587 Three Colors Trilogy

[cdnchris]

I'm sure it comes down to having to program the page to do that and don't see a point in updating it. They more than likely didn't consider the option when it was originally created since their editions didn't differ that much between formats.

[tenia]

It doesn't seem to do so here but it's working properly on Dazed and Confused, where you see the specs changing on each release (4k resto for the UHD, HD master for the BD, lossy sound for the DVD).

[dwk]

I still don't understand why their products' pages are bundling together the specs of these formats/releases since they're allowing for product-related displays when selecting a format (for instance, when clicking on DVD, you see the sound specs are switching to lossy). Here instead, you're having specs for the UHDs, specs for maybe the DF BDs AND specs for the older BDs.

That is needlessly confusing and should be easily fixed.

[yoloswegmaster]

Criterion responded to my email saying that the blus included in the 4K set are from the 2011 masters.

[Rupert Pupkin]

if this is the case, that would be the best news of the day. I will wait, though (prudence est mère de sûreté) some vidcaps when the Criterion box set will be released.
Because in France, the 4K UHD restoration box set, "White" movie is now "Yellow".

[tenia]

You seem to have misunderstood : there won't be remastered BDs in the set, but the UHDs will use the new 4k restos, which are the only ones available.

[Rupert Pupkin]

You seem to have misunderstood : there won't be remastered BDs in the set, but the UHDs will use the new 4k restos, which are the only ones available.

[Rupert Pupkin]

You seem to have misunderstood : there won't be remastered BDs in the set, but the UHDs will use the new 4k restos, which are the only ones available.

but it's a combo UHD+Blu-Ray disks ? So they will put the Blu-ray discs from their original blu-ray discs box set, and the UHD disks will use the 4K restoration which has been released in France via Carlotta/Mk2 ?
are we really sure that Criterion will use the same 4K restoration ?

because, if this is the case, then this would be as far as I can tell the first time that Criterion release a combo UHD+Blu-Ray where the blu-ray will have a drastically different color grading than the UHD.
For instance, for In The Mood For Love, for the worst or the best the blu-ray is from the 4K restoration (whereas, I think, their first Blu-Ray is still available)

This would be seen as a kind of "disavowal" by Criterion for the new 4K restoration. Why did they not downscaled to blu-ray the 4K restoration like they do for their other combo release (Raging Bull for instance) ?
I imagine that people could be surprised to put a blu-ray disk and seeing that the color grading is drastically different than the blu-ray release.

[cdnchris]

This is what they have done for just about all of the 4K reissues because it's cheaper: just include the preexisting Blu-ray. I'm pretty sure Le cercle rouge is the only one where they bothered to create a new Blu-ray featuring the new restoration.

(For Mulholland Dr. they did use the old master but managed to replace the Universal logo with the StudioCanal one, so why they didn't bother just downscaling the new one I don't know, maybe that's still cheaper.)

For In the Mood for Love they literally just used the disc from the set, I assume because it has all the features Wong approved.

[tenia]

This would be seen as a kind of "disavowal" by Criterion for the new 4K restoration. Why did they not downscaled to blu-ray the 4K restoration like they do for their other combo release (Raging Bull for instance) ?

As Chris wrote : it's not a disavowal, at all. If it was, they wouldn't use it for, you know, the most premium format they're releasing. It's just Criterion's current habit to mostly not bother and re-use older masters for BD when upgrading a title.

[vsski]

Has anyone considered that Criterion may be in a tight financial situation? New masters cost money, reprinting existing BDs is cheaper.

[tenia]

It costs exponentially more to do UHDs to begin with, numerous other smaller labels are doing remastered BDs, and it doesn't really fit with Criterion's mission "No matter the medium—from laserdisc to DVD, Blu-ray, 4K Ultra HD to streaming—Criterion has maintained its pioneering commitment to presenting each film as its maker would want it seen, in state-of-the-art restorations".
Also, Criterion are supposedly the biggest indie label worldwide and by some margin.

Which is probably why I haven't seen financial difficulties being advanced anywhere to explain this choice.
However, an editorial one, like say some studios, not to do remasteree BDs but only use older ones would be much more consistant with practices seen on the market.

[dwk]

I do wonder if the older discs are used sometimes to get around any potential licensing issue on archival extras? Does repressing a a disc with a new transfer = a new release and such any archival extras have to be relicensed, but merely sticking the old disc in with the UHD doesn't.

[swo17]

I prefer the old discs to be included if there's been a noticeable change in color timing

[Rupert Pupkin]

This is what they have done for just about all of the 4K reissues because it's cheaper: just include the preexisting Blu-ray. I'm pretty sure Le cercle rouge is the only one where they bothered to create a new Blu-ray featuring the new restoration.

(For Mulholland Dr. they did use the old master but managed to replace the Universal logo with the StudioCanal one, so why they didn't bother just downscaling the new one I don't know, maybe that's still cheaper.)

For In the Mood for Love they literally just used the disc from the set, I assume because it has all the features Wong approved.

ok, thanks; there is a logic in thes re-releases : the rules is new 4K for UHD; previous blu-ray release for blu-ray disks.

That said, as you wrote for "Mulholland Drive", they did not just put their stock of blu-ray but produced a glass master and press some blu-ray for the new combo UHD+Blu-Ray since you wrote that they were tricky enough to change the opening logo of the movie for the blu-ray disk, which means a new glass master, etc...

I thought that Mulholland Drive from the combo UHD+Blu-Ray was different for the blu-ray disks and downscaled from the 4K master. I should have read your test instead of other web site; because it was confusing.
I'm very impressed by the 4K transfer of "Lost Highway" and was about to rebuy Mulholland Drive for the UHD disks; but they don't sell the UHD as a single release ? only a combo ?

[swo17]

All of Criterion's UHD releases have only the film on UHD and all of the extras on Blu-ray

[vsski]

It costs exponentially more to do UHDs to begin with, numerous other smaller labels are doing remastered BDs, and it doesn't really fit with Criterion's mission "No matter the medium—from laserdisc to DVD, Blu-ray, 4K Ultra HD to streaming—Criterion has maintained its pioneering commitment to presenting each film as its maker would want it seen, in state-of-the-art restorations".
Also, Criterion are supposedly the biggest indie label worldwide and by some margin.

Which is probably why I haven't seen financial difficulties being advanced anywhere to explain this choice.
However, an editorial one, like say some studios, not to do remasteree BDs but only use older ones would be much more consistant with practices seen on the market.

While it costs more to do UHDs that doesn’t mean that companies even as big as Criterion don’t need to watch their bottom line. And being the market maker or biggest kid on the block hasn’t shielded companies from being displaced by more flexible and nimbler upstarts in many industries. The recent layoffs at the company certainly show that they grew too much too fast.

And the Criterion motto that you quote doesn’t preclude them from presenting BDs in the best possible “state-of-the-art presentation”.

I’m firmly convinced that we will see many labels folding in the coming decade given the overall market trends.

However, it likely isn’t purely a financial consideration not to upgrade BDs, but also catering to their audience that is possibly more willing to buy the new combos if they know that by doing so they can easily sell the old BD only edition as they aren’t losing anything in terms of extras. Some examples of color correction not withstanding.

[tenia]

While it costs more to do UHDs that doesn’t mean that companies even as big as Criterion don’t need to watch their bottom line. And being the market maker or biggest kid on the block hasn’t shielded companies from being displaced by more flexible and nimbler upstarts in many industries. The recent layoffs at the company certainly show that they grew too much too fast.

Of course they need to watch their bottom line, but what I meant is that they most certainly haven't waited years to move to UHD, years after quite a lot of much smaller labels managed to do the move, if they weren't able to absorb the cost of doing UHDs, and if you do, I'd suppose you can absorb the cost of remastered BDs, which are much cheaper.
And if you can't ? Well, you could then just skip doing DF altogether, like Arrow are doing, by adding the extras on the UHDs, which Criterion aren't doing, because most likely, it's just like with them not changing their authoring supplier : they're so much a beast of habits that they chose to simply include the older discs instead. This might actually be cheaper to do.
Mind you : they're not the only ones to do so, many US studios are also doing this, which allows to not bother properly re-encoding the extras on the 2160p disc, but also allow to offer a DF product even if it means actually including sometimes 10 to 20 years old BD. But on the package, you can put a sticker that says Dual Format, which indeed also has an appeal (though it only goes so far when one realise the included BD is recycled).

And the Criterion motto that you quote doesn’t preclude them from presenting BDs in the best possible “state-of-the-art presentation”.

But it's not, and considering the state of the market nowadays and the split by support, it means letting the BD customers down from getting the newer presentations. It thus places Criterion as a label that isn't doing more in this regard than, say, Paramount, and I don't think that "not much better than your random US studio" is the technical status Criterion wants to have.

However, it likely isn’t purely a financial consideration not to upgrade BDs, but also catering to their audience that is possibly more willing to buy the new combos if they know that by doing so they can easily sell the old BD only edition as they aren’t losing anything in terms of extras. Some examples of color correction not withstanding.

See above : I'm quite certain that they're just doing like what US studios are doing : not bothering remastering a BD, but including one so they can still provide customers with the archival extras, and it doesn't go further than this. It'd definitely fit with what is happening on the market overall.

[vsski]

But it's not, and considering the state of the market nowadays and the split by support, it means letting the BD customers down from getting the newer presentations. It thus places Criterion as a label that isn't doing more in this regard than, say, Paramount, and I don't think that "not much better than your random US studio" is the technical status Criterion wants to have.

While I now better understand what you mean, I have to wonder why you think Criterion does this and why would they want to be the same as the studios?
They started their business model in the Laserdisc days by offering something totally different that appealed to a cinephile / collector’s segment of the market and practically invented what became the movie + extras on disc model. And for the longest time they had a leg up with the type and nature of the extras they provided.

So why now let their BD customers down by no longer providing the best possible presentation for BDs and do what the studios do? After all the BD customer is presumably by far their largest segment these days?

So let’s say financials play no role in this at all, what is the driving force?

[tenia]

So why now let their BD customers down by no longer providing the best possible presentation for BDs and do what the studios do? After all the BD customer is presumably by far their largest segment these days?
So let’s say financials play no role in this at all, what is the driving force?

I do believe than when it comes to those things, Criterion are amongst the labels the most stuck in misplaced force of habit, which explains why they haven't seemingly done anything to either challenge Pixelogic's BD encodes, let alone had a look around to change supplier (this last point coming straight from Peter Becker).

So again, it can simply be an editorial choice, though I couldn't say whether it's for including the archival extras without bothering encoding everything correctly on the UHD and "oh well, there's the movie in its older master also on the BD so let's keep it", or a way to provide a DF product even if it's an asymetric one.
In the end, it might not be what they want, but it does place them in the same spot than, say, when Paramount did a DF release of Mission Impossible only to include the 2011 BD in it. Which is exactly what Criterion will do with Three Colors (the BD set was also released in 2011).

My analysis might be different if Criterion were to include video extras on UHD, but they never do, hence strengthening my impression these BDs also mostly serve to provide the extras without bothering much with the UHD authoring and encode (which, to be fair, can be tricky). And if you look at which of their titles get UHD-66s or UHD-100s and their related AVBs, it doesn't seem to be a definitive factor, hence again my impression about why they're including a BD but not remastered ones.

I guess the question will be : what Criterion will do if/when they upgrade to UHD a movie that basically had a barebones BD release ? Will they do a DF format or a UHD-only one, since there'll be no particular extras to port over ?

[andyli]

The way things are, it's better that they stick with releasing brand new titles (for them) on UHD as opposed to revisiting titles that were released on blu-ray by them not long ago. If the practice of including existing blu-ray with older transfers remains, we'd probably be looking at The Rules of the Game, The 400 Blows, etc. all suffer from the same fate.

Ironically, they are not shy replacing existing blu-ray spines with 4k restoration upgrades on the same format, such titles as 8 1/2, The Seventh Seal, Play Time, etc. It's only when they release UHD it somehow becomes an issue.

[M-A]

The way things are, it's better that they stick with releasing brand new titles (for them) on UHD as opposed to revisiting titles that were released on blu-ray by them not long ago. If the practice of including existing blu-ray with older transfers remains, we'd probably be looking at The Rules of the Game, The 400 Blows, etc. all suffer from the same fate.

Ironically, they are not shy replacing existing blu-ray spines with 4k restoration upgrades on the same format, such titles as 8 1/2, The Seventh Seal, Play Time, etc. It's only when they release UHD it somehow becomes an issue.

Probably because they realised that no-one would buy the blu-ray only release when they could get a remastered blu-ray and a 4K disc for futureproofing for only $5 more

[MV88]

The way things are, it's better that they stick with releasing brand new titles (for them) on UHD as opposed to revisiting titles that were released on blu-ray by them not long ago. If the practice of including existing blu-ray with older transfers remains, we'd probably be looking at The Rules of the Game, The 400 Blows, etc. all suffer from the same fate.

Agreed, their priority for UHD releases should be titles that they’ve yet to release on any format rather than catalog upgrades unless they’re going to go all-out with a whole new set of features, new packaging, etc. While it would be nice to have UHD discs of their back catalog, I’m sure that purchasing the upgrade for the new format alone is something that most people will only be willing to do selectively for their personal favorites, especially if word gets out that the UHD discs only offer a minor improvement like in the case of A Hard Day’s Night (or maybe even a downgrade if we’re talking about In the Mood for Love). There are only a few titles in the collection that strike me as worth upgrading for a UHD disc alone, so unless they’re gonna offer a discount to people who have already purchased the BD version (which obviously wouldn’t work), I don’t think we really need upgrades for a lot of their older titles immediately unless the UHD disc offers a *significant* improvement over the previous version, or unless they’re giving the release a complete overhaul in terms of packaging and extras.

[rrenault]

Regarding Criterion's financial situation, a remastered blu-ray for the DF releases would still require the creation of a new encode, which costs money. It's not just a question of pressing the blu-ray.

Also, I have no issues with UHD upgrades of titles they've already released on blu-ray provided they're reference quality and/or are for films being brought back into print, such as Le Cercle Rouge (the 1080p masters for Blow Out and The Three Colors Trilogy are positively ancient). However, StudioCanal's reference quality release of Mulholland Dr. probably makes the Criterion feel somewhat redundant.

[omegadirective]

These movies are so frickin’ dark on 4k