criterionforum.org

triodelover wrote:As far as Gattopardo goes, that "deluge of voices" comes largely from those who are judging using screen grabs

Shock horror! This is, of course, why sites such as DVDBeaver exist: so that consumers can judge the quality of a transfer before making a purchase. Additional problems can arise when a disc is in motion (interlacing, ghosting, judder, etc), but assuming that the screengrabs are competently captured and compressed the picture isn't likely to improve, the level of detail isn't going to change, the color isn't going to change, etc.

Far more critical than whether the image is in motion or not is whether one is using a good quality calibrated display device (the Flanders Scientific LM-2461, for example...) and whether one knows what to look for. If the answer is yes to both of those questions, the screengrabs are all the evidence one requires of the superiority of the Pathe transfer, from its natural, filmlike gamma and more accurate framing (just like Un Chien Andalou, the BFI/Criterion Leopard is heavily cropped on the left hand side, a strong indication, along with its heavier grain structure, that it is taken from a cross-format dupe), to the huge amount of extra detail culled from its Technirama source. The Medusa on the other hand suffers from crushed blacks, so you won't be able to conclude much from that.

Re: Un Chien Andalou, yes, it has now become a special feature for 'licensing reasons', but this is a little bit like WB including the original version of Chaplin's The Gold Rush as a special feature, or Lucas including the 1977 Star Wars as a special feature - its still the primary reason why many people will buy the disc (myself included) and as such can't help but disappoint. Oh well... Hopefully the Spaniards are holding onto the rights for a reason.

oneshotmonkey wrote:Far more critical than whether the image is in motion or not is whether one is using a good quality calibrated display device (the Flanders Scientific LM-2461, for example...) and whether one knows what to look for. If the answer is yes to both of those questions, the screengrabs are all the evidence one requires of the superiority of the Pathe transfer, from its natural, filmlike gamma and more accurate framing (just like Un Chien Andalou, the BFI/Criterion Leopard is heavily cropped on the left hand side, a strong indication, along with its heavier grain structure, that it is taken from a cross-format dupe), to the huge amount of extra detail culled from its Technirama source. The Medusa on the other hand suffers from crushed blacks, so you won't be able to conclude much from that.

Silly me. I thought the object of the exercise was to gain the most possible enjoyment from watching the film.

This nonsense reminds of the arguments that went on in the '70s between hard-core audiophiles about the direction the Underground traveled under Kingsway Hall on Kenneth Wilkinson's Decca recordings. If you could not discern the correct direction either Wilkinson muffed it (presumably by focusing on the orchestra and the music) or your system wasn't up to snuff. Of course, the argument told you nothing about how you might enjoy the performance or the quality of same in your own environment. But those doing the arguing didn't derive their pleasure from listening to music but rather pointing out the imperfections of what someone else was listening to or with.

That reminds me of the time when someone put the word "fun" in scarequotes when responding to something I'd written, as though the very word needed to be handled with tongs.

MichaelB wrote:That reminds me of the time when someone put the word "fun" in scarequotes when responding to something I'd written, as though the very word needed to be handled with tongs.

Hmmm! Are you thinking that we may be dealing with a revenant here? The utterly intransigent style of argumentation IS a bit reminiscent.

Michael Kerpan wrote:

MichaelB wrote:That reminds me of the time when someone put the word "fun" in scarequotes when responding to something I'd written, as though the very word needed to be handled with tongs.

Hmmm! Are you thinking that we may be dealing with a revenant here? The utterly intransigent style of argumentation IS a bit reminiscent.

For what it's worth, all of his IP addresses seem to come from Chicago, whereas I believe Nothing was from the UK.

Mr Sausage wrote:For what it's worth, all of his IP addresses seem to come from Chicago, whereas I believe Nothing was from the UK.

I'm guessing from the way Oneshotmonkey spells "colour" (see here for more than one example) that he isn't originally from the US.

I think he is using Tor or a similar service to alter his IP

perkizitore wrote:I think he is using Tor or a similar service to alter his IP

Maybe. One of his posts shares an IP with three posts from another banned member (not Nothing), which is making this whole thing somewhat confusing.

That probably means that he is the banned member and is trying to confuse us by imitating Nothing's style.

To be fair, it's a damn good imitation. Almost uncannily accurate, in fact.

If Craig Brown ever decides to pack in his spoof Diary column for Private Eye, they know where to go for a replacement.

Maybe he is Craig Brown :-k

triodelover wrote:Silly me. I thought the object of the exercise was to gain the most possible enjoyment from watching the film.

Absolutely, and I'll get around to doing just that (again) if and when the BFI re-releases The Leopard with the Pathe transfer and English subtitles.

Ask yourself this: If the clarity of the image wasn't important, why did Visconti shoot in Technirama? It was far more expensive than shooting on regular 35mm film, requiring propriatory camera and projection equipment, using up twice as much film stock, requiring also an optical transfer to 35mm + 70mm to make the film accessible to a wider number of theaters. Clearly then this was an important part of the film's artistic conception.

I truly think there could be a trading standards case here: both Criterion and the BFI claim that their version comes from the original camera negative, but this seems extroadinarily unlikely given the evidence at hand.

As for the rest = ?

oneshotmonkey wrote:As for the rest = ?

I'm guessing there aren't any mirrors where you are.

With all this talk of the Filmoteca Española DVD, can someone please tell me where the hell I can buy it online?

Here. It's pricey because it comes with a 280 page book.

Are you positive? That doesn't even say anything about there being a DVD included.

EDIT: Nevermind, I got confirmation on another site. Thanks!

Psicosis wrote:I ordered the two volume 80th anniversary edition book "new" from the recently launched Amazon Spain. It arrived from Amazon Germany instead and when I opened the package, I discovered someone had removed the shrink wrap, the book was completely dirty with marks everywhere on the front & back and the Filmoteca Espanola restoration DVD was missing, leaving behind an outline where it was stored.

In all my years of shopping online I've never experienced something as bizarre as this. Surreal to say the least, almost as if Dali & Bunuel had packed it.

Grumble, grumble...I finally ordered this book from Amazon.es a couple weeks ago and it just showed up sans DVD or shrinkwrap. I actually can't even see an outline where the disc would have been before. Does it only come with the hardbound copy and not the paperback?

Does anyone known the proper frame rate when displayed on 35mm film?
There is a strobing, choppy, unnatural effect when I run it at 18fps.

There is much debate about it between my boss and I. We screen it next Tuesday.
Is it possible for a late 20’s silent film to be 24fps?

Any help or clarification would be great.

OhioBlueTip wrote:Does anyone known the proper frame rate when displayed on 35mm film?
There is a strobing, choppy, unnatural effect when I run it at 18fps.

There is much debate about it between my boss and I. We screen it next Tuesday.
Is it possible for a late 20’s silent film to be 24fps?

Any help or clarification would be great.

Not merely possible but likely, since one upshot of the concurrent coming of sound was that it standardised projection speeds at 24fps. So by 1929 I’d assume 24fps unless otherwise advised.

Even if it wasn’t shot at 24fps, 18fps is almost certainly much too slow - throughout the 1920s, 20-22fps was much closer to the standard.