The Leopard

[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?

[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.

Where did you get this info?

The other The Leopard thread on here (an email from Madman to eerik). BUT when I went to check just then I noticed that yesterday Paku posted that he was told that it WOULD be the new restoration.

[TMDaines]

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?

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.

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. From the screenshots the level of detail on one disk is clearly superior to the other. I'm not saying those disks are perfect either for what it's worth.

[matrixschmatrix]

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]

I didn't ask them to present any case, I just found one comment bizarre. Nevermind, no more, you can win.

[swo17]

[triodelover]

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.

Thank you.

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.

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.

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.

[pro-bassoonist]

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.

I agree. I have actually seen the Pathe disc (but not the Italian disc), and while the grain structure is clearly stronger (due to the higher res scan) it is not to the extent some (familiar) people make it out to be, implying that the Criterion transfer has an "electronic" look, etc. It is the new line: The Criterion has an older scan so it must be horrendous. It is not. By the way, the same non-sense addressing 12 Angry Men is currently in circulation as well.

The real problem with the Pathe release, however, is the color-scheme. The variety of yellows and browns, and especially the harsh orange, are completely off the chart.

In other words, a "newer scan" with a slightly superior detail and a tighter grain structure does not automatically equate "superior".

[oneshotmonkey]

I have no plans to replace my perfectly good BFI Blu-ray of The Leopard

The restoration displays a tighter grain structure and a significant amount of extra detail, suggesting that the BFI/Criterion wasn't taken from an 8-Perf negative or print (ie. similar to Criterion's Playtime balldropper). Whilst there is a problem with the black levels on the Italian release, Nabob is the first person to complain about 'murky interiors' on the French and, as this comparison shows, it is actually the Criterion/BFI which seems to be lacking shadow detail:



Imho the BFI could do the English-speaking world a great service by re-issuing The Leopard at some point down the line. At the very least, you should review the French edition for yourselves.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

Whilst there is a problem with the black levels on the Italian release, Nabob is the first person to complain about 'murky interiors' on the French and, as this comparison shows, it is actually the Criterion/BFI which seems to be lacking shadow detail:

I didn't use the phrase murky interiors but spoke only of the density of the blacks in the interior villa scenes which I find too 'sat down' for my liking and I did not draw a more favourable comparison on this matter from any other sources. I will state again that I find the transfer "sublime" and am quite at ease with the fleshtones etc in the interiors which I believe others might have had an issue with. So please do not mangle my statements into a negative or nay-saying vote for the French issue. I made a little intervention in a tortuously highjacked Kino thread speculating about the plethora of Leopard releases as someone who had a copy of the Pathé in their possession, that's all. If you want to find a review of the Pathé which is unequivocally rhapsodic and a bit sniffy about Criterion then check out Sandy Gillet's review on ecranlarge. BTW -The same guy who buried the Pathé Samourai blu.

[Fred Holywell]

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?

No, Visconti and Rotunno 'intended' a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, but protected for, at least, 2.21, 1.85, and 2.66:1 framing. At the time, 35mm Cinemascope compatible Technirama prints had a 2.35:1 frame. Full-frame Technirama was, indeed, 2.21:1, but the top of the frame was essentially 'dead space' easily cropped without affecting the compostition. In other words, the image is on the negative, but not on 35mm anamorphic prints. If 70mm 2.21:1 prints had been run, the image at the top of the neg would be printed up.

The reason for the 2.55:1 ar on The Film Foundation restoration is unclear, but it is a valid Technirama aspect ratio. The image appears to be (without seeing the original neg) 2.35:1 framing with some cropping at the top and bottom of the frame. The wider ar does allow for CRT monitor overscan, I suppose, and the picture info is basically more 'dead space' that would be cropped on some prints, anyway. FYI, new theatrical prints made from this restoration should have an ar of 2.39:1, in keeping with current specs.

What's often forgotten today is that Technirama was a multi-format, various ar system, similar to VistaVision. Initially, the Technicolor company hoped the process would be a 'one-size-fits-all solution' for all compatibility concerns. By the early 1960s, Technirama (or SuperTechnirama) prints were available in 70mm (SuperPanavision & UltraPanavision compatible); 35mm anamorphic; 35mm flat; and 16mm anamorphic. Since framing had to be protected for several different aspect ratios, camera movement and staging were often carefully, but necessarily, limited.

[Fred Holywell]

as this comparison shows, it is actually the Criterion/BFI which seems to be lacking shadow detail:

Those two screen caps are originally from the French DVD Classik site, I believe. Top is the old Gaumont Pathe DVD released several years ago. Bottom is their new DVD (or BluRay) of The Film Foundation restoration. Neither image is the Criterion or BFI version. The older GP disc is, indeed, a rather murky affair made from what appear to be multiple sources -- some better looking than others.

[triodelover]

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?

The reason for the 2.55:1 ar on The Film Foundation restoration is unclear, but it is a valid Technirama aspect ratio. The image appears to be (without seeing the original neg) 2.35:1 framing with some cropping at the top and bottom of the frame. The wider ar does allow for CRT monitor overscan, I suppose, and the picture info is basically more 'dead space' that would be cropped on some prints, anyway. FYI, new theatrical prints made from this restoration should have an ar of 2.39:1, in keeping with current specs.

Thank you, Fred. The Medusa is in transit to me as we speak, so we shall see.

[Fred Holywell]

Criterion/BFI screencap (top) added for comparison with old Gaumont Pathe (middle) and new Gaumont Pathe via The Film Foundation restoration (bottom).

[hearthesilence]

Have no idea if those caps are an accurate representation, but the Criterion looks the best in terms of color and picture quality. The other two look surprisingly crappy (crushed blacks, off color and/or mushy detail).

Don't know if the Criterion is (wrongfully) cropping the sides, but I'd still watch it over the others.

[tenia]

From what I remember, there are still 2 questions left with the new restoration : where the 2.55 ratio and the very hot colors come from ?

Apart from that, the Pathé BD blows away any other BD of the movie so far. When comparing the BFI / Criterion VS the Pathé, it's like comparing a DVD and a BD.