The Leopard

[TMDaines]

I got my disk within only a few days from sending it to the BFI. Thumbs up! I just need to find time to watch it now. I have no idea what I'm going to use my discount codes on. None of the Blu/DVD combos are in my areas of interest so far.

[MichaelB]

Beaver compares the BFI and Criterion Blu-rays... and marginally leans towards the BFI.

[jsteffe]

Beaver compares the BFI and Criterion Blu-rays... and marginally leans towards the BFI.

The visual differences are extremely subtle, at least based on Beaver's screen caps. I wonder whether these slight changes are a result of encoding, or whether the BFI and Criterion performed different sets of tweaks to the transfer before encoding. Also, at what stage did Rotunno's input on the color timing come into play? Any insights on this, MichaelB?

I'm eager to hear the Forgacs' much-lauded commentary at some point. I'm not set up yet to view Region B discs, but maybe I'll end up getting both editions eventually.

[marnum]

As a thank you for your patience and understanding on this matter (as well as in recognision of the fact that you will be incurring some postage fees), the BFI would also like to offer those customers returning faulty The Leopard Blu-ray discs a special discount price on any 2 Blu-ray or Dual Format editions released between now and December 2010. By redemption of a code, which will be supplied to you, you will be able to buy these editions at £10 each (inclusive of postage).

My codes seem not to work. Anyone else having the same problem?

[perkizitore]

You need to e-mail them, these codes do not work on e-tailers!

[Oedipax]

Studio Daily has an article on the restoration.

[frankiecrisp]

Is the "New digital restoration" advertised in the press over the last few weeks the same print used for the blue-ray or is this another restoration?

[andyli]

No.

Both BFI and CC used an old HD transfer (presumably the one used for their DVD releases).

[MichaelB]

The primary aim of the new restoration was to produce a 4K digital master that would be suitable for big-screen projection, such as the Cannes premiere and the current British theatrical reissue. However, once this has undergone compression and reduction to 1080p, it's unlikely that it would look significantly different from the current BFI and Criterion Blu-rays - not least because the HD master they used was also approved by Giuseppe Rotunno.

[MartinB]

Hello, sorry to be a pain in reviving this old debate, but I just bought a copy of The Leopard Blu-ray from Amazon and don't know whether it's the 'fixed' version or not. Someone said earlier in the thread that the dates of the files would be proof of which version is on the disc. Nine of my copy's .m2ts files are dated 24/09/2009 and the other four are dated 15/10/2009. Can anyone please tell me which version of the disc I have from this info?

[MichaelB]

To work out which version you have, check the catalogue number (which should be BFIB1087), and also whether it says that it's Region B on both the sleeve and the disc. If yes to both, then you have the corrected version.

(Though it sounds as though you have that anyway - it was only the last hour that needed fixing, so most of the .m2ts files wouldn't have needed re-encoding, hence the discrepancy).

[MartinB]

Thanks for your help, Michael. I do have the corrected version.

[TMDaines]

Sadly, the blacks on the Italian Blu-ray from Medusa (that uses the new restoration and has English subs) seem to have been messed up.

Looks like the BFI, Criterion and Medusa are all flawed in comparison with the best version, the French, that isn't English friendly.

[perkizitore]

Someone promised to take a look at the Australian edition, any updates?

[John Edmond]

Frustratingly my local video stores all decided to only get The Leopard on DVD. I should still be able to spot if they used the new restoration if you want, but I can make no comment about the particular quality of the blu-ray.

[Swegen]

I will just write what I've written else where.

I believe this is a kind of "Bram Stokers Dracula" and "Last of the Mohicans" case. Those two titles made many speculate that the black level were "off".

How many make that call watching screenshots? Monitors contrast levels are usually not very reliable. I have a calibrated 24" HP screen. Brightness is 7% to get it close to D65. But contrast is not more than 2-3.000 on such a screen, making it totally unreliable to trust the cinematic experience. The Pioneer Kuro 9 generation has excellent blacks, the X9 has 1:100.000 native and in a dark room, those two movies and Gattopardo looks absolutely stunning.

Last of Mohicans is so dark, that subtitles during nightscenes makes it impossible for the eyes to get accustomed to the darkness, because the light seems so bright. But without, it's like being there. I would say these blu-rays are future proofed and will show more and more of their inherent qualities, as equipment gets better and black levels improve.

The Medusa release of The Leopard looks gorgeous!!!

[ellipsis7]

This was the Criterion statement on the versions & restorations...

Our master is made from the original negative and from a Blu-ray perspective, we couldn’t ask for a more beautiful piece of film. The color correction was supervised by Giuseppe Rotunno, the cinematographer, and the result is spectacular. The Gucci-sponsored Film Foundation restoration shown at Cannes used our master as a color reference, but it had a different goal — to create newly restored film elements that could yield new theatrical prints and so on.

So in fact the Criterion/BFI Blu Rays, created from the same HD transfer, were made directly from the original negative, whereas the latest resto created 'newly restored film elements', (and a 4K digital master), at some degrees of separation from the original negative... In fact it appears the new resto used at its starting point, an old Technirama print...

Sony Colorworks got an unusual element: a Technirama print, which is 8-perf 35mm, but with the frames going horizontally instead of vertically. “Not a whole lot of facilities can deal with that kind of frame,” notes Bailey. “And the print wasn’t in terrible shape, which is why we were able to make the time frame.” Colorworks scanned the print on a Northlight scanner at 6K, down-resed it to 4K (also on the Northlight) and then restored The Leopard in 4K on a Baselight. Other tools they used were PF Clean and MTI.

[TMDaines]

This was the Criterion statement on the versions & restorations...

Our master is made from the original negative and from a Blu-ray perspective, we couldn’t ask for a more beautiful piece of film. The color correction was supervised by Giuseppe Rotunno, the cinematographer, and the result is spectacular. The Gucci-sponsored Film Foundation restoration shown at Cannes used our master as a color reference, but it had a different goal — to create newly restored film elements that could yield new theatrical prints and so on.

So in fact the Criterion/BFI Blu Rays, created from the same HD transfer, were made directly from the original negative, whereas the latest resto created 'newly restored film elements', (and a 4K digital master), at some degrees of separation from the original negative... In fact it appears the new resto used at its starting point, an old Technirama print..

Criterion should just stop with the rhetoric and excuses that occur everytime an alternative release of greater quality comes about. "We couldn’t ask for a more beautiful piece of film:" really? Do they truly believe that when they look at the new restoration on the French disk? Just put your hands up and admit the other restoration looks far beyond the one you and the BFI used but at the same time state you have no plans to go back and rerelease the disk.

There hasn't been many cases so far of a first round of Blu-rays being clearly surpassed by a second round of releases, but this is certainly one of the most noticable so far.

[triodelover]

Criterion should just stop with the rhetoric and excuses that occur everytime an alternative release of greater quality comes about. "We couldn’t ask for a more beautiful piece of film:" really? Do they truly believe that when they look at the new restoration on the French disk? Just put your hands up and admit the other restoration looks far beyond the one you and the BFI used but at the same time state you have no plans to go back and rerelease the disk.

There hasn't been many cases so far of a first round of Blu-rays being clearly surpassed by a second round of releases, but this is certainly one of the most noticeable so far.

But is it a clear cut case, at least in the English-speaking world? The French disc is a non-starter for those of use whose French comes to a crashing halt after menus and wine lists. So that leaves four contestants: Criterion, BFI, Madman and Medusa. That latter two are from the supposedly superior Film Foundation/Scorsese resto; the former two from the sources Criterion has described. I've not seen any screen grabs of the Madman, but there are definitely problems with the crushed blacks on the Medusa. Then there's the AR debate. Why 2.55:1 when it seems clear that Visconti and Rotunno interned a 2.21: 1 matte?

I've no problem with adjusting my system's contrast to ameliorate the black problems on the Medusa and, when done, it's probably the superior image (although the verdict on the French disc, and therefore the Italian from the same source, isn't unanimous). I have a much larger problem, to the point of it being a possible deal breaker, with the AR. A large number of scenes in Gattopardo are interior scenes which suffer a loss of spaciousness from the loss of information top and bottom. I could only find two screen grabs for comparison and they don't illustrate the loss to best effect, but... Granted, the first is an exterior panorama that might be better served in the Medusa, but notice the cropping. The second is a close-up of Angelica.

Putting aside the black problem again in the Medusa (and that it's not precisely the same frame ), note the loss of information particularly at the bottom of the image. Projecting that to some of the other interior scenes, specifically the ball, and I'm not sure that the resto isn't going to feel "pinched", particularly on less than the largest displays. I will also say that in this capture, the hyperbole around the 'Net about the French/Medusa presentation being "light years" ahead of the Criterion seems...well, akin to the kind of crap I remember reading in The Absolute Sound back in the '70s referring to certain recordings and/or equipment. (I will say that on these two captures I prefer the color balance on the Crit to the yellowish hue of the Medusa, but that may be a function of the system from whence the captures were taken in the Medusa's case.)

I watched the Crit on my 50" plasma last Saturday evening and in motion it was simply gorgeous. I plan on recording the TCM broadcast this weekend and watching the new resto for comparison. But it's not as much a slam dunk either image wise or in AR as some suggest. Perhaps on projection systems with 120" diagonal screens or so the difference is more marked and the change in AR will be less disturbing, but for those watching on 42" - 60" displays I wonder.

[TMDaines]

I wasn't referring to the overall package, as I've no doubt whatsoever the Critierion is a wonderful (even if overpriced) overall package just as the BFI is: just the video quality itself. Sure, no-one is expecting them to slate their release but for a company like them that prides themselves on being one of the, if not "the", premium DVD labels in the world, then it's a little bit disconcerting to hear them glossing over the difference in image quality like this.

People buy a premium product because it's pitched as being the definitive version and they expect it to remain this way for some time but there's seemingly more and more releases with faulty discs, with a lack of any interior or real disc artwork and video transfers being quickly surpassed only a few months later i.e. The Leopard and M.

[triodelover]

I wasn't referring to the overall package, as I've no doubt whatsoever the Critierion is a wonderful (even if overpriced) overall package just as the BFI is: just the video quality itself. Sure, no-one is expecting them to slate their release but for a company like them that prides themselves on being one of the, if not "the", premium DVD labels in the world, then it's a little bit disconcerting to hear them glossing over the difference in image quality like this.

People buy a premium product because it's pitched as being the definitive version and they expect it to remain this way for some time but there's seemingly more and more releases with faulty discs, with a lack of any interior or real disc artwork and video transfers being quickly surpassed only a few months later i.e. The Leopard and M.

I wasn't referring to the overall package either. I thought that was clear. My point is do the French/Medusa discs clearly surpass the Crit/BFI issues in video quality? Back up thread there was comment about the saturated reds in the French issue and now we have crushed blacks and contrast issues in the Medusa. Neither of these problems are present in the Crit/BFI versions. Surely the AR is also part of a video quality discussion? The Crit/BFI versions seem to present the framing intended by the director and DP. Preference may turn out to be highly dependent on the system on which these discs are viewed. Is the goal to most closely resemble the 1963 Italian version as seen in theaters at the time or is the goal the most beautiful/film-like/involving presentation in one's viewing room? If it's the latter, there are no absolutes then and it's just a matter of which one floats your boat in the darkness of your own home.

Your problem seems to be that you think the one of the premium DVD labels has somehow failed to come clean about its perceived failings. But are there really failings that Criterion need to recognize? It's a stellar presentation and presumably represents how those at Criterion feel the film should be presented. How have they failed the consumer?

(For the record, I own the Crit but have no particular allegiance to it or the company. After the TCM viewing, I'll probably spring for the Medusa. As far as M goes, the Criterion was surpassed even before it was issued by the MoC and both were subsequently passed by the German edition. I suppose I can assert that with whatever authority an anonymous poster on the Internet can command, since I own all three BDs.)

[Peacock]

So that leaves four contestants: Criterion, BFI, Madman and Medusa. That latter two are from the supposedly superior Film Foundation/Scorsese resto;

The Madman doesn't use the new restoration, which means I'm guessing it's a port of the BFI/Criterion master.

[TMDaines]

Your problem seems to be that you think the one of the premium DVD labels has somehow failed to come clean about its perceived failings. But are there really failings that Criterion need to recognize?

I think you're thinking my frustration is greater than it is. It was just that one comment that I found utterly bizzare in light of the sheer detail and clarity from the other restoration, especially when they consider themselves one of the best home theater labels in the world.

[triodelover]

So that leaves four contestants: Criterion, BFI, Madman and Medusa. That latter two are from the supposedly superior Film Foundation/Scorsese resto;

The Madman doesn't use the new restoration, which means I'm guessing it's a port of the BFI/Criterion master.

Ok, I've seen somewhere else (Blu-ray.com?) that someone e-mailed madman and was told that it did. The Madman site and the Chaos listing are inconclusive since niether present even the AR. Maybe someone will review the disc and provide a definitive answer.

I think you're thinking my frustration is greater than it is. It was just that one comment that I found utterly bizzare in light of the sheer detail and clarity from the other restoration, especially when they consider themselves one of the best home theater labels in the world.

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but my impression is that you, like me, are working from screen captures taken from the Internet when you assert the "sheer clarity and detail from the other restoration". I'm not saying you are wrong about the restoration, but wouldn't you have to have seen either the French disc or the Italian one in motion to make such an assertion? You keep stating it as if it were fact, yet others who have only seen screen caps of the French disk have remarked on the color saturation for red, and many have ticked the Medusa disk for crushed blacks and contrast issues.

It's not that I think your frustration is greater than it is, it's that I think your hyperbole regarding the French and Italian discs is unwarranted based on the evidence presented. I wonder if you'd care to address the specific points in my last two posts rather than keep insisting that the Pathé and Medusa discs are inarguably superior? Again, I'm not saying that they are not, but until one has seen them in motion on the same system that the Crit or BFI is viewed, how can you possibly be so certain?

[perkizitore]

So that leaves four contestants: Criterion, BFI, Madman and Medusa. That latter two are from the supposedly superior Film Foundation/Scorsese resto;

The Madman doesn't use the new restoration, which means I'm guessing it's a port of the BFI/Criterion master.

Where did you get this info?