criterionforum.org

Regarding the 2001 4K, this was posted recently on the other forum:

"Well this is interesting. A ProRes transcode(capture?) of the IMAX trailer DCP was uploaded to the internet archive. It appears to show a version of the transfer from before Nolan got his grubby little hands on it. Or at least, without any possible filtering that's present on the 4K. It does have some really weird black crush/shadow posterization, but overall detail is unaffected. All of the DCP conversions on the IA seem to have that, not sure why."

https://slow.pics/c/a5hQI9fv

It really shows just how much grain filtering is present on the 4K release, the incorrect colours aside.

I'd love to share with you what the Limey UHD is like but everyone who actually has the disc is too busy uploading the same packaging shots several times over, and not going into specific detail on the PQ other than saying "it looks great". Lionsgate did fix the colors on the US BD though (the UK BD made everyone look sickly).

There is one very positive review of Scream's Return of the Living Dead UHD that sounds a lot more convincing than the dozens of one or two line comments writing this disc's improvements off as immaterial. Hopefully we'll get more in-depth comments on both The Limey and Return soon.

M-A wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 7:39 pm Regarding the 2001 4K, this was posted recently on the other forum:

"Well this is interesting. A ProRes transcode(capture?) of the IMAX trailer DCP was uploaded to the internet archive. It appears to show a version of the transfer from before Nolan got his grubby little hands on it. Or at least, without any possible filtering that's present on the 4K. It does have some really weird black crush/shadow posterization, but overall detail is unaffected. All of the DCP conversions on the IA seem to have that, not sure why."

https://slow.pics/c/a5hQI9fv

It really shows just how much grain filtering is present on the 4K release, the incorrect colours aside.

Isn't the "white floor" palette supposed to be correct? (The yellowed hue is definitely wrong there.) Regardless, even if the colors look terribly wrong, the unfiltered texture looks gorgeous.

hearthesilence wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 8:12 pm Isn't the "white floor" palette supposed to be correct? (The yellowed hue is definitely wrong there.) Regardless, even if the colors look terribly wrong, the unfiltered texture looks gorgeous.

Sorry if I didn't write it clearly enough; I meant that the unfiltered version has the incorrect colours and the version on the 4K discs has the correct colours but is more filtered.

What's the verdict on Forrest Gump? I heard some complaints about degraining but couldn't remember where or how severe it was.

andyli wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 12:53 pm What's the verdict on Forrest Gump? I heard some complaints about degraining but couldn't remember where or how severe it was.

Geoff on Gump

DNR or no it's still a new transfer vs. the very old looking Blu-ray

I assume the recent 6-film Jurassic Park set merely repackages the original releases of the earlier films?

I have no idea, swo. Eddie might know..?

More feedback on page 20 confirms Scream's Return of the Living Dead is one of their strongest releases this year. The only caveat for purists is that the original song The Damned - "Dead Beat Dance" has been replaced by Straw Dogs - "Young, Fast Iranians" over the end credits in the print made available to Shout. Not a fault of the label obviously.

Michael Mann's "Heat" is not listed in any of the categories on the front page of this thread.
Am I missing something?
It will be helpful to understand clearly why a film is not included on the front page (apart from "don't have enough time to include them all").

kekid wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:47 pm Michael Mann's "Heat" is not listed in any of the categories on the front page of this thread.
Am I missing something?

Yes. Have another look at the Appreciable/Solid Upgrades list, paying particularly close attention to the section beginning with H.

There's also been a fair amount of discussion on Heat and its transfer in this thread and in the film's dedicated thread, since I had asked about reasons for its 'good but not great' categorization and was met with helpful in-depth reviews on the disc's quality. If you comb through the last few pages, you'll find more detailed info

therewillbeblus wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 11:35 pm There's also been a fair amount of discussion on Heat and its transfer in this thread and in the film's dedicated thread, since I had asked about reasons for its 'good but not great' categorization and was met with helpful in-depth reviews on the disc's quality. If you comb through the last few pages, you'll find more detailed info

Thank you, MichaelB and therewillbeblus.
I don't know how I missed that.

I looked at it again. I guess I was confused because it lists it as "Heat (Disney)".
Is Disney a part of 20th Century Studios? (as Amazon.com lists the item)

kekid wrote: Thu Oct 20, 2022 4:28 pm Is Disney a part of 20th Century Studios? (as Amazon.com lists the item)

It would probably be more accurate to say that "20th Century Studios is part of Disney", but yes. I even got my copy of the Heat UHD from the Disney Movie Club.

this poster didn't notice any compression issues with the UHD of The Limey and the enclosed US BD is the best edition for that particular format, too. Solid upgrade only if you compare it to Lionsgate's own 2022 BD, for everything else, the top tier grade applies.

German language review of the Highlander UHD and 2022 BD

The comparison screenshots are of the 2016 vs 2022 BD first, then of the UHD vs the 2022 BD.

Highlander (if compared to all previous BDs)
Highlander (if compared to the 2022 BD)

swo17 wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 6:24 pm I assume the recent 6-film Jurassic Park set merely repackages the original releases of the earlier films?

As far as I know yes, none of them have had updated releases.

I watched SC's Breathless 4K today and I really think it should be demoted again to the disappointing tier - the encoding is just that bad. It hovers around 20Mbps for a lot of the runtime and looks very poor, and then drops to <5Mpbs in some places and looks dreadful. Unlike other SC encodes, the DV layer doesn't really help. The 20Mbps parts are instead more like 30Mbps and still look very poor and the parts where it completely falls apart do not hold together well in DV either. Maybe it should be disappointing but with a caveat to bump it to solid if you aren't sensitive to the encoding like some of the other discs in the tier.

How does it compare to the Criterion blu ray?

I don't understand the idea of "This is reference quality, unless you are sensitive to bad encoding." Isn't the quality of the encode one of the most important things?

It's the one step that always feel like a waste when it's not properly done (because there's no excuse for it), but I don't think so. It might be enough here to stop a disc from being considered a reference since it won't be flawless, but past this, except if it's absolute garbage, it shouldn't be something, say, affecting a score by more than 10%.

Viewing conditions are an important factor; no one viewing a 55 inch TV from 15ft away is going to notice encoding issues. But 65 inch at 7ft, as I watch? Different story.

Even then though there are many who seem completely blind to encoding issues, because they are ignorant as to how well rendered grain looks and behaves. Any digital mush buzzing about due to crap compression is all just "film grain" in their eyes.

Breathless seems like a shoo-in for a Criterion upgrade, at least.

EddieLarkin wrote: Even then though there are many who seem completely blind to encoding issues, because they are ignorant as to how well rendered grain looks and behaves. Any digital mush buzzing about due to crap compression is all just "film grain" in their eyes.

Exactly (see how it only marginally bothers Criterion BD purchasers), but even then, there are I believe other things that'll come first in terms of impact on a disc release of a restored movie. I'm much more likely to take down 2 or 3 points because it's digitally filtered or the grading is absolute rubbish (in the sense of something way worse than a Ritrovata'd one). Encode ? I don't recall having taken more than 1 pt out of 10 for a problematic encode.

Don't get me wrong : again, it's always a shame to fumble the ball so close to the finish line, and I understand this being enough to turn the disc into a not-reference one. But in the grander scheme of things, I doubt it.

Any words on StudioCanal's French UHD release of Casque d'Or? It's one of my all time faves, especially the cinematography, which must look amazing in 4K. But what are the odds of Criterion upgrading that one? I see that this French release has English subtitles which probably doesn't bode well for a potential international release?

It is also coming out in the UK at least. I'm keeping an eye on feedback about the French disc as it'll be the same disc for the rest of Europe.