dwk wrote:Raro posted on facebook that they are going to release Nightmare City on Blu-ray.
Future releases: "NIGHTMARE CITY" directed by Umberto Lenzi.
New HD transfer and digitally restored.DVD & BR. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYWD5vPf8xA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...
We are now working on the new HD transfer from original 35mm negative print and the production of new special features. Soon we will post he release date.....
Oh man.
How about Margheriti's CASTLE OF BLOOD, WEB OF THE SPIDER OR THE VIRGIN OF NUREMBERG?
Or Freda's HORRIBLE DR HICHCOCK and THE GHOST?
vygnyr wrote:Raro Video USA is releasing Il Generale Della Rovere on Blu-ray in December. Could this mean that the DVD edition is going OOP?
They are also releasing a separate DVD edition. I have already received my Blu-Ray and it really looks great. I have only watched the director's cut. I haven't checked the theatrical version yet. The extras are good too.
Gregory wrote:I had missed that. I was looking at the Raro site, which says it's still a pre-order with a Dec. 10 release. Apparently they didn't update it.
I received the BD early last week. They also sent the Django BD a month earlier than their official street date. I am sure that if you order it now, you will get it within few days.
This digipak looks stuning. I wanted to post some snaps, but I couldn't. I guess I have to learn the way of doing it first #-o
Gregory wrote:I had missed that. I was looking at the Raro site, which says it's still a pre-order with a Dec. 10 release. Apparently they didn't update it.
I received the BD early last week. They also sent the Django BD a month earlier than their official street date. I am sure that if you order it now, you will get it within few days.
This digipak looks stuning. I wanted to post some snaps, but I couldn't. I guess I have to learn the way of doing it first #-o
I have checked the director's cut and the PQ/SQ looked really good. There are some signs of age, but that's very much acceptable. I know that my description is not very helpful. I am not a techinical person. I like this package overal and I can definitely say that it is much more superior to the Criterion DVD. I anticipate that people may go crazy when the reviews are out, because there are lot of stuff put on a single 25 GB disc.
I could not wait for the reviews. This is one of my favorite films and I had to get it. I wonder why they haven't sent it to the reviewers yet. Anyways, I am happy with it.
I knew something like that was coming, but I am totally lost now with his technical descriptions. With all due respect to him, something is definitely wrong with the review. I would like to have a step by step analysis of the whole disc. There are multiple features on the disc, two versions of the film and some extras. RAH is really mad with this release. If I read the review correctly, the aspect ratio pissed him off ["Image - Actual picture quality - 4; As released - 0.5:"]
"The film is 1.33 or possibly 1.37. I've always viewed it at 1.66, and I like it that way" - Criterion's DVD also showed the film in 1.33:1. How bad was his review for Criterion DVD? We get some idea in this review though - "Criterion released the film on DVD not long ago, and the work is up to their normal standards". So, he was happy with their AR.
Anyways, I think this review is definitely "mind-numbing" for me.
It reads to me like the following is his main gripe
RAH wrote:For some reason, no one felt that the film should have been cropped in any way. And by that I mean that we see the camera aperture. And all of the dirt that attached itself to the aperture during shooting. Along with a few splice lines, and an occasional area that goes outside of the aperture, and shows a white vertical line adjacent to the sound track.
What does these mean then? Is he becoming inconsistent?
Well, I guess I should not comment too much regarding these type of reviews. Afterall, I am a happy owner of both The Earrings of Madame de . . . and Children of Paradise, and now Il Generale Della Rovere.
So, looking at the nature of his complaints about this release and his review of Madame de... it seems he's bend over backward to approve of something that's been digitally "restored" until it looks like a cheap painting and yet can't stand any reminder that a disc came from a celluloid source with imperfections such as dirt and the occasional hair in the gate. Does anyone realistically expect Raro to clean up all the specks and scratches the way Criterion does?
"Image quality is really quite good" and yet virtually everything has gone wrong?
RAH wrote:Most of the film was shot on sound stages, and it can take awhile to get used to the sometimes artificial look of the film. What we don't need is anything continuously reminds us that we're watching that stuff with the holes on the side, and not any sort of drama.
It's hard to determine exactly what the problem is without seeing the disc ourselves, but you're clearly downplaying his criticisms Gregory. This does not seem to be an issue of a damaged/dirty element, more a case that way too much of the element has been presented on the disc, certainly more than just the image area.
This is in line with his comment about it looking like it came from the machine, without anyone bothering to look at it. As in, the element was scanned and then no attempt was made to hide parts of the element that are obviously not supposed to be seen, including the camera aperture and beyond.
The part of his review you've quoted clearly means we are reminded we are watching a film because said aperture is visible, when it shouldn't be. I don't think he has any problem with the dirt and damage, except that which is there because the aperture is visible.
I'm not claiming that the disc looks better than he describes it, because I haven't seen it. I'm questioning his priorities vis-a-vis the good qualities of this release that he points out as well as his approval of the botched Madame De.
I have quite a few DVDs that transferred the source elements all the way out to the aperture marks and as long as the aspect ratio is correct, that would never bother me anywhere near as much as it apparently does RAH. I've also had great experiences watching prints projected with notable amounts of dirt and damage around the edges and I'm sure the projectionist hadn't masked with any real precision. I'm certainly not saying the Raro disc wouldn't look better if they'd zoomed it in a little, but RAH basing his entire review on this one flaw and saying that there are no thrills to be had watching the blu-ray even though the "image quality is really quite good."
What is so bad about being reminded that we're watching something shot on film? It's not as though sprocket holes or an optical soundtrack are visible on this release (he's clear about that). And What's so unusual about shooting on soundstages? All dramas have various types of artificiality inherent in the ways they're presented. It's part of the art form. RAH comes across as very easily perturbed and distracted in this way, at least that's how it reads to me.
I see what you mean. Ideally we need some caps. Raro have just posted on their Facebook what is likely a retort to his comments; they reference an image but seem to have forgotten to upload it.
The picture on Raro's disc has imperfection on the bottom and the corners are round ones. The Gaumont blu-ray has aspect ratio of 1.33:1 also but picture misses some information due cropping.
RAH's main gripe is all too clear in the screenshots in the new Blu-ray.com review.
I don't think it would bother me too much with overscan on, but I've never seen such extreme lack of matting to a film on Blu-ray. Even Kino's Scarlett Street, which had visible rounded corners, was not that bad.
RAH also mentioned that he has only ever seen the film 1.66:1, and I've since heard that 1.37:1 is definitely correct, but some of those caps speak quite loudly on the issue, I think.
An existential question : I've just read the blu-ray test. I would like to know if Gaumont included the "missing scenes" like the Raro release ? (if yes, did they use the same alternate source (weaker) or did they do something else ?)
is the Gaumont Blu-Ray the Director's Cut version or the theatrical cut ?
