criterionforum.org

pro-bassoonist wrote:First, could you please contact me via PM or email next time you want me to address any questions you might have? The reason I ask is because I do not visit, read or post regularly on this forum. Not because I am not interested, but because I simply do not have the time. The only time I come here is when I occasionally exchange PMs with David (from time to time we share info on older DVD or Blu-ray releases).

Yes, of course this could have been avoided via email, but you're asking me to do what you failed to do in the first place. I responded in a public forum because you wrote this in a public forum without doing the obvious thing and contacting me via email:

pro-bassoonist wrote:"It is pretty funny, actually, because Nick isn't an authority on that particular restoration and transfer. In fact, I am unsure if he has actually seen the new restoration theatrically."

These are the only snidey comments I'm referring to. Likewise, I also do not have the time to read the forum in which you posted it and only stumbled on it after the fact. If you don't have much time and would rather this debate didn't continue, might I suggest you verify things via email before firing off forum posts like this?

Yes, I'm referring to the digital restoration of the film, as seen on the Blu-ray. I've been referring to the digital restoration of the film all along, it was created for the Blu-ray. It's impossible to tell exactly what else may have gone on between digital restoration and Blu-ray, suffice to say the Blu-ray is a mess.

My motivation and facts come from my watertight anonymous source who is irrefutable and devastating.

pro-bassoonist wrote:I don't have the desire to discuss something with anonymous sources. But whoever/whatever your source is, he must be a much bigger authority on the film than Mr. Scorsese.

I've tried my best to warn you, you're barking up the wrong tree and all your counter-evidence is destroyed by my source. Yes, let's stay on friendly terms, we'll definitely be coming back to this one in due course.

Just to get this straight, am I right in thinking that Scorsese's endorsement was actually of the theatrical DCP, and that Pro-B's source is extrapolating that Scorsese must therefore be endorsing the BD as well because in this person's opinion it's exactly the same as the theatrical presentation? An opinion expressed by someone who, in his own words, is "far less technically concerned than most"?

If that's right, then surely this citation of Scorsese's "endorsement" is actively misleading?

This is fantastic news! The Wicker Man is an undeniable classic of the horror genre and if SC can track down and find the missing footage for the anniversary, that'll be incredible. Just liked their page - https://www.facebook.com/WickerManAppeal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - after hearing about it on Facebook from a friend and read that a theatrical re-release is planned too. I wasn't lucky enough to see it on the big screen in the 70s, so I really cannot wait for this!

Nick, could you tell us more specifically about what sorts of things are wrong with the digital restoration based on your anonymous source's comments? I think that would be helpful just to understand what is at stake.

MichaelB wrote:Just to get this straight, am I right in thinking that Scorsese's endorsement was actually of the theatrical DCP, and that Pro-B's source is extrapolating that Scorsese must therefore be endorsing the BD as well because in this person's opinion it's exactly the same as the theatrical presentation? An opinion expressed by someone who, in his own words, is "far less technically concerned than most"?

If that's right, then surely this citation of Scorsese's "endorsement" is actively misleading?

And that's without noting that Marty is hardly a neutral observer in this. He has, as we say, a dog in the hunt - actually, two.

jsteffe wrote:Nick, could you tell us more specifically about what sorts of things are wrong with the digital restoration based on your anonymous source's comments? I think that would be helpful just to understand what is at stake.

'Fraid I can't say anything specific, but this "digital restoration" of PEEPING TOM is nowhere near as good as it could have been if done properly.

peerpee wrote:Yes, of course this could have been avoided via email, but you're asking me to do what you failed to do in the first place. I responded in a public forum because you wrote this in a public forum without doing the obvious thing and contacting me via email:

Your memory is failing you. I did not fail to do anything, and certainly not in the first place.

I never initiated or was involved in a discussion of Peeping Tom on this forum with you. You on the other hand apparently wanted to have some public debate here, which is why you posted this on October 27th, 2012. And I quote:

peerpee wrote:I completely disagree with your take on the (2 year old) PEEPING TOM StudioCanal Blu-ray.

Not meaning to be overdramatic, but the rave reviews everywhere (except DVDBeaver) amount to one of the most wildly aberrant and damaging examples of dressing up a dog's dinner in the history of disc reviews.

To which Manicsounds responded with this comment:

manicsounds wrote:By the way, Peerpee, why all of a sudden revive a 1-year-old comment by Pro-B who doesn't post here anymore? Did you happen to watch the disc recently?

So, I could have not contacted you because I did not know that you were seeking a debate of some sort. I was only made aware of your posts after someone who posts here forwarded them to me recently.

Anyhow, a quick scan through this thread easily reveals who said what and when, so there is no need for me to highlight posts.

In any event, Nick, I hope we are on good terms now, and I wish you all the best.

This has to be the first time that the Beaver is being held up as the definitive review source. Suppose there's a season for everything...

Sad to see that even Svet and Nick are able to quickly go into "you said that ! no you said that ! no you started it" instead of politely discussing why the Peeping Tom BD is good or bad, and how it can differ from what has been projected in theaters.

Can anyone advise please on how to safely extract the disc from the rear of the book in the UK Studio Canal Collection digibook series? Quai des brumes was difficult enough (took about 20 minutes) but La grande illusion simply won't budge. Pressing the plastic centre holder has no effect whatever, resting the book on any kind of surface. I'm reluctant to bend the disc more than a little, and certainly don't want to turn it given how super-sensitive BD playing surfaces are.

I don't mind if the safest method risks damaging the book as it certainly won't ever be going back in there! I've seen some stupid packaging in my time but this series takes the prize.

I prise the cardboard back a little and pull from the sides of the discs. And I hold my breath every time I do it.

Nadsat wrote:High Noon is coming from Studio Canal in Germany in 18th july

Included is the excellent documentary Inside High Noon (cut by four minutes on the last R1 Lionsgate DVD release - it's not known yet whether this is the full version). There's also the rather ancient Leonard Maltin hosted 'making of', the Tex Ritter song, trailer and a reversible sleeve.

Jonathan S wrote:and certainly don't want to turn it given how super-sensitive BD playing surfaces are.

Personally, I find Blu-rays are a lot more resilient than DVDs - I must have watched hundreds now, and I've yet to encounter a single problem that I could blame on a surface blemish. And I don't handle them any more carefully than I do my DVDs.

Yes, that's what most people tell me (as in the Technical thread) - I just wish Sony and Panasonic had told my blu-ray players!

Still, it's academic when I can't even get the disc out of the damn digibook.... looks like Grand Illusion is going back unwatched in this format. RossyG's suggestion didn't work for me, but thanks for the input.

Press the plastic button at the centre & rotate the disc while gently pulling out works for me with GRAND ILLUSION BR....

Thanks - in the end I did it without rotating the disc but by sheer brute force on the plastic centre, enough to hurt my thumb and crease the back of the digibook... which I feel like tossing away anyhow! Last purchase for me in this series unless they change the packaging.

What's particularly galling is that this lousy packaging puts the price up by about three quid. It's the reason why I bought Accident on the day of release but have yet to buy The Servant.

This transfer looks stunning.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompar ... ervant.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've reviewed the new TO THE WONDER Blu-ray at The Digital Fix, out today in the UK:
http://film.thedigitalfix.com/content/i ... onder.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

peerpee wrote:I've reviewed the new TO THE WONDER Blu-ray at The Digital Fix, out today in the UK:
http://film.thedigitalfix.com/content/i ... onder.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

great review thanks!

sorry for this question...
Since StudioCanal will also release the French Blu-Ray in a few weeks (the BR UK is Studio Canal too) I'm wondering since months what BR I will buy (the French one, the UK one, or the US one (Magnolia ?) which will be probably region A)

I know that poor thing Olga , so alone in France , in the subway, can't find a job, etc...etc... speaks in French...
well, being French, hearing Olga speaking french was something that I would call sexy - to say the least...

I know the debate with Artificial Eye subtitles; and I like to have the possibility especially when the cinematography is superb to watch it without subtitles.

since the BR UK was StudioCanal too, I was thinking, sure they are capable of hard-coding/forced the subtitles...

but from what I understand (sorry for my bad English, I'm a little bit like Olga... ) they have gone one step further ?

Ingrained into the image for spoken French, Italian, and Spanish. Optional "Hard of Hearing" (SDH) for spoken English.

this is not forced subtitles which can be removed with some stand-alone Blu-Ray player or with computer software such as VLC ?
this is "burnt-in" in the master ? (and that would explain that you describe that they have a more fine resolution- are they as small as on the Tree Of Life (French BR release (I know the BR US was better) but the French BR release offer 2 subtitles size)

I don't want subtitles too invasive... like Bresson movies (Au Hasard Balthazar you, God of subtitles, hear me [-o< ) or Mallck's last movies are more sensorial than ever...
I suppose that the French one will-logically- have everything subtitled except the French (which makes in the end as much subtitles as the English release...) :-k
I don't know which release I will buy (I will wait for the Magnolia if the PQ is excellent; that's the only release from which we could expect some optional subtitles; unless they licenced a master with English "burnt-in" subtitles for all the non-English part)

My guess is that the UK Blu is made from the UK DCP and the French Blu will be made from the French DCP. So yes (I'm guessing) you'll get ingrained subs on all the spoken language that isn't French, and optional French SDH subs on everything else.

Will be interesting to see what happens!

peerpee wrote:My guess is that the UK Blu is made from the UK DCP and the French Blu will be made from the French DCP. So yes (I'm guessing) you'll get ingrained subs on all the spoken language that isn't French, and optional French SDH subs on everything else.

Will be interesting to see what happens!

I'll tell you when the French Studio Canal release will be out....

my last hope for a removable subtitles Blu-Ray is the US Magnolia release...

a last question about the subtitles :
I know "forced-subtitles" (which are not "hardcoded" (not burnt-in)) and can be remove with some software (VLC for instance if you play the blu-ray on your computer) and/or there' always the possibility to re-author the blu-ray and burn your own blu-ray with optional/removable subtitles...

by "Ingrained into the image" you mean that the subtitles are "burnt-in" ?

if this is the case I was wondering what happens when you choose the English SDH ?
I mean, they already have "ingrained into the image" the English subtitles for the non-English part (Spanish, French...)

so the image is free of subtitles for all the English spoken part/scenes ?
So, the English SDH are "common" subtitles ? (perhaps forced) and will complete the "ingrained English" subtitles when English SDH is selected, and then the English part have forced subtitles ? that's it ?
if this is the case, there's certainly a difference of quality of the subtitles (English vs English SDH on screen ?

and what happen for all audio descriptions (sound, etc...) when English SDH is selected ? you have some English SDH portion "over" the "ingrained into image" English subtitles during the Spanish and French part ? :-k
if this is the case the image is certainly overloaded by subtitles (and it's a scope movie).
Sorry for all these questions, but a T.Malick movie is a visual and sensorial experience for me, I have a video projection; was planning to bought the UK release instead of the French one but I realize that the French one (being StudioCanal could be even worse)

A good example is the Criterion "Traffic" disc, in which the Mexican scenes have English subtitles as part of the image, so they can't be removed. If you turn on the English SDH subtitles, the English dialogue gets captions, and the font is different.

My Polish disc of Agnieszka Holland's Fever has a particularly hideous solution - the English subtitles are in yellow, and appear on top of burned-in Polish subtitles (in white) that accompany dialogue in languages other than Polish. It's not a pretty sight.