832 The Story of the Last Chrysanthemum

[Moshrom]

I would say that the Shochiku disc sounds very much like the 2 screenings I've seen (prior to the blu-ray era) -- while the AE version sounds nothing like what I recall hearing. So it is possible that AE's version features a lot more audio processing/improving. Very mysterious.

With respect to both video and audio, it simply isn't possible to regain information after it's been wiped out. The Artificial Eye track sounds like a flat transfer without any additional mastering (rumble/hiss removal, decrackling, etc.), whereas the Shochiku/Criterion have been heavily filtered. In fact, it's quite possible that the audio for the new restoration is a cleaned up version of the same master track from which the AE track was derived -- it's quite common for the audio to be carried over from a previous restoration if it was transferred from analogue well.

As I said, these days this is actually the norm and not an exception. There are hundreds of films released by distributors we adore that have over-processed audio tracks, although this is indeed one of the more drastic cases. The Criterion Rashomon blu-ray is another horrible-sounding disc.

I know it might seem ridiculous to think so, but there are people in the industry who think this level of filtering sounds better, or is at least what customers want. I say this because there are simply too many titles affected to believe otherwise (hoping, instead, that the only audio elements available were inferior).

[cdnchris]

Why wouldn't they use the Artificial Eye track? There's no way in hell someone at Criterion hasn't seen both versions, and there's no way in hell that person that person thought the Shochiku was better. I mean, I was suspicious about this release ever since I saw screencaps of it, but screencaps don't do it justice. This restoration is gimped.

I can't really speak to the audio I do agree with Moshrom that Artificial Eye is working with something different and I don't think Criterion could have "fixed" the soundtrack without getting at the original materials.

As to the image, though, that's not compression or noise-reduction or anything to do with the transfer. The digital aspect to the presentation is actually top-notch and renders it as well as it can. The source, simply, sucks, and it's obvious when you're watching it. Unfortunately the details are gone and you can't add them back in.

[Michael Kerpan]

Moshrom -- be that as it may... The Late Chrysanthemum prints I saw did not sound remotely as good as the AE version. They sounded as bad as they looked (or it may have been the same print, seen at different points in its life cycle).

[Never Cursed]

It might have to do with what they licenced which probably was an A+V package.

I don't even think that excuses it. This is the audio equivalent of the bullshit on the Children Of Paradise disc. There's no way that the people at Shochiku or at Criterion didn't see this.

With respect to both video and audio, it simply isn't possible to regain information after it's been wiped out. The Artificial Eye track sounds like a flat transfer without any additional mastering (rumble/hiss removal, decrackling, etc.), whereas the Shochiku/Criterion have been heavily filtered. In fact, it's quite possible that the audio for the new restoration is a cleaned up version of the same master track from which the AE track was derived -- it's quite common for the audio to be carried over from a previous restoration if it was transferred from analogue well.

As I said, these days this is actually the norm and not an exception. There are hundreds of films released by distributors we adore that have over-processed audio tracks, although this is indeed one of the more drastic cases. The Criterion Rashomon blu-ray is another horrible-sounding disc.

I know it might seem ridiculous to think so, but there are people in the industry who think this level of filtering sounds better, or is at least what customers want. I say this because there are simply too many titles affected to believe otherwise (hoping, instead, that the only audio elements available were inferior).

Well, that's amazing. Again, I don't see how these distributors, especially if they have decent or good QC, don't know this. This track, though, hasn't been cleaned up so much as it's been torn apart. I didn't know about Rashomon, and I guess I'll have to give it a rewatch now. Hell, I thought Rashomon was just the victim of age, since the unrestored theatrical trailer sounded about the same.

I can't really speak to the audio I do agree with Moshrom that Artificial Eye is working with something different and I don't think Criterion could have "fixed" the soundtrack without getting at the original materials.

As to the image, though, that's not compression or noise-reduction or anything to do with the transfer. The digital aspect to the presentation is actually top-notch and renders it as well as it can. The source, simply, sucks, and it's obvious when you're watching it. Unfortunately the details are gone and you can't add them back in.

Perhaps I should clarify. I was talking exclusively about the sound. The image, unfortunate as it is, is just a product of terrible source material, which isn't Shochiku's or Criterion's fault. What is their fault is if they process the hell out of a decent-sounding track to make it sound worse than most laserdiscs.

[tenia]

It might have to do with what they licenced which probably was an A+V package.

I don't even think that excuses it. This is the audio equivalent of the bullshit on the Children Of Paradise disc. There's no way that the people at Shochiku or at Criterion didn't see this.

I agree with you, but that's most likely a sad result of the video market right-holdings as they have always been : Shochiku did something they thought was better than what was done by others, and Criterion licenced it. If you want the best PQ with the AE track, you'll need to create your own fan-release.

I'm not saying it's a good thing (I think it to be quite the opposite, and actually quite a sad thing), just that it's likely to be the reasons behind the end result the Criterion BD is.

This being written, you're spot on : it IS the audio equivalent of a heavily filtered "Children of Paradise"-type picture. Sadly, because right-holdings too often is "take it or leave it", the consumer is getting the hard end of the stick.

[Moshrom]

To avoid cluttering this thread and forum with overly technical mumbo jumbo (although I must stress that the end effect on the viewer at home is very noticeable even without high-end equipment!), I've begun posting some of my audio findings here. As I tried to hint at above, there are other Criterion audio tracks on blu-ray that are similarly horrid. This has little to do with licensing, although it is possible that if Criterion had done the restoration themselves, they would have dialed the processing down a tad. A tad.

[der_Artur]

It IS the audio equivalent of a heavily filtered "Children of Paradise"-type picture. Sadly, because right-holdings too often is "take it or leave it", the consumer is getting the hard end of the stick.

Yikes, that sounds bad. Unfortunately, sound often is treated with less care than image.

@Moshrom. Nice blog. You should definitely add Criterion's "Le Corbeau". Still the worst audio I ever heard on a criterion DVD. Each natural noise (like the closing of a satchel) was changed into high pitched glitches through digital noise reduction.

[pro-bassoonist]

Blu-ray.com

1. That's why I prefer Chris reviews when it comes to giving a grade to some Criterion discs : there's just no way such a damaged movie gets 4.25/5 on PQ and 4/5 on AQ.

2. It actually seems like it is.

Preferences are fine, but facts are more important. So let's put everything in the proper context here.

1. There are no better materials for this film. This is it. For the vast majority of early Mizoguchi films there are no original negatives. They are lost -- forever. You would have to work with interpositives and in some cases even partial reconstructions where elements are picked up from multiple second and third generation sources.

Chris writes that "there is very little detail", but this isn't true. There is decent detail. In fact, in a lot of areas there is very good detail/textures, which you would have known if you had seen the AE release. The most serious limitations actually affect depth and overall dynamic range (!). However, both are actually vastly improved here. On the AE release there are literally entire areas where both are collapsed.

Chris writes that there is some damage that remains (dirt, scratches, etc.). This is true. What is also true is that some of it could be removed. However, a lot of these age-related imperfections are either minimal at best or essentially impossible to remove without seriously impacting density and in the process introducing far more serious digital anomalies. (By the way, this is an issue on quite a few French restorations -- going overboard with the digital tools). On the AE release there are also very, very serious warps. All of these, including the bulk of the reel bumps, are eliminated here. Balance is also dramatically improved. In fact, it is so much better that a lot of the darker footage now conveys nuances that are essentially wiped out on the AE release.

The list of improvements goes on and on.

2. Right. So, now you know that there is nothing better to work with. In other words, not only is there a "way", but it is always best that you put everything in the proper context, which by the way is one of a few reasons why a couple of years ago I started quoting the technical credits in the reviews so that it is perfectly clear what the starting point is with these types of projects and how to view (and understand) the end result.

So, at the end of the day the proper course with these evaluations should be to offer objective analysis so that it is perfectly clear what is/isn't possible. (The very same 'logic' should also be applied when addressing original audio tracks -- mono vs. elaborate 4.1/5.1/7.1 mixes/tracks is a classic case -- because routinely there are attempts to judge absolutely everything with the same set of standards that do not, and cannot, work for all films/existing materials, and in the process downgrade mono track in favor of 'better' mixes/elaborate tracks).

[Michael Kerpan]

I agree with pro-bassoonist that overall the new restoration LOOKS significantly better than any print or previous home video release I've seen. Absent some sort of black magic, I can't imagine how one could make this film look better, given the weakness of the source materials. I can't explain the sound discrepancy, but definitely consider the AE version's sound the outlier.

[Moshrom]

1. There are no better materials for this film. This is it. For the vast majority of early Mizoguchi films there are no original negatives. They are lost -- forever. You would have to work with interpositives and in some cases even partial reconstructions where elements are picked up from multiple second and third generation sources.

I agree that this is very likely true. Scratches and dirt are occasionally present in the exact same places in the new restoration relative to the old one. The new restoration benefits from a much more detailed scan and, most importantly, an at times astronomical improvement in image stability.

Chris writes that "there is very little detail", but this isn't true. There is decent detail. In fact, in a lot of areas there is very good detail/textures, which you would have known if you had seen the AE release. The most serious limitations actually affect depth and overall dynamic range (!). However, both are actually vastly improved here. On the AE release there are literally entire areas where both are collapsed.

Here, I mostly disagree. The highlights on the Artificial Eye blu-ray that were once blown out have been brought down significantly, but this doesn't improve dynamic range. It reduces it.



You can see, here, that the highlights are no longer 'blown-out' in the traditional sense. But despite being darker now, they haven't regained any additional detail (which would be impossible, of course). Instead, what we're left with is whites that aren't truly white (which is fine, since the originally non-blown-out negative wouldn't have been either), but that also look very flat. This is very obvious looking at close-ups of people's faces, which look considerably more two-dimensional than they did before. I've seen this phenomenon many times before in my photography experience.

Black levels may have improved, but the overall change in 'dynamic range' isn't necessarily a positive one.

The improvement in stability, though, is itself enough to outweigh any possible issues I personally have with the video restoration. It's that massive.

However, a lot of these age-related imperfections are either minimal at best or essentially impossible to remove without seriously impacting density and in the process introducing far more serious digital anomalies. (By the way, this is an issue on quite a few French restorations -- going overboard with the digital tools). On the AE release there are also very, very serious warps. All of these, including the bulk of the reel bumps, are eliminated here. Balance is also dramatically improved. In fact, it is so much better that a lot of the darker footage now conveys nuances that are essentially wiped out on the AE release.

"Going overboard with digital tools" is exactly the phrase I would use to describe what's been done to the soundtrack.

[pro-bassoonist]

Absent some sort of black magic, I can't imagine how one could make this film look better, given the weakness of the source materials.

Exactly, Michael. This is it for this film.

Here, I mostly disagree. The highlights on the Artificial Eye blu-ray that were once blown out have been brought down significantly, but this doesn't improve dynamic range. It reduces it.

It does and all of the screencaptures you have show it. You can see that in the mid-range grays are expanded and balance with blacks and whites is substantially improved. In addition to all the other anomalies that were addressed on the new restoration, on the AE disc the data is actually incorrectly input -- the gamma is off and as a result there is an across-the-board flatness that is now completely eliminated; the gains in terms of depth and dynamic range are significant. What remains are the marginal inherited shifts that occur in areas where there is obvious deterioration.

The new restoration/presentation is vastly superior.

[Moshrom]

The new restoration/presentation is vastly superior.

I didn't say it was inferior. Not the video, at least.

the gains in terms of depth and dynamic range are significant. What remains are the marginal inherited shifts that occur in areas where there is obvious deterioration.

These are mere buzz words, vague descriptions that are used too often in reviews to skirt over specific details. I ask you to look specifically at the last two comparisons I posted above. If you insist that the whites there look improved, I will concede that I was wrong to challenge your expertise. ...Not because I'll have changed my mind, but because I just won't ever agree with anyone who thinks that toning down highlights to the point of them receding into the midtones constitutes good balance.

You also haven't mentioned the soundtrack, other than to say (in your review) that "the mid/high registers are now better balanced. This being said, in the upper register there are still some light distortions, but they are managed in such a way that impact on clarity is minimal at best."

[tenia]

My issue isnt that it is a bad visual restoration, it most certainly isnt and seems an obvious improvement over the AE disc (which doesnt say a lot considering how limited it was). It's just that giving it such a high grade despite obvious elements limitations seems much too high to me. A good restoration always is a good thing, but when you're so limited by your original elements, there isnt a lot of things you can do. If your ratings are to be trusted, it would mean Last Chrysanthemum BD offers a better visual confort that The Seven Ups or Beyond the valley of the dolls. Color me perplex over this ranking. That was all I was saying.

[CSM126]

I think the score is based on the quality of the transfer and its faithfulness to the source, and not on the quality of the source itself (which can't be helped).

[tenia]

Which to me needs to be slightly compromised when dealing with such damaged elements. An extremely good restoration of battered elements will always remain a limited presentation to me.

[Rayon Vert]

Which to me needs to be slightly compromised when dealing with such damaged elements. An extremely good restoration of battered elements will always remain a limited presentation to me.

This makes more sense to me too. Perhaps, when dealing with badly damaged films, they could have an alternate score that is relative to the quality of the source.

[Orlac]

I wouldn't have noticed anything wrong from a digital perspective with the audio had you not posted the comparison. Thanks for the warning!

The worse for noise reduction must be the various Shaw Brothers and Golden Harvest releases from Hong Kong. People talk too slowly, and sound effects get eliminated!

[pro-bassoonist]

1. These are mere buzz words, vague descriptions that are used too often in reviews to skirt over specific details. I ask you to look specifically at the last two comparisons I posted above. If you insist that the whites there look improved, I will concede that I was wrong to challenge your expertise. ...Not because I'll have changed my mind, but because I just won't ever agree with anyone who thinks that toning down highlights to the point of them receding into the midtones constitutes good balance.

2. You also haven't mentioned the soundtrack, other than to say (in your review) that "the mid/high registers are now better balanced. This being said, in the upper register there are still some light distortions, but they are managed in such a way that impact on clarity is minimal at best."

1. Moshrom, I don't form an opinion by looking at screencaptures. I like to test the discs and see exactly what types of changes have been made. I reviewed the AE disc in 2012. I still have it, and I made direct comparisons with the Criterion disc.

Now, the gamma balance is off on the AE release -- there is artificial elevation that flattens the image across the board. What you see on the Criterion release isn't toned down highlights, but a correct balance. The remaining limitations that you see there are clearly inherited. Also, you have to remember that the new restoration is also a reconstruction, which means that there will be additional discrepancies in terms of density/dynamic range, and where damage is severe the improvements will likely be minimal. However, the dynamic range that you see below is absolutely not present on the AE disc:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screensho ... position=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2. The audio is so badly damaged that on some of the films in the Mizoguchi box set the distortions/pops/hiss can be seriously distracting. It appears that you think that the audio has been so badly compressed on the new restoration that more has been lost than gained. I disagree. Even on the AE disc it is pretty clear that the audio is already too thin and overwhelmed by various cracks, so the attenuation/rebalancing work was almost certainly a series of compromises. I am perfectly fine with the new track. Depth is very limited, but balance is decent. Frankly, even though some minor distortions remain, there is a sea of difference between the quality of the audio on the films (I include all of them) in the AE box set and the new track from the restoration.

[pro-bassoonist]

My issue isnt that it is a bad visual restoration, it most certainly isnt and seems an obvious improvement over the AE disc (which doesnt say a lot considering how limited it was). It's just that giving it such a high grade despite obvious elements limitations seems much too high to me.

A good restoration always is a good thing, but when you're so limited by your original elements, there isnt a lot of things you can do. If your ratings are to be trusted, it would mean Last Chrysanthemum BD offers a better visual confort that The Seven Ups or Beyond the valley of the dolls. Color me perplex over this ranking. That was all I was saying.

Your logic is very bizarre.

1. It appears that you want to argue that because the original elements are "limited", the end result will always be flawed. Following the same logic, a beautiful restoration of a 16mm film should never be graded as high as a beautiful restoration of a 70mm film -- because the former is forever handicapped by "limitations" of the original elements.

These reviews/evaluations should offer objective analysis. They should focus precisely on the limitations of the available materials, the quality of the work that was done during the restoration process, and the end result. You cannot apply the same standards to all films/releases. It is silly.

2. Absolutely I believe that The Story of the Last Chrysanthemum is an all-around better release. Considering the nature of the existing materials, the end result is optimized as best as possible. This is what matters. After the 4K scan and the reconstruction, nothing better will come on the market -- unless there is a miracle.

The Seven-Ups and Beyond the valley of the Dolls can and should look a lot better. The current transfers have all sorts of very obvious limitations, and they are not native. There is plenty of room for optimizations. And since Fox is apparently working on a new 4K transfer of The Seven-Ups, this will become painfully obvious as soon as Twilight Time release their disc. As long as Fox do not fumble the ball on the 4K transfer and introduce some wild color scheme as the one on Robert Altman's 3 Women, the gap in quality between Signal One and Twilight Time's release of The Seven-Ups should be even bigger than the one that exists between Twilight Time and Arrow Video's releases of Brian De Palma's The Fury.

[tenia]

1. It appears that you want to argue that because the original elements are "limited", the end result will always be flawed. Following the same logic, a beautiful restoration of a 16mm film should never be graded as high as a beautiful restoration of a 70mm film -- because the former is forever handicapped by "limitations" of the original elements.

Considering the nature of the existing materials, the end result is optimized as best as possible. This is what matters. After the 4K scan and the reconstruction, nothing better will come on the market -- unless there is a miracle.

Beautiful restorations of a 16mm film and of a 70mm film are likely to score very high anyway, since you can get very good results with 16mm films restorations anyway, except it’s very likely the 70mm restoration will score higher (eg a 4.5/5 VS a 5/5), but we clearly are not discussing this level of differences. But a competent restoration doesn’t mean a beautiful end result.

A more extreme (but actually more meaningful) example would be Criterion’s BD of And everything is going fine, which mostly relies on video-tape sources. Should the BD be scoring a high note because “it will never look better” ? I don’t believe so, the end result being, well, mostly of a videotape-quality. You gave it a 4/5 on PQ. I’d tend to score much less than this, because the BD doesn’t offer to viewers the same visual qualities and elements than many other BDs you gave 4/5 (for instance : 8 ½). Chris gave it a 5/10, which I’d agree more with, considering the end result.

The same example could be taken with Another Earth : shot natively in 720p, the BD simply doesn't look very good despite being most probably true to the source. But if it looks bad, why not scoring it accordingly ? Casey gave it 2.5/5, which seems adequate with my experience of this BD.

The opposite is also true : I think you're sometimes too harsh when ostensibly decreasing the PQ score for movies like Dragon Inn or A Touch of Zen, as if one specific negative element can hide all the positive ones. I understand the idea to sanction such things, but I think it looks more a posture than anything (just like all my colleagues are capping their AQ note for lossy tracks at 2.5/5 just because they're lossy, no matter if they're very deserving or not).

It’s a question of being consistent in one’s own scoring scale. Objective analysis is to give readers a factual review of pros and cons. Can it look better ? Probably not but that’s the reviewer’s judgment (there has been many BDs which were said to be "the best the movie would ever look", and then, a new restoration was done and a new BD using it was released and it was actually better.). But does it look good ? There lies the objectivity.

One doesn’t do readers any favour by telling them “And everything is going fine offers the same visual experience on BD than 8 ½’s one” while they actually ostensibly don’t. If your score are to be taken for granted : A Touch of Zen (3.25) < Dragon Inn (3.5) < 8 ½ = And everything is going fine (4.00) < The Story of the Last Chrysanthemum (4.25). I don’t think this ranking is consumer-minded at all.

They should focus precisely on the limitations of the available materials, the quality of the work that was done during the restoration process, and the end result. You cannot apply the same standards to all films/releases. It is silly.

The end result is what matters. Anything else should be written in the text, it's for to explain the reasoning behind the score.

By adding a subjective weight due to the state of the elements, you're shifting up the score into a stand-out point within the usual ranking. If there are softness, haziness, poor fine details, missing frames, limited grey scale, poor black levels and fine scratches throughout most of the movie, no matter if it's coming for the source or a poor restoration : the end result is what it is and should be reviewed as such.

It’s not silly. That’s actually what readers are looking forward to : a deep matter-of-fact analysis of what’s good and what’s not. What’s good ? The restoration has been competently performed (which can be emphasized). What’s not good ? It’s not enough to compensate the various limitations from the source, and here is the list of the said limitations (which absolutely need to be taken into account).

If it's not your view of reviewing BDs, it's your call, you know. But I don't think this is consumer-minded because it's sending wrong expectations to readers.

[Moshrom]

Moshrom, I don't form an opinion by looking at screencaptures. I like to test the discs and see exactly what types of changes have been made.

You imply that screen captures fail to faithfully represent video. Would you prefer that I create a video instead?

I see no reason why a screenshot cannot be used to examine discrepancies in contrast and luminance. The AE image may be unstable, but these two properties remain constant in motion.

Now, the gamma balance is off on the AE release -- there is artificial elevation that flattens the image across the board.

You continually praise the virtues of the Criterion transfer by denigrating the Artificial Eye disc. Please understand me: I am not saying the luminance and gamma on the AE faithfully represent what this film should look like. I’m arguing that while Shochiku’s restoration of the video offers a substantial improvement overall, it is flawed.

What you see on the Criterion release isn't toned down highlights, but a correct balance.

There’s the word! (I was totally waiting for it.) We appear to be at a standstill. I say A, you say B, and no real way to objectify matters. But I could prove to you that the Artificial Eye image (let’s pick the last screenshot) can be digitally manipulated to look—objectively—more like the Criterion. And I’ve actually just done this by toning down the highlights. (I can share the result if you’d like, but I suspect you would reject it on the grounds of it being an inadequate representation of video, or some such nonsense.) Anyway, the purpose of this test would be to prove that de-emphasising clipped highlights (i.e. blown-out whites) to a significant degree loses visual information.

However, the dynamic range that you see below is absolutely not present on the AE disc: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screensho ... position=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again, I didn’t say the AE is superior. Pick any matching frame from both discs and chances are I’ll agree with you that the new restoration is better. I already asserted as much. My problem is with just a few shots from the new restoration.

But why are you arguing with me over the video's presentation? I’ve already said that I’m quite satisfied with it. The dreadful audio is a much bigger deal here.

The audio is so badly damaged that on some of the films in the Mizoguchi box set the distortions/pops/hiss can be seriously distracting. It appears that you think that the audio has been so badly compressed on the new restoration that more has been lost than gained.

One would hope that a professional reviewer of digital media would understand how compression works, or what it is for starters: it’s ~never a good thing, and your phrasing of this last sentence above implies that you believe it can be. Or perhaps you simply misread what I wrote? I haven’t mentioned compression anywhere.

Even on the AE disc it is pretty clear that the audio is already too thin and overwhelmed by various cracks, so the attenuation/rebalancing work was almost certainly a series of compromises.

The aim of any film restoration is to restore a film to its original theatrical presentation, or to approximate this state as closely as modern technology will permit. Rebalancing an audio track in the way you describe is revisionism. It is scientifically impossible for an optical soundtrack to gain high-frequency detail that isn’t distortion, and any such detail (which exists in spades on the Artificial Eye) was most certainly present during the film's first theatrical run. It should not be rebalanced to conform to modern sensibilities and it should never simply be removed altogether. Optical sound from the ‘30s was perfectly capable of producing a frequency spectrum extending upwards of 10 kHz. The Shochiku restoration has an almost hard cut-off at 4.5 kHz. How is this a compromise, exactly?

Sonic noise reduction is a mastering practice that was mostly phased out from album reissues in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. That it’s still used to restore films (and so aggressively, too) is utterly ridiculous. Granted, these albums were mostly recorded on magnetic tape, which naturally has a lower noise floor than optical sound—true—but what about 78s? An apt comparison – 78 RPM shellac records are in many cases the best surviving analogue sources for any music pre-WWII, and the most well-regarded mastering engineers are now wise to the destructive qualities of heavy-handed noise reduction as a means to restore these materials.

Depth is very limited, but balance is decent.

Could you define what you believe these two words mean in the context of digital media? All this would be much easier if I had some kind of legend to decrypt your reviews!

I am perfectly fine with the new track.

Disregarding everything else, this is the thing to be disturbed most by – that your opinion of the audio track runs contrary to every other reaction (I count 8... maybe a conservative 7?) expressed in the last two pages of this thread.

And so we can step away expecting more restorations that sound this way – the consequences of having a reviewer for blu-ray.com who praises such rubbish.

[Jonathan S]

I am perfectly fine with the new track.

Disregarding everything else, this is the thing to be disturbed most by – that your opinion of the audio track runs contrary to every other reaction (I count 8... maybe a conservative 7?) expressed in the last two pages of this thread.

Make that nine! I'm perfectly happy (given inherent limitations) with the audio on the AE release - it has warmth, body, clarity and reasonable tonal range for its date and state of preservation. But the tinny, pinched, etiolated, crumbling, heavily distorted sound on the Shochiku - particularly over the opening music - is such an abomination, I would have to cover my ears at normal volume. The audio "restoration" is just as disastrous (though in a different way) as the China Film Archive's efforts on Spring in a Small Town.

I don't own the Criterion but am basing my comments on the AE/Shochiku comparison provided.

[Brian C]

I remember in ninth grade, I did a science project on hydroponics. I had three groups of plants, one grown with Miracle-Gro, one with plain water as a control, and then the third was from a solution I got at a science-supply store in town. They guys at the store explained that it was a "balanced" solution, and therefore better than the Miracle-Gro.

So I give my presentation in class, and at the end, the teacher asked me what I meant by "balanced". It hadn't even occurred to me to wonder what that meant, and I was forced to admit in front of the whole class that I had no idea. It was humiliating, and kind of cruel for the teacher to ask when it was probably clear to her that I would not be able to answer.

Yet even at the time, I realized that it was still a perfectly fair question to ask. I should have known what I was talking about. It was a good lesson in not just being better prepared, but also in spotting buzzwords that the people using them may not fully understand. She explained to me afterwards that the particular store I had gone to had a bad reputation among her colleagues in town for that kind of thing.

Which brings us to this thread. I have no technical expertise to offer; indeed it's likely that absent this discussion, I'd have listened to the audio track in question and not have realized that there was an issue. But it's also pretty apparent that pro-b is resting on the kind of vague buzzwords that can mean anything, in response to arguments being made that are much more specific and detailed. Does that make them right? I don't know, but if they're not, pro-b has not been able to effectively rebut them.

I suspect that he's in the same unenviable position I was in, having written something in his review that he simply was not prepared to be called out on. I am not without sympathy, but if that's the case, he should just own up to the mistake instead of scrambling to save face, because that doesn't seem to be working.

[tenia]

Balance can mean many things, but not knowing what somebody means by a generic word often is more due to a lack of explanation / legend than the user not knowing what it means. I always took it, in our context, as an overall flat frequency retranscription (eg a cut-off above 4.5 kHz would be bad for balance because high-end would be lacking).

Based on your story Brian, I'd suppose that "more balanced" meant either between artificial and natural nutriments, or within the natural nutriments themselves (eg there isn’t a huge quantity of that specific nutriment but a deficit of that one).


As a more general point though, note that I was merely writing I tend to feel closer to Chris’ scores when dealing with such PQ. These scores feel closer to my visual experience and I strongly believe they’re more consistent with the diversity of things one can get with a catalog BD.

Again, I’m not saying it’s a bad restoration (1), not an improvement over the previous disc (2), just these types of end results never felt to me as deserving such a high PQ score, and that these scores wouldn’t fit in comparison with other movies. Yes, it does mean applying partially the same standards to very different movies, but on the other end, the scale of score IS the same : from 0 to 5, and that’s it.

[Orlac]

It's obvious Dr Svet has a bias in favouring Criterion - expect when he's caught out because he alreadly criticised the same transfer on an exisiting disc, such as the King Hu films.

Pathetic.