DVDBeaver Comparisons

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

My guess is that both IFC and Artificial Eye were supplied with a 16:9 or 4:3 video master (the two versions look almost identical except for the AR, suggesting a shared source) and IFC didn't realize -- or realized too late -- that they were supposed to crop it to 2.35:1. At least IFC seems slightly more on the ball with this stuff than DVD Talk.

[Gary Tooze]

Yes, they were supposed to matte it (as a projectionist would)
***
In our review of Zeitgeist's Glitterbox 4 X Derek Jarman - The Angelic Conversation (1985), Caravaggio (1986), Wittgenstein (1993) and Blue (1993), we've compared a few frames with their UK counterparts.
NOTE: each of the four Region 1 transfers are from unconverted PAL sources with ghosting/combing very visible...
P.S. No mention of this in the DVDTalk review.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/

Cheers,
Gary

[Toxicologist]

Gary,

Have read your '4 Months 3 Weeks & 2 Days' review....granted the lack of English subtitles may be a problem for many...but my French R2 edition is pretty legitimate!

EDIT: Many apologies Gary..on further investigation i stand corrected as the French edition is indeed in the incorrect ratio.

[dadaistnun]

The French 4 Months disc looks to have the incorrect ratio as well.

Wasn't this one of those IFC Films that received simultaneous theatrical and video-on-demand (or whatever it's called) play? If so, I wonder what ratio they ran it in on tv. At any rate, 2.35 is absolutely the correct theatrical ratio.

[Gary Tooze]

New...

Intercontinental Video - Region 3 - NTSC "Ballad of Narayama" vs. Animeigo - Region 1 - NTSC

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/

Cheers,

[domino harvey]

The French 4 Months disc looks to have the incorrect ratio as well.

Wasn't this one of those IFC Films that received simultaneous theatrical and video-on-demand (or whatever it's called) play? If so, I wonder what ratio they ran it in on tv. At any rate, 2.35 is absolutely the correct theatrical ratio.

I saw it on IFC In Demand and I am pretty sure it was 1.77-- but it was letterboxed (not anamorphic) and I was watching it on a huge HDTV, so I can't remember for sure

[MichaelB]

The UK theatrical screening I attended in January was definitely 2.35:1 - off a digital print.

[Gary Tooze]

...feeling the movie could be shown successfully in either ratio!

Frankly, I don't know what this means... "successfully"?
The film was composed for a 2.35:1 ratio. It should only be seen that way. The difference between 2.35 and 1.78 can be huge. It can actually be ridiculous. Do you think Wizard of Oz or Citizen Kane should be shown at 1.78? (with more info in the frame?) The difference is actually less than 2.35 -> 1.78. David I seem to recall you complaining quite heavily about a Sirk film being offered on DVD in the incorrect aspect ratio.

... 1.78 the compositions look fine to me

Frankly I could care less what you think of the composition. You sir, ain't the filmmaker.

If Mungiu + Mutu had wanted to you to see all that extraneaous information in the top and bottom of the frame they would have had it shown theatrically that way. They wouldn't have spent the time composing it the way they did. I prefer to see it as they intended and as it was shown at Cannes - 2.35:1 - as the Artificial Eye DVD represents. Is there some argument about this?

Regards,
Gary

[domino harvey]

How do we know it wasn't composed for 1.78 and matted to 2.35 for theatrical only? Those caps looks composed for 1.78, not 2.35. Maybe in motion the film tells a different story and reveals 2.35 compositions, but no reason to trot out "Are you the filmmaker" retorts in a civil discussion.

[Gary Tooze]

Well, gee - if you aren't going to get upset at this - I don't know what it is we should steam over.

Please. Let's end this speculation and 'supposing'.

Either you are for original aspect ratio - or you are not. There shouldn't be any extenuating circumstances - post viewing - no matter how many DVDs get it wrong.

This film won Cannes - doesn't it deserve at least this?

Barring unusual abberations (like being shown theatrical in various ratios) - I thought, we all wanted to see films as they were shown theatrically - the way the filmmakers intended. Not simply the way David Hare of Criterion Forum thinks 'look fine' or domino harvey say 'looks composed for...'. I don't think we should take David and domino's opinions into account about this. They aren't relevant in this case. Do you think we should take their opinons over the director and DP's wishes? Does anyone think this?

Let's do a scenario. Jonathan Rosenbaum is in town and coming to your house to rewatch this film on your system (stranger things happen every day). You know he has written about the 'scope' ratio of 4 Months... in his review. How do you want to show it to him? As it was shown at Cannes... or opened up with the explanation that a couple of members of the Criterion Forum think it 'looks fine' like this... #-o

1.78 ratio which of course is a perfect fit for Digital 16:9 TV looks so good

Irrelevant. David, do you want me to respond to this?

Cheers,
Gary

[carax09]

If you're so sure of what was in the minds of Mungiu + Mutu regarding AR for home video, why don't you take all this energy and direct it at the dvd arm of IFC, instead of pointlessly (and gracelessly) attempting to suppress discussion over here.

I'll even let you use this line I just thought up: Hey, what does IFC stand for anyway? Intentionally Fucking Cinematographers?

[domino harvey]

Gary, if you think so little of what any of us have to say, feel free to stop posting here.

[Gary Tooze]

take all this energy and direct it at the dvd arm of IFC

How do you know I'm not? Do you think my comparison is doing that? What is it that you are thinking?

What I am doing is trying to suppress those inferring that this is somehow acceptable. Obviously, I don't feel this is 'pointless'. I would have thought this Forum a good place for rallying this outrage. Perhaps I am incorrect and alone.

Situation: The film is the latest to win Cannes and the DVD representations in North America - to be seen by 1000's (10,000s?) - are not adhering to the directors most basic desires of theatrical presentation. Instead of building dissatisfaction some seem aquiesing to these events.

I am curious. What if this was "There Will Be Blood"? Do you think people would sit quietly for it? I certainly don't. Should there be a double standard? Maybe you think so.

....

Gary, if you think so little of what any of us have to say, feel free to stop posting here.

Grow up domino. You are not this Forum. I am not disrespecting you, but disagreeing with your opinion or rather it's value in this one situation.
I never said I 'think little' of what anyone has to say here. Why in the world would you infer that?

What I said was in this situation I don't believe it's relevant how you or David feel the composition looks... it's not relevant to the big picture (no pun). The only thing relevant is that it appears the filmmakers basic desires have not been met in terms of duplicating a theatrical viewing on DVD for potentially 200 million individuals who *could* see it for the first time in a home theatre. We expose, what we feel, is a terrible injustice and instead of outrage we get people like you trying to pacify the situation by casting aspersions on what the truth really is. Yeah maybe they wanted people to see it 2.35 in the theater and 1.78 at home. I am willing to believe almost anything at this stage... but that is at the remote end of the spectrum.

Jesus - remember the MGM Bergman Box HERE? We got enough people to complain that they actually redid the boxset and that was only (relatively 'only') 1.33 to 1.66 (albeit plenty of chopped heads). We, 'collectively', did it.

It's more like me lately to lose the passion over fights like this. I've been through a few. Sometimes we have the energy to 'win' and inact change but like David said, and has tried to lobby (many similar situations) 'Where's the public outrage'? I just don't want to hear that this is somehow okay - in any sense.

Maybe IFC has pulled it - to redo it. They haven't answered by email yet (nor has Mongrel Media). Let's see what they say... and what transpires. I'll continue although I appear to be barking up the wrong tree here - this is usually the best Forum for this type of thing. Thanks for any support. Maybe cause we all have region-free capability - it's not like we don't have the choice to get the 2.35 AE... and the rest (region 1 locked) probably don't know or care anyway. It DID show theatrically in Toronto at 2.35... I know that much. I'm really surprised.

taking two Advil and feeling old,
Gary

[carax09]

Let me be clear. I think outrage is a perfectly acceptable response if IFC (and whoever else) consciously released this film in a non-approved aspect ratio. Do we know it for a fact? Domino raised the possibility that the director and dp may have left enough compositional leeway to accommodate both ARs. There is some recent precedent for this, you know?

In the case of Paranoid Park, IFC has absolutely gone against the expressed wishes of Van Sant and his production team, to broadcast the film at 1.77. They are also set to release the R1 dvd non-academy and as David pointed out, that is a fucking travesty. I have seen the film both ways, and widescreen is just obviously wrong in this case.

How do you feel about the Storaro-approved dvd edition of The Last Emperor? I remember your review mentioning the furor surrounding the significant cropping, but I don't recall if you personally took a stand either way.

***edit*** Gary, sorry I didn't see your most recent post when i responded.

[sidehacker]

If you got the IFC disc for whatever reason and wanted to watch it in the right format then you could just play it in VLC and crop it at 2.35:1 manually.

[GringoTex]

taking two Advil and feeling old

If you didn't waste so much time and bandwidth on completely redundant and superfluous Blu-Ray reviews of the latest Hollywood Studio smack, you'd probably feel a lot younger.

[Gary Tooze]

LOL - How refreshingly rude.

Leonard Norwitz does most of those Blu-ray reviews, perhaps you'd like his email so you can tell him that *you* are not interested... as we were just talking the other day about building the site specifically around your tastes (whoever you are).

A lot of those BRD reviews are not to my own taste either Gringo, but they do contribute to the overall existence of DVDBeaver. Without, at least, some 'mainstream' stuff we'd be back to the struggling-to-get-by-each-month times. Now THAT gave me a lot more stress than a bit more bandwidth here and there. Your concern and opinions are noted pardner'.

Cheers,
Gary

[Gary Tooze]

New...

Criterion - Region 0 - NTSC "Monty Python's Life of Brian" vs. Sony Pictures (Blu-ray) - Region FREE

Criterion


Sony BRD


Please NOTE: the Blu-ray captures used in this comparison are ripped directly from the disc!

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/

Cheers,

[Person]

Gasp! That is one highly detailed transfer of a film I always thought was intentionally designed to look soft and grainy. Lawrence of Arabia is going to look painfully gorgeous when it comes out in...?

[Gary Tooze]

New...

Warner - Region 1 - NTSC "The Searchers" vs. Warner (Ultimate Collector's Edition) - Region 1,4 - NTSC vs. Warner Blu-ray

Once again the Blu-ray captures were ripped directly from the disc... and you can click on those captures in the comparisons to see the full 1920X1080 resolution.

Original 2000 Warner SD release (zoomed-in and boosted)


Warner REGION FREE Blu-ray release


http://www.dvdbeaver.com/

P.S. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters on deck...

Cheers,

[Ivy Mike]

Hey Gary, awesome to see blu captures coming directly from the disc now!

I have a question though regarding The Searchers ones - they appear to have blockiness (some sort of compression issue?), which is even more prominent when they're blown up to their full 1080 resolution. I'm not at all familiar with capturing blu discs (and I know that doesn't exist in the film since I own The Searchers on blu), but I was just wondering what was going on with that. I also tried saving them and opening it up outside of firefox to ensure it wasn't the browser doing strange things.

[Person]

Wow - look at the detail on Scar's face! The sheen of the paint, the strands of hair! Scary! I need to get a multi-region BR player before the year's end.

[Ivy Mike]

Oh, I'm referring to the screencaps not the actual disc which is outstanding as you state, even on my much smaller setup (a 32in. Sharp LCD - some would say a ludicrously small size for 1080p but it works for my living arrangement).

But does anyone else see the macroblocking when clicking on the 1080 caps from dvdbeaver?

[tryavna]

I'm totally with David on The Searchers "restoration": one of the great travesties of DVD.

their issues with the color timing on the day for night scenes

Speaking of which, what do the day-for-night scenes look like on the Blu? Any chance of somebody (Gary or not) posting caps of those?

[Gary Tooze]

Hi,
Personally, I don't see the 'blockiness' but any artefacts you do see will probably be from the compression of the original image to a jpeg. We could have done them as lossless (essentially) PNG's but they would take up a lot more disc space.
Cheers,