DVD Talk reviewCash Flagg wrote:Can anyone comment on the quality of their edition of The Lady with the Dog?
Indeed, the transfer here is just about flawless...
DVD Talk reviewCash Flagg wrote:Can anyone comment on the quality of their edition of The Lady with the Dog?
Indeed, the transfer here is just about flawless...
Yes, standard conversions are less than ideal, but some look much better than others. Now I'm curious to see this Facets version of THE LADY WITH THE DOG. Their disc of Kozintsev's KING LEAR actually looks much better than the Ruscico edition, even though it's 4X3 letterboxed. It's entirely possible that Facets licensed a better transfer directly from Russia.Perkins Cobb wrote:I'm skeptical though - how can this not be a bad PAL -> NTSC conversion?
Sorry--I was speaking of Lady with the Dog, which is of Criterion-quality. I have the Facets Lear, too, but not the Ruscico for comparison.Michael Kerpan wrote:Is it the Lear that is markedly better -- or Lady With the Dog -- or both?
It depends on how you do them, how much time you're prepared to devote for them and - inevitably - how much you're prepared to spend. A cheap real-time conversion will always look terrible, but a two or three-pass one that analyses each frame and calculates how to present it to its best advantage in the final video standard will be vastly superior.jsteffe wrote:Yes, standard conversions are less than ideal, but some look much better than others.
Here's what I said about it in a review on the TCM website:What A Disgrace wrote:So King Lear looks good. Adding it to my rental queue.
How does Hamlet look?
It appears that Facets has used the same transfer and subtitles as the Russian Cinema Council disc, only with the subtitles embedded in the image and the 16X9 anamorphic transfer switched to a 4X3 letterboxed format. They have also squeezed the 2 1/2 hour film onto a single layer disc, which necessarily increases the amount of digital artifacts. As a consequence, the picture also looks softer and flatter, though it's still acceptable for viewing on an ordinary picture tube.
The Facets Lear is definitely better, and it sounds as if *The Lady With the Dog* is, as well. I'm going to pick the latter up next time I get paid.Michael Kerpan wrote:The unsubbed Krupny Plan DVD transfers are reputed to be much better than Ruscico's versions. Perhaps, Facets is making use of these materials.
Is it the Lear that is markedly better -- or Lady With the Dog -- or both?
Uh, I would hardly call the Facets' Satantango outstanding. Mediocre at best. Here's the previous discussion of it & the Artificial Eye version.Metropolisforever_2 wrote:Ever since their outstanding, director-approved Satantango box, they seem to be slightly more concerned about the quality of their transfers. If only all of their DVDs could be like their Satantango...
Do they have a lot of DVDs that are in the wrong aspect ratio? I didn't realize that. Most of the titles of theirs I've watched have been 1.33:1 OAR, so I haven't thought about pan-and-scanning.Metropolisforever_2 wrote:What really irks me is their constant reliance on pan-and-scan prints, especially their flat-out unacceptable edition of Lemonade Joe. Thankfully, they seem to have recently switched over to widescreen.
Or more propably they have players that de-interlace the image automatically. Before I bought such player myself I was very annoyed about interlaced DVDs but nowadays I wouldn't even know about without checking the DVD on my computer. This of course doesn't mean they shouldn't find these things out some way and inform the reader.domino harvey wrote:I think I've said this elsewhere, but you cannot go by anything DVDTalk says about picture quality, as they routinely ignore combing issues to the point that their reviewers must be watching the discs on CRTs
I don't know much about these technical matters, but this is what Wikipedia says about progressive scan and scaling:Gregory wrote:I have a progressive scan player (Oppo 970 HD), if that's all you mean about de-interlacing, and yet I have noticed minor combing on three discs recently: the Jordan one I discussed above and the Kino discs of Applause and Love Me Tonight.
and on this page about deinterlacing:Scaling works well with full frames, therefore interlaced video must be deinterlaced before it is scaled. Deinterlacing can result in severe "combing" artifacts.
I just checked my copy of Applause with my player (PS3) and I couldn't spot a single instance of combing, either by looking at the moving picture or by pausing it. So my guess is that PS3 has better deinterlacing filters than your player. Again of course interlacing should be mentioned as as I've understood, interlaced image can never be as good as progressive no matter how good the deinterlacing filters are, though the image on Applause still looks very beautiful and sharp to me.If done by an embedded electronic device, the quality varies depending on the overall quality of the device. High-quality electronic devices are in many cases defined by their deinterlacing ability.
It's actually more than decent. Karoly Makk is one of my favorite filmmakers, and they treat the film well, even with a minimum of extras. The transfer is pretty good, and its definitely worth picking up (I mean, who else would release this film in R1?).Hopscotch wrote:Can anyone comment on Facets' DVD of the Karoly Makk film Love? I'll wager the Second Run disc is superior, but just in case...