339 Yi Yi

[Don Lope de Aguirre]

He does a *lot* more than merely narrate what's happening.

I 100% agree...I would even go as far as to say that Rayns is one of the few commentators who is actually worth listening to! and a more than welcome inclusion on this DVD.

[denti alligator]

I like Rayns, too, but his "um"s do get kinda annoying. That said, the substance of his commentaries is superlative.

[kinjitsu]

The Beaver's comparison is up.

Is it just me, or does the Criterion look incredibly dark? And I mean DARK!

[Antoine Doinel]

The Criterion looks okay to me. The Winstar looks ridiculously out of focus while the Starmax is oddly washed out, yet too bright and grainy.

Also, if you actually read the Beaver's comments, he says that the Criterion transfer suggest that the original print was far more muted that previous DVD incarnations have suggested. Moreover, he said the the colors were consistent and not distracting and that the Criterion print had far more detail.

[zedz]

Looking at those comparisons, the candy-coloured ones look, to me, completely wrong for the film (especially the ones of Yang-Yang sitting at his desk - all those clashing primaries). The Criterion does look dark in the captures, but I expect it looks fine on the screen. It's not a gaudy film, and there's a fair bit of subdued / 'natural' lighting.

[kinjitsu]

Looking at those comparisons, the candy-coloured ones look, to me, completely wrong for the film (especially the ones of Yang-Yang sitting at his desk - all those clashing primaries).

Maybe so, but it seems obvious to me that in the Winstar and Stamax, the wall behind Yang-Yang in the fifth set of caps has a slate or bluish hue, while the Criterion gives little indication of what that color might be.

The Criterion does look dark in the captures, but I expect it looks fine on the screen. It's not a gaudy film, and there's a fair bit of subdued / 'natural' lighting.

I don't recall the lighting being that subdued on the big screen, but as you say, I'll just have to see what it looks like on my monitor.

[zedz]

The Criterion does look dark in the captures, but I expect it looks fine on the screen. It's not a gaudy film, and there's a fair bit of subdued / 'natural' lighting.

I don't recall the lighting being that subdued on the big screen, but as you say, I'll just have to see what it looks like on my monitor.

Yeah, I'm going more by what Gary says in the text than on the screen grabs. If it really looked like that in action I'd be worried, but he seems to be saying that it looks great (he even sounds slightly worried that the screen-grabs don't accurately reflect the viewing experience).

Of the other two transfers, the Winstar is clearly the lesser of two evils, but the image is so highly manipulated (just look at that glowing edge-enhancement) that I wouldn't trust the colour. The yellow t-shirt / slate wall capture looks plausible enough, but the first two captures are so off that I'm sure that one is too.

[exte]

So, other than the transfer, is this a go? How are the extras? Commentary good? Thanks...

[Rich Malloy]

I owned Fox Lorber's horrible DVD, and upgraded to Starmax's as soon as it became available. The Beaver's screengrabs don't begin to reveal what an enormous improvement the latter is (the annoyingly constant undulations of the Lorber abomination are not apparent in a still). Lorber's transfer is possibly not the worst transfer to ever disgrace the format, but it's the worst I've ever owned. Let's drop it entirely from the conversation.

I think the Criterion transfer looks phenomenal. Indeed, it's the first time I've ever seen this film look like film. The added detail should be quite obvious to anyone, and the tactility of the very light film grain and the sense of depth and three-dimensionality are obviously superior. Criterion's transfer doesn't "pop" like the Starmax release, but that one's quite obviously contrast-boosted. Compare any white areas in the Starmax transfer to Criterion's, and it's obvious that all detail - not just very fine detail - is utterly blown out. Look, for example, at the brighter reflections on the top of Yang-Yang's school desk, or the etched pattern in the window behind Yang-Yang that's only visible on the Criterion transfer, or the pattern in the baby swaddling in the next grab, or the seam of the hood of the white car in the next one - again only visible in Criterion's transfer.

If you're not convinced and find you'd prefer the higher-contrast transfer, I have a copy of the long-OOP Starmax DVD that I'd be happy to work a deal for. It's long been a prized disc in my collection, but so far as I'm concerned and solely on the basis of those screengrabs, it's now obsolete.

[Karva]

Lorber's transfer is possibly not the worst transfer to ever disgrace the format, but it's the worst I've ever owned. Let's drop it entirely from the conversation.

Heh, you ain't kiddin'. I netflixed Yi Yi and got the Lorber disc. One of the worst transfers I've ever had to sit through. So by comparison the Criterion version looks hundred percent better just based on those screenshots.

[numediaman2]

The Beaver's comparison is up.

Is it just me, or does the Criterion look incredibly dark? And I mean DARK!

I've pulled quite a number of Beaver screenshots and have found a consistent error in them. When analyzed using Photoshop you will find that the brightness is off slightly. As a result, his screenshots often appear darker than intended. (I have screen capture software that sometimes gives faulty results, as well.)

My advice: if Gary writes that he likes one version better than the other, but the screenshots of the one he likes appears dark, believe his words more than his screenshots.

One last word: this in no way is meant as criticism of DVDBeaver. I think the site is absolutely indispensable. The man does a great job, period.)

[Gigi M.]

DVDTalk review:

Video

The new anamorphic widescreen (1.85:1) transfer is a stunning improvement over the previous, grainy release. The image is spectacular, bringing the most out of Yang's careful compositions. Simply outstanding.

Digitallyobsessed review:

[Gigi M.]

Back Cover

[Matt]

Just took a peek at this and the transfer looks really good. I didn't see Yi Yi on film, but I did see several other Yangs and they were all fairly dark. The image might look too dark in the Beav's screencaps, but it looks great on screen. You can tell that it's intentional because the tonal range is balanced (i.e. the bright whites are still bright white), Yang just gravitates toward the darker end of the scale (and he likes dark foregrounds).

[King of Kong]

Hah! As soon as I accessed this thread, a knock on the door announced the arrival of my copy of Yi Yi! Spooky...

[Matt]

So the brightness of the colors are still OK? I was totally freaked out by the caps to the point of cancelling the order. (I havent seen it theatrically either.)

It's muted, sure, but accurate. It's not "murky" in the least.

[Gigi M.]

Another review at DVDTown

Video

The film is presented in its original 1.85:1 ratio with black bars at the top and bottom. According to Gary Tooze at DVDBeaver, this transfer looks substantially darker than the Fox Lorber version. I don't have the other version to use for comparison, but the brighter colors look slightly muted on this transfer. This is particularly noticeable in an early wedding scene with a heavily-reddish color scheme; the reds look soft and cool; whether this is from the original source print or not, I have no idea. Aside from the muted colors (only noticeable in a few scenes), I can't say I found the relative darkness of the transfer troublesome. The image is very sharp, with exquisite detail. I trust Gary's judgment on this one; he says it's the best of the available versions, even despite the darker image, and that's good enough for me.

[exte]

Awesome. Now how about those extras? Is the new commentary an improvement?

[neal]

Another review at DVDTown

Video

The film is presented in its original 1.85:1 ratio with black bars at the top and bottom. According to Gary Tooze at DVDBeaver, this transfer looks substantially darker than the Fox Lorber version. I don't have the other version to use for comparison, but the brighter colors look slightly muted on this transfer. This is particularly noticeable in an early wedding scene with a heavily-reddish color scheme; the reds look soft and cool; whether this is from the original source print or not, I have no idea. Aside from the muted colors (only noticeable in a few scenes), I can't say I found the relative darkness of the transfer troublesome. The image is very sharp, with exquisite detail. I trust Gary's judgment on this one; he says it's the best of the available versions, even despite the darker image, and that's good enough for me.

That must have been the easiest free DVD he's ever gotten. The film analysis-- defer to Eddie Feng, the video section-- defer to Gary Tooze, audio-- comment on an unsubtitled scene, extras-- here's a very short list with feelings, and film value--"Eddie's right, other than that whole Yang/Ozu thing."

Just saying...

[Michael Kerpan]

Ozu? Long takes?

He may give the illusion of long takes, due to his editing -- but except for some 40s films (prior to "Late Spring), actual long takes were not especially common in Ozu's films.

I can't recall how long shots last in Yi Yi. ;~}

[souvenir]

Nice article in today's NY Times about the differences between the Fox Lorber and new Criterion dvds:

[quote]Getting the DVD Transfer Right the Second Time Around
By FRED KAPLAN
“Yi Yi,â€

[King of Kong]

I've been waiting to get my hands on a copy of Yi Yi for some time but have been put off by the inferior DVD editions on the market. Thanks to Criterion, I have finally had the opportunity to view the film and thoroughly enjoyed it - it was an exceptionally moving experience. Watching it a few more times may confirm its masterpiece status, as it is an intricate piece of work (on various levels) - and will probably reward with repeat viewings.

Rayns' featurette on the history of Taiwanese cinema was fascinating, but ends on an oddly ominous note - something to the effect of "the New Taiwanese Cinema died" - it did raise a chuckle.

[Dr. Mabuse]

I saw Yi Yi last week and thought it was a wonderful film. It seems that original English subtitles by Yang and Rayns were not done for the english dialog in the film. Listening to Taiwanese actors speaking english is not the easiest thing in the world, especially if english is not your first language.

The only other film I can recall Criterion doing the same thing with were "a nos amour" (not a huge deal there, only a brief section with english dialog in that film).

I don't want the reopen the "Fuck the Deaf" tread, but hope this will not become a common practice from Criterion.

[denti alligator]

I just want to add that I think the picture looks fantastic on this one. Better than the Starmax, which is too washed-out in comparison. I didn't feel it was too dark at all. Marvelous image!

And the film! So incredible. I need to watch it a third, fourth, fifth time to begin formulating all my thoughts. This is an incredibly rich work of art.

[Rich Malloy]

I saw Yi Yi last week and thought it was a wonderful film. It seems that original English subtitles by Yang and Rayns were not done for the english dialog in the film. Listening to Taiwanese actors speaking english is not the easiest thing in the world, especially if english is not your first language.

That would have required two sets of subs (or one subtitle track and another closed caption track), unless some sort of "seamless branching" solution could be fashioned. I had no problem understanding the English conversations between NJ and the Japanese software developer, Ota. As well, NJ's old flame speaks flawless English, and there were no issues here either. And I much prefer the lack of subs popping up for these sections, and had always found their existence distracting on the Starmax edition.

In other words, while I'd be happy with two separate tracks, it is certainly the correct decision not to subtitle the English speaking parts in the sub-track. I hope this isn't taken as a "F*** the deaf" opinion. I certainly think it would be great for there to be closed captioning for the (English speaking) deaf on every disc, but IMO Criterion got the sub-track absolutely correct in this regard.

And Criterion is also quite good at not subtitling unnecessary words. For example, the folks who subbed the Starmax edition for some reason decided that when A-Di was chugging the depth charge at his wedding reception, that English speakers needed to have the "A-Di! A-Di! A-Di!s" translated.

And the so called "dark" transfer is light years beyond the Starmax transfer, not at all "too dark", and absolutely gorgeous IMO. There is simply no comparison between the two (and the Fox Lorber abomination doesn't even reach the quality of bootleg VHS). I tried playing with the white and black levels of my monitor, and found that any boosting of the contrast/picture levels caused white crushing, and any elevation of black levels caused darker areas to grey out. Of course, such manipulation at this stage won't restore any lost shadow detail, just as lowering contrast won't restore blown-out white levels, but I have a good many poorly authored discs that can be improved by monitor/player re-calibration. That's not the case here, fwiw. It certainly appears to me that Criterion got it right in this regard, and no fiddling to recalibrate black/white levels is necessary or desireable.