criterion's image grabs look nicer (especially in color), I seem to remember the movie having a rather harsh/austere look, although that was a well-worn print that I saw in the 1980s. I'm wondering if Criterion may have boosted the red. I think I'll probably take the BFI for the better extras & deleted scene unless someone finds a big difference in sound.

Maybe a dumb question, but can I get in trouble for selling this on ebay to someone in a country where the film is banned? Which countries would those be?

I'd say that's the buyer's responsibility, not yours.

Does anybody have the Australian release? I am curious where it sourced it's image...