He is nit picking, and besides, it is an entirely different film and frankly don't see the point in making comparisons between three different transfers. That said, I think that this compares very favorably with the others, if anything, it looks more balanced, and there seems to be less flickering than in Tokyo Story.

The DVD Beaver screen shots make the Criterion's image seem squashed (top to bottom). Faces seem fatter than in the other versions (and than they do in other films I've seen the same actors in). Is this a screen capture problem -- or a DVD anomaly?

There isn't that problem with Kinjitsu's captures which look right... Maybe a problem with the Beaver's new gear?

Kinjitsu's captures DO seem to have the same general proportions as the older DVD releases. So may it's just a screen capturing glitch at DVDB.

I was about to point that out, and although he says that his entire system went down and was replaced with the same elements, it would appear that such is not the case. Thanks for the compliments.

Beavercap

kinjicap

Thanks for your comparison, kinjitsu...

Glad to see that the DVD's images don't actually seem to be mis-proportioned.

You are very welcome. Thankfully, my software is working just fine.


I should hope not, though am surprised Gary didn't wait until he solved the problem with his gear before uploading the new comparison but maybe he couldn't contain his excitement.

It appears that Gary solved the problem:

Late Spring review

Late Spring comparison

I got my early Kim's copy and can definitely concur with Kinjitsu that Matango is way exaggerating.

Kinjitsu, it certainly is possible, at least in my view, to compare the quality of two b&w prints particularly from the same production co/era/ aspect ratio.. of which LATE SPRING & TOKYO STORY both of course are.

LATE SPRING does most emphatically not exhibit the contrast burn, scratch marks, flickering, and "old" look in general of TOKYO STORY. It has far richer blacks, deeper contrast, a far smoother, less ragged look. The only thing Kin's caps don't capture, of course, as no caps possibly can, is the interrelation of frame to frame contrast/light scuffing more subtle than say vertical scratches creating a superslight wavering of surface elements. The more delicate hints of wear resident in the emulsion of an old print. This is what LATE SPRING exhibits, versus the vastly more ragged & beat up & burned out (and strangely, newer) TOKYO STORY.

Don't listen to Matango. I've thrown it up on a sony Wega as well as a JVC Iart tube... looks gorgeous on both.

EDIT:Finally figured out what the box title looks like, reminds me of: subway window "scratchitti".

Do I detect a subtle undercurrent of disagreement?

The negative of "Tokyo Story" got burnt up in a studio fire -- possibly even before the film premiered. All materials in circulation are thus based on no better than secondary print sources.

Also: the booklet is non-glossed bond paper, very thin. Feels flimsy compared to the higher quality paper stock of the catalog behind it-- and the beautiful job on most of their booklets in general. That's nitpicking though. Glad it's a normal 2-disc amaray, not a figure-eighter.

No postcard in mine either.

Oh no not the booklet! I'm only kidding slightly because I don't think you're nitpicking. How's the commentary?

Criterion's transfer appears to have more information on top and a hair more on the sides (maybe).

The commentary, according to the disc, was recorded all the way back in July of 2004...they've had this one up their sleaves ever since Early Summer came out. Speaking of, Early Summer's commentary was recorded in 2002, and the rest were recorded in 2003 (none of those have dates attatched). I wonder how many others are already recorded.

Well, we know that the commentary for The Only Son was recorded ages ago, don't we? That disc was rumoured to be the next Ozu after Early Summer (two years ago now), so surely it's not too far off!

An underwhelmed disc review from Noel at DVDTimes here

DVD Times's assessment is pretty close to mine (albeit a bit more positive).

Criterion doesn't seem to know how to handle old films with seriously flawed elements. Which is why I suspect it will drag its feet more and more on Ozu and Mizoguchi. (The condition of most of Naruse's Toho films -- like Kurosawa's -- is far less problematic).

I think it's a great package and a very acceptable print and transfer in the circumstances, which should in no way deter the CC from future Ozu releases...

I could do without the edge-enhancement and contrast fiddling, but personally I find the somewhat battered state of the b/w Ozu's adds a certain amount of charm to them. It makes them more easily placable as as coming from a more genteel time and place.

This effect was probably not forseen by the director and cannot be considered to have been part of his intentions*.

*For the benefit of readers in middle America, this comment is certified as being slightly tongue in cheek

I certainly (much) prefer the somewhat battered charm of the Shochiku DVD to the highly-manipulated Criterion. But the by-now no longer new "new" (and rather battered) subtitled prints are still the optimal mode of viewing this film.

Still, the question remains, when is enough, enough, when it comes to digital manipulation? Digitally removing the film-like qualities inherent to older prints, i.e. grain, noticeable emulsion etc., as well as removing all of the audio clicks and pops seems to be the norm, however, this obviously is not necessarily desirable as it completely alters a film into some sort of synthetic digital entity, and as you say, Michael, the film loses its charm.

I had thought that Criterion once strived to achieve capturing the film-like qualities of older films onto DVD, but of late, it would appear that they have compromised that previously held position.

Unless you made a study of the emulsions of the original film stock and that used for the later copies of LATE SPRING which survived after the neg was destroyed, I don't think you can absolutely define the contrast characteristics of the film...

Film stock can be low or high contrast, just like the digital imagery of the CC disc, and prints depend on a grading process there also... So the recent Tartan TOKYO TWILIGHT is a little dark, whereas LATE SPRING is slightly boosted...

No problem here, although it's right to have ongoing debate about what restoration constitutes...

A reason HD DVD/Blu Ray may not take off is that it will expose all the more faults and blemishes in the image and the subjects, and then there will be even bigger rows...

Don't quote me on this, but I think that's the date it was first shown with English subtitles.

This is likely to be an American 'general cinematic' release date (I am guessing...)

With Ebert, the review is dated 1972 but the film 1949.