Seven Samurai

[Finch]

It does make it a bit harder to read and I rely on subtitles even for English language films because my hearing is poor. I appreciate that this is a non issue for others but sloppy-ish subs bother me and when I found out that Criterion used a different translation that I liked better on top of easier to follow subs, that settled it definitively for me. FWIW, in the 4K thread I still have both releases tied with no preferences stated.

[MichaelB]

Otherwise, it's just a hurdle in reading the subtitles by adding extra gymnastics because the viewer need to wait for the next line to know if the previous sentence actually ended or is continuing. Who likes that ? It's unpractical, and even if some might say this is on purpose, which I've never heard of before today, it reads as lazy and lacking, as if somebody forgot to handle this part of the punctuation and left it to the viewer to do so.

The most plausible reason is in fact an entirely practical one - subtitlers often have to operate within constraints in terms of characters per line, and omitting things like full stops is a handy way of regularly getting around that. Because I work directly with the disc encoder and am part of the QC team once the subtitles have been encoded, I can be much more generous because I know in advance what fonts they'll be using and what size they'll be rendering at - but most subtitlers don't have that luxury so tend to play safe. And many of them don't even play safe as a conscious decision on their part; they're contractually required to deliver, say, no more than 40 characters per line.

(This is also why many subtitlers favour précis over full transcription when it comes to SDH subtitles - if the film's very talky, they have little choice. Reading speed is also a factor, but not the only one.)

I don't make an ongoing list of films that don't feature full stops in subtitles - at the time of viewing, I just tune them out (frankly, I read subtitles so quickly that they could be entirely unpunctuated and it wouldn't make much difference), but I've certainly spotted plenty; it really isn't that unusual. I recall MoC's Toni being an example.

[tenia]

The most plausible reason is in fact an entirely practical one

I certainly can imagine that, but I meant it's unpractical for readers, who have to complete themselves what the subs aren't providing. I too read subtitles quickly, but it actually slows me down when I have to do myself the gymnastics of adding missing full stops in my mind during the reading, waiting to see if the next sentence starts with a capital letter to complete the previous sentence.

Also Toni is a... 16 yo DVD ! and neither the Criterion releases (2020) or the Gaumont ones (2020 also) omits full stops.
I actually can't recall having recently watched a MoC BD whose subtitles were like this. Same goes for Arrow, Second Run, Second Sight, Radiance, 88 Films, Anti-Worlds, the BFI too, Indicator, and that's just for the UK (and you probably know first-hand for several of these).
In France, un-punctuated subtitles are always considered as an issue, which is why they're an extreme rare thing to find. You won't find these at Carlotta, Metropolitan, Pathé, The Jokers, Studio Canal, Pyramide, L'atelier d'images, Jour 2 fête, Tamasa, Sidonis, Blaq Out, Intersections, MDC, Les films du Camélia or Potemkine. I'm reviewing most of all these labels' releases : if I was to stumble onto subtitles lacking full stops, it'd get a specific (negative) mention in my reviews (like what Spectrum got when a few of their releases turned out like this - and this was because the non-final subs were used, and they issued replacement discs), which is how I recall not stumbling on these on some kind of routine basis, because I probably wrote this once over the past 3 years.
I do know about CPS and CPL limitations, but considering all the releases managing those AND full stops, it does seem like it's feasible.

So anyway, probably not a deal breaker for me, but definitely not something I'd consider negligible either.

[kuzine]

To add a data point, I watched the second half of Kimstim's edition of An Elephant Sitting Still tonight after I happened to have read the posts in this thread earlier and no interpunction present besides ! and ? (Film still as impressive as on my first watch). This hadn't registered yesterday when watching the first half so clearly I'm not sensitive to it. I must admit I was a bit amused by the discussion earlier and then even more by the coincidence later, but can appreciate it's an issue for some. Looking forward to the bfi that's in transit to put next to my old criterion dvd though.

[MichaelB]

Yes, I only brought up Toni as an example because I remembered it - I've certainly seen more recent ones. Subtitling houses have differing conventions, and some labels - in fact, I suspect the overwhelming majority - don't have an overarching subtitling house style.

[tenia]

I believe it's pretty much entirely down to who did the subtitles.

I don't recall which title it was, but I recently watched a movie whose subtitles were, for once, done by someone else than the usual people, and they contained some mistakes and typos, something that is very unusual for this label.

I suppose that, back to this topic's subject, Seven Samurai's UHD subs simply weren't done by who the BFI usually goes to.

[MichaelB]

As I speculated earlier, I imagine they've had Seven Samurai subs on file for decades! I honestly can't recall a time when they didn't have the UK distribution rights to that film, and I go back three-and-a-half decades.

[nicolas]

No screenshot comparison yet but Filmmaker at the other forum answered my question from my BFI review regarding clean-up in the master and how their 4K compares against the Criterion:

“Holy crap! I thought the difference would be more slight, but yeah, I just A/B’d my Criterion with the BFI that arrived today and the Criterion wallops the BFI! David M. is a master compressionist but Criterion put some real effort into this and the digital clean-up yields a far more pleasing and consistent viewing experience. FiM is top of the line but they can’t work miracles with a comparatively battered film print.”

Quite unbelievable that there’s now essentially nothing identical any more among these two UHD discs except for the base master.

[ryannichols7]

No screenshot comparison yet but Filmmaker at the other forum answered my question from my BFI review regarding clean-up in the master and how their 4K compares against the Criterion:

“Holy crap! I thought the difference would be more slight, but yeah, I just A/B’d my Criterion with the BFI that arrived today and the Criterion wallops the BFI! David M. is a master compressionist but Criterion put some real effort into this and the digital clean-up yields a far more pleasing and consistent viewing experience. FiM is top of the line but they can’t work miracles with a comparatively battered film print.”

Quite unbelievable that there’s now essentially nothing identical any more among these two UHD discs except for the base master.

great. alright. I'll have to figure this out. I have noticed before the BFI do sometimes take a more "hands off" approach - note The River for another really good example for this. it's not that their transfer is bad but they definitely leave in a lot more damage and such on the master. Criterion's cleanup of the same film is lovely and doesn't detract from the image quality at all. luckily in that circumstance it was also necessary to own both editions, with the unique extras and Rossellini's India on the second disc

[nicolas]

No screenshot comparison yet but Filmmaker at the other forum answered my question from my BFI review regarding clean-up in the master and how their 4K compares against the Criterion:

“Holy crap! I thought the difference would be more slight, but yeah, I just A/B’d my Criterion with the BFI that arrived today and the Criterion wallops the BFI! David M. is a master compressionist but Criterion put some real effort into this and the digital clean-up yields a far more pleasing and consistent viewing experience. FiM is top of the line but they can’t work miracles with a comparatively battered film print.”

Quite unbelievable that there’s now essentially nothing identical any more among these two UHD discs except for the base master.

great. alright. I'll have to figure this out. I have noticed before the BFI do sometimes take a more "hands off" approach - note The River for another really good example for this. it's not that their transfer is bad but they definitely leave in a lot more damage and such on the master. Criterion's cleanup of the same film is lovely and doesn't detract from the image quality at all. luckily in that circumstance it was also necessary to own both editions, with the unique extras and Rossellini's India on the second disc

Absolutely. I also understand and respect both approaches to cases like this, particularly if it's unclear whether too much (automatic) cleanup compromises actual image detail, such as with Severin's The Psychic where they mistook flying birds for dirt. Criterion seems to have found a way into Seven Samurai's debris, which is very welcome as I never thought the film can look even remotely "clean" due to the elements situation.

[midnitedave]

AVForums review is glowing.

Dolby Vision give an epic greyscale, true, inky blacks give tremendous frame depth, shadows are held well, going all the way up to blinding white of fire or sun beams, with everything in between. Check out embers in fire, shadows at night, glinting steel, reflections in eyes, water spray – gorgeous.

Digitally there are no compression issues, the original source is mostly free from damage, the occasional tram line is still visible (seems to always have been) but the frame is stable, robust, and dense, while maintaining light grain to keep that filmic image. Stunning stuff.

Unfortunately, no screengrabs.

[nicolas]

AVForums review is glowing.

Dolby Vision give an epic greyscale, true, inky blacks give tremendous frame depth, shadows are held well, going all the way up to blinding white of fire or sun beams, with everything in between. Check out embers in fire, shadows at night, glinting steel, reflections in eyes, water spray – gorgeous.

Digitally there are no compression issues, the original source is mostly free from damage, the occasional tram line is still visible (seems to always have been) but the frame is stable, robust, and dense, while maintaining light grain to keep that filmic image. Stunning stuff.

Unfortunately, no screengrabs.

My HDR screenshots can be found here: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php? ... tcount=263

[midnitedave]

My HDR screenshots can be found here: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php? ... tcount=263

Thank you! Someone else posted direct comparisons as well.

Admittedly, the BFI release looks pretty clean already. I feel this is just a situation of personal preference; deeper contrast with HDR or a cleaner image, subtitle formatting, packaging and extras. In the end, to have a choice of viewing experience for such a phenomenal movie is a win for everyone.

Update: Same user posted an audio comparison.

[therewillbeblus]

I'm definitely interested in seeing Criterion's cleanup job, but the BFI looks great, and I'm not having any issues with the subtitles

[midnitedave]

I'm definitely interested in seeing Criterion's cleanup job, but the BFI looks great, and I'm not having any issues with the subtitles

Same! Just finished watching my copy tonight and can confirm that the subtitle punctuation thing is a bit overblown. Sure, there aren't periods at the end of every sentence but it doesn't take away any context or clarity. As for the "damage," there's barely any—few spots here and there but nothing distracting. You know what was noticeable though? ...that sweet Dolby Vision 🤌

[MichaelB]

As I said, plenty of subtitlers don't use full stops as per their standard practice, and I didn't even notice before I started subtitling films myself. In fact, one of the very first questions that I needed to answer to my own satisfaction was "do I need to include full stops?", and my research at the time via a random sampling of discs was far from conclusive. So I'm genuinely surprised that people are especially bothered by it, unless they're doing it performatively.

Still, at least nobody's weighed into the curly/straight apostrophes debate; that way genuine madness lies. (For the record, most subtitling houses go for straight apostrophes, because it's fundamentally simpler; Criterion is one of the few that favours curly ones.)

[tenia]

Won't speak for others, but I'm not performative about my issues with the lack of full stops in subtitles, it really bothers me as it complexifies my reading and slows me down.

[MichaelB]

You're not a native English speaker, so I can appreciate that it might be trickier for you. But I've spent a fair chunk of my professional life proofreading things regularly - not least untold thousands of subtitles! - and I simply don't notice when I encounter missing full stops in the wild.

[ryannichols7]

fantastic CineOutsider review. very thorough and easily my favorite review site, along with Chris's reviews of course

[EddieLarkin]

fantastic CineOutsider review. very thorough and easily my favorite review site, along with Chris's reviews of course

Adrian Martin does a frankly amazing job here, proclaiming up front that he is not interested in providing biographical details about the actors or the film’s production, both of which he points out can be easily found elsewhere. Instead he examines the film as “a masterclass in cinema and the craft and art of filmmaking,”

Keep up the exceptional work, Adrian.