Criterion and UHD

[Therewolf]

Criterion will have a lot of money riding on this, so it has to be a big, marketable title. Isle of Dogs was released three years ago, and The French Dispatch will be released later this year...

[therewillbeblus]

It would be sustainable if it's a few select number of titles

Yeah, though I can't imagine that Criterion would make the jump to the new format with a halfhearted effort. I mean, I selfishly hope you're right, but why invest in the production materials and get on the bandwagon only to pump out a few titles sparingly? It's only going to annoy the UHD-zealots who will still complain Criterion is not abiding by their ethos to be the BEST in every definition of the word while other companies are churning out UHDs more prominently, and it will annoy the "I'm stopping at Blu-Ray" folks, who will be spurned at looking forward to four titles and a UHD upgrade instead of five with an upgrade to their format of choice

[swo17]

I thought for a long time I'd upgrade when Criterion do, but I absolutely can't afford to buy new equipement. My TV from 2009 is still good. ( ...But I remember thinking way back in 2008 that I didn't need to upgrade either!) I live among people who have no TV, or use their small laptop screen to watch movies, my TV somehow still look impressive to people, I'll look crazy trying to replace it.

I started buying UHDs last year when Second Sight made me choose for a LE I knew wouldn't last long. I've since bought dozens more but still not upgraded my equipment. Thankfully just about all of them have been dual format, so I can still make use of them now or later. Hopefully now that Criterion has figured out how to package 3 discs in a case without having to use a digipak, they'll follow this trend

[funeralkraken]

It would be sustainable if it's a few select number of titles

Yeah, though I can't imagine that Criterion would make the jump to the new format with a halfhearted effort. I mean, I selfishly hope you're right, but why invest in the production materials and get on the bandwagon only to pump out a few titles sparingly? It's only going to annoy the UHD-zealots who will still complain Criterion is not abiding by their ethos to be the BEST in every definition of the word while other companies are churning out UHDs more prominently, and it will annoy the "I'm stopping at Blu-Ray" folks, who will be spurned at looking forward to four titles and a UHD upgrade instead of five with an upgrade to their format of choice

e
I'm pretty sure 99% of the "UHD-zealots" would be happy as a clam if Criterion just released UHD titles selectively. I haven't heard anyone call for Criterion (or any other boutique label) to release every single title on UHD, as most people comprehend how expensive that would be for these small companies.

[bfaison]

Hopefully now that Criterion has figured out how to package 3 discs in a case without having to use a digipak, they'll follow this trend

I hope they go that route as well and don't make any new titles 4K exclusive. While this news is exciting and I have a couple of UHDs myself (due to dual-format releases) I have no intention of upgrading my TV or buying a player anytime soon. A few of my friends have great 4K set-ups and I have yet to be impressed by the jump in quality, if any (to my eyes). As already stated in this thread it is nowhere near the DVD to BD difference, and I am one of those schmucks who still buys DVDs now and again when there isn't another library option.

[therewillbeblus]

I just don’t want to start paying any more than I already do for triple format. Technology is cool and all, but blu ray looks fine and this is already an expensive habit without being forced into purchasing any form of the desired art at an inflated cost.

[swo17]

Obviously a big reason dual format didn't work before was that they introduced a price differential for just the DVDs, so I'm very curious to see how they handle that now. If they can make the margins work to package BD + UHD together without raising the MSRP then the only complaints left would be from the "I don't want a coaster" crowd, and those people don't deserve to be catered to anyway

[therewillbeblus]

True, and to your earlier point, I may be more willing to update my technology down the line if I have these UHDs lying around, whereas if the price gets spiked that’ll just brew resentment against the format and/or bring unwanted and anxious immediacy to the table

[andyli]

About 12 years ago when Criterion started releasing Blu-Rays, they were at spine number 450 (Bottle Rocket), and since then we've more than doubled the spine numbers and still haven't filled all the upgrade gaps left in the first 449 with new Blu-Ray editions. Who knows how long it'll take for the entire back log of releases to get 4K-ized even though quite a lot of them are 4K ready? It's going to be a production nightmare. Their gameplan has to be a little different this time.

[jegharfangetmigenmyg]

I just upgraded to a UHD setup, but only because the lamp in my old projector blew, and because I found a criminally cheap, used Benq W2700 (and because I didn't need to upgrade my audio setup -- I can split the HDMI signal and downsample the Atmos sound).

Anyways, I didn't see Criterion jumping the UHD ship coming, but of course I applaud it. The main reason why I didn't upgrade my system earlier was due to the laughably terrible selection of archival titles on UHD. I think there's about 1,000 films out on UHD right now, and only 15-20% of those is pre-2000 films and maybe 5% is pre-1980's. Studio Canal, Arrow and Kino have reluctantly release a couple of handful of titles each, but it's still very meager, so there is definitely a niche for Criterion here to exploit if they could start releasing restored archival titles.

Regarding the previous posts, I don't think their goal is to upgrade the entire collection to UHD. Firstly, many restorations are still done in 2K so there wouldn't be a lot to gain quality-wise, other than superior compression, to release these on 4K. I believe that they will start releasing select titles on dual format BD/UHD (and then a stand alone dvd) just like many major studios are. Hopefully, Criterion can keep the price down, but I think we should expect a reasonable increase in price, maybe 5 bucks?, that hopefully won't piss the BD only people off too much.

My guess is that they will upgrade some recently released titles to dual UHD/BD. Barry Lyndon would be an obvious choice, and of course newer titles like the Wes Anderson's, etc., which are readily available in 4K. But again, I don't think it would make sense to try to upgrade the entire collection, mainly because currently it's probably only 10-20% percent of the collection that's available in 4K.

[Close The Door, Raymond]

Could it be Cronenberg's Crash? It was released in UHD format by Arrow Video in November 2020 but only available in the UK.

[tenia]

Obviously a big reason dual format didn't work before was that they introduced a price differential for just the DVDs, so I'm very curious to see how they handle that now. If they can make the margins work to package BD + UHD together without raising the MSRP then the only complaints left would be from the "I don't want a coaster" crowd, and those people don't deserve to be catered to anyway

IIRC, the issue also was because of how important the institutional sales of DVDs are within Criterion overall sales. If we're talking about UHD/BD DF releases, that'd take entirely this out of the equation for these specific references, and institutions would keep their usual DVD-only releases.

[swo17]

I'm curious if anyone here still uses a library system that hasn't started acquiring Blu-rays

[andyli]

My guess is that they will upgrade some recently released titles to dual UHD/BD. Barry Lyndon would be an obvious choice, and of course newer titles like the Wes Anderson's, etc., which are readily available in 4K. But again, I don't think it would make sense to try to upgrade the entire collection, mainly because currently it's probably only 10-20% percent of the collection that's available in 4K.

Give that a majority of thei new announcements are in 4K, I'd fancy a percentage somewhere around 30-40% instead. Also, there are likely less than a dozen spine numbers that will never benefit from 4K transfers due to being shot on tape or done digitally in <4K resolution. For the rest, we've seen titles only available on HD transfer/2K restoration getting new 4K restorations all the time and that entails seemingly smaller titles like Schizopolis as well as arthouse favorites like the Three Colors trilogy. If we're talking about a rather long period of time, Criterion is surely able to upgrade most of their back log. The question is will they aim to do so when they eventually join the party?

[Boosmahn]

Crash is too recent. I'd bet people who are 4K-compatible but bought the Criterion release only ~6 months ago would be angry.

As long as DVDs are still upgraded and they don't start releasing pricier Blu-ray/4K editions (I'm not 4K-compatible), any way Criterion approaches this is fine to me. I stand with TWBB on Blu-ray upgrades being more important than 4K ones.

[soundchaser]

I'm curious if anyone here still uses a library system that hasn't started acquiring Blu-rays

I work for one. (One of my many sources of frustration. But we serve a much older clientele than most urban systems.)

[EddieLarkin]

Also, there are likely less than a dozen spine numbers that will never benefit from 4K transfers due to being shot on tape or done digitally in <4K resolution.

The latter claim here simply isn't true. Practically every 2K native film released on UHD offers a moderate to substantial upgrade over the Blu-ray counterpart, because HDR is a far bigger factor in the upgrade than resolution is. A big jump in the range of contrast and colour is far easier to spot than a resolution bump, and it isn't screen size/viewing distance dependent. I would go as far to say anyone using a small screen or sitting very far from it, UHD may actually offer a more impressive upgrade than BD does over DVD. Though unlike resolution, HDR quality is heavily dependent on the TV spec/price point.

[jegharfangetmigenmyg]

Also, there are likely less than a dozen spine numbers that will never benefit from 4K transfers due to being shot on tape or done digitally in <4K resolution.

The latter claim here simply isn't true. Practically every 2K native film released on UHD offers a moderate to substantial upgrade over the Blu-ray counterpart, because HDR is a far bigger factor in the upgrade than resolution is. A big jump in the range of contrast and colour is far easier to spot than a resolution bump, and it isn't screen size/viewing distance dependent. I would go as far to say anyone using a small screen or sitting very far from it, UHD may actually offer a more impressive upgrade than BD does over DVD. Though unlike resolution, HDR quality is heavily dependent on the TV spec/price point.

I think you're both right here.

@andyli: My point wasn't that titles wouldn't benefit from new 4K restorations, my point was that if there isn't already a 4K resto available (and there certainly aren't – at this time of writing – for the majority of titles in Criterion's catalogue), the expense of doing new restorations independently would far outweigh the return in sales as UHD is still a niche media. I'm sure there's a reason why 9 out of 10 archival titles released on UHD are the good old Hitchcocks and Kubricks and Lawrence of Arabias, etc. This can of course change, but I'm still pretty sure that Criterion would just release UHD's moving forward when they have a 4K at hand, and probably only select titles / big sellers.

@EddieLarkin: I agree with you on this, but, as you're mentioning, you would have to have a pricey setup to really see the difference, so I don't believe that Criterion would "get away" with releasing upscaled older 2K masters on UHD – or "fake UHD" as some call it – just for the sake of UHD. On the other hand, if they have Barry Lyndon or Citizen Kane at hand, and when – in the future – they get 4K restorations from the in from festival circuits, it would make perfect sense to release it as a double disc UHD/BD combo.

[EddieLarkin]

@EddieLarkin: I agree with you on this, but, as you're mentioning, you would have to have a pricey setup to really see the difference, so I don't believe that Criterion would "get away" with releasing upscaled older 2K masters on UHD – or "fake UHD" as some call it – just for the sake of UHD. On the other hand, if they have Barry Lyndon or Citizen Kane at hand, and when – in the future – they get 4K restorations from the in from festival circuits, it would make perfect sense to release it as a double disc UHD/BD combo.

Oh you're right that an old 2K master of a film sourced title would not pass muster at all, and thankfully this has been completely avoided on the UHD format so far. All film sourced catalog titles have come from proper 4K masters. But Criterion could and should absolutely put new digital sourced 2K titles on UHD, as all studios have done. Something like Isle of Dogs would fall into this category for instance.

[andyli]

Also, there are likely less than a dozen spine numbers that will never benefit from 4K transfers due to being shot on tape or done digitally in <4K resolution.

The latter claim here simply isn't true. Practically every 2K native film released on UHD offers a moderate to substantial upgrade over the Blu-ray counterpart, because HDR is a far bigger factor in the upgrade than resolution is. A big jump in the range of contrast and colour is far easier to spot than a resolution bump, and it isn't screen size/viewing distance dependent. I would go as far to say anyone using a small screen or sitting very far from it, UHD may actually offer a more impressive upgrade than BD does over DVD. Though unlike resolution, HDR quality is heavily dependent on the TV spec/price point.

A fuller range of color and contrast may not be there in the first place. I was thinking about the SD digital films made by Kiarostami or the Golden Age of Television sort of thing.

[tenia]

Yeah but those are overall the exceptions rather than the norm, aren't they ?

[CyRo3]

Been thinking a lot about this 4K title, and I believe it is going to be True Romance. It is an American film made within the past thirty years (1993).

And, Janus just posted a screenshot from the film about a week ago. It also recently had a 4K restoration done, and it is getting a Region B 4K release by Arrow.

Plus, it’s a popular film that would have a broad reach with consumers.

Thoughts?

[hearthesilence]

Also, there are likely less than a dozen spine numbers that will never benefit from 4K transfers due to being shot on tape or done digitally in <4K resolution.

The latter claim here simply isn't true. Practically every 2K native film released on UHD offers a moderate to substantial upgrade over the Blu-ray counterpart, because HDR is a far bigger factor in the upgrade than resolution is. A big jump in the range of contrast and colour is far easier to spot than a resolution bump, and it isn't screen size/viewing distance dependent. I would go as far to say anyone using a small screen or sitting very far from it, UHD may actually offer a more impressive upgrade than BD does over DVD. Though unlike resolution, HDR quality is heavily dependent on the TV spec/price point.

A fuller range of color and contrast may not be there in the first place. I was thinking about the SD digital films made by Kiarostami or the Golden Age of Television sort of thing.

How much of an improvement would HDR have on digitally shot films dating no later than the '00s (including Pixar's earlier films)? I imagine it would still be noticeable, but would it be small enough to make the upgrade to UHD underwhelming to someone who didn't know better?

[dustybooks]

I'm curious if anyone here still uses a library system that hasn't started acquiring Blu-rays

I work for one. (One of my many sources of frustration. But we serve a much older clientele than most urban systems.)

Same, we have not been able to get Blu-rays moving at any of our branches. DVDs still circulate in numbers only slightly lower than five or six years ago.

[EddieLarkin]

How much of an improvement would HDR have on digitally shot films dating no later than the '00s (including Pixar's earlier films)? I imagine it would still be noticeable, but would it be small enough to make the upgrade to UHD underwhelming to someone who didn't know better?

Obviously mileage is going to vary person to person, I think the important thing is knowing what you're looking at and understanding the limitations of the source, not just expecting an absolute mind searing upgrade for every single disc. I've viewed Toy Story 1 and 2 on UHD and was very impressed, and GeoffD has done thorough reviews of them here and here.