matrixschmatrix wrote:You are trying to claim that the one is inarguably superior to the other- inarguable to the degree that you are censuring Criterion for attempting to argue it- on the basis of a couple of screenhots which may not be representative. The new resto may well be superior, but I have no idea of why you think it inappropriate for Criterion to present their case for why they did not use it, particularly as you have such scanty evidence for what the new-resto disc actually looks like.
TMDaines wrote:Why are you interesting in getting me to argue about something I wasn't addressing? I was never talking about the total package as I keep saying nor the aspect ratio. I was talking about the quality and clarity of the image.
I'm not trying to get you to argue. I'm trying to get you to present evidence for your repeated assertions of superiority. Matrix is correct . And again, I'm not talking about the total package either, but surely in any discussion of image AR is relevant since it defines exactly how much image you see
TMDaines wrote:Sure, as I don't have the Italian/French disk I'm not a primary source of evidence but I'm not trying to influence anyone here.
Continued assertions of inarguable superiority certainly come across as attempts to influence.
TMDaines wrote: From the screenshots the level of detail on one disk is clearly superior to the other.
To you, grasshopper, to you. Once again I will remind you that there is dissension in the ranks about the red saturation on the Pathé disc and even the advocates of the Medusa disc admit to the crushed blacks and contrast issues. Both of these things are obvious from the screen caps you have been looking at. How can you say the detail of the Medusa is superior (look again at the cap of Angelica in close-up compared to the Crit) if you don't even have the disc to correct the contrast on your system? From the screen caps, the Crit appears to have loads more detail - look at her hair. What about the yellow tinge to her skin on the Medusa (being in mind my previous caveats)?
To repeat - it is entirely within the realm of possibility that both the Pathé and the Medusa discs contain superior visual presentations, even with the noted problems. I'm certainly open to that eventuality and that's why I'm recording the TCM viewing to give me a better idea about that and the irrelevant AR (pace
) before paying the prohibitive shipping costs from Amazon.it. That's not ideal - I'd rather be able to compare the discs, but it's a damn site better that asserting that static screen caps that may have not be achieved using the same process/software viewed on a computer monitor with all the noted calibration issues attached to computer systems prove that one version is clearly superior to the other.
(BTW, I know you deny this but your continued comments sure make it sound as if you have an ax to grind with Criterion. Ypu might want to take a look at how you've worded things if that's not the impression you'd like to convey.)
If anyone else has bothered to plow through my verbiage to this point, what is the rationale for the 2.55:1 AR used in the Film Foundation/Scorsese resto? Scorsese is a fanatical restorer (to his credit) and since it seems clear that Visconti and Rotunno intended 2.21:1, what necessitated the change?
(Thanks, swo. Love the shot.)
Reviewing this exchange brings me to inescapable conclusion that a 140 character limit would be the death of me.