Artificial Eye / Curzon Film World

[mhofmann]

Exactly that. ^^

[Zot!]

It means that a master was produced on the basis of suitable film elements (or a video source) and scanned with a good scanner, such as a Lasergraphics Director or Arriscan, which provides colorists with great latitude in the dynamic range and especially highlight detail. Even when the master is finished in 2K, it can make a difference when presented in a 4K container as you’re getting a small amount of extra detail that is inevitably lost when encoding the 2K master down to HD for a BD. When you factor in less ideal compression of the BD, the 4K upgrade of the same master can therefore turn out really nice.

On a general note, compression artifacts are rarely baked into DIs, even when they’re as “old” as Caché’s but sometimes it does happen, so anything is possible. I’ll try to find out what’s the case with the earlier Curzon BD and see if I can compare them.

Sorry, still don’t get it. Cache was captured on a 2K video camera….thus there is no scanning of elements. Much of the noise is likely present already on the 1st gen capture medium, and maybe more introduced during the editing/post. There could be nothing lost from the source, as the source has nothing more to give.

[rrenault]

I’d say The White Ribbon is the Haneke film for which a UHD would be most welcome, except it’s one of those pesky “shot on 35mm but finished in 2K” films from the noughties.

As for Caché, I don’t even think its native resolution is a full 2K. It’s at most 1080p considering it was shot on 2005-era HD video. Perhaps you could give the film more breathing room but putting it in a 4K container, but considering UHDs can go for 30 quid a pop there are plenty of other films out there for which the available elements make them stronger 4K candidates and, thus, bigger priorities.

I suppose preparing The White Ribbon for UHD would entail redoing the entire postproduction process from scratch.

[MichaelB]

As far as I'm aware it is indeed natively 1080p, and shot using twenty-year-old (at least) video technology. So a UHD release will be a glaringly obvious upscale, won't have HDR for equally obvious reasons (and nor should it be artificially given such a grade), and literally the only improvement would be upping the bitrate - which might well not make any difference except to Caps-a-holic 400% scrutinisers, and possibly not even to those.

So from the label's perspective it's simply not worth it: the risk of reputational fallout ("I paid an extra fiver for this and it looks exactly the same!") is much too great.

I suppose preparing The White Ribbon for UHD would entail redoing the entire postproduction process from scratch.

I suppose it depends on how much post-production there was - it was a complete non-starter with Irréversible because pretty much every shot had a bespoke digital effect of some kind, from reframing to stitching together multiple shots to create the effect of a single take, to digital additions (the man who enters the subway at a crucial moment, but who opts to do nothing), to effects like the film visually "pulsing"; it would be a whopping amount of effort to achieve only a very marginal improvement.

See also Prospero's Books and The Pillow Book, which are essentially 1990s video works, even if the images originated on 35mm. (Prospero's Books was finished at 1035i, which is why it looked fuzzy even in 35mm projections.)

But yes, even if there was much less post-production involved it would still need to be redone from scratch. Mind you, films are routinely regraded from scratch when the original camera negative is rescanned.

[Zot!]

As for Caché, I don’t even think its native resolution is a full 2K. It’s at most 1080p considering it was shot on 2005-era HD video

Right, just to put this to bed, HDCAM specs are 1440x1080 resolution (as opposed to BD's 1920x1080) using native lossy compression. As I was saying I think much of the digital "noise" was very likely baked into the capture medium to begin with, and some digital compression artifacts are guaranteed on the source. In any case it's hard to make a good case for it looking less digital beyond that, as this was an intentional part of the aesthetic, with as MichaelB mentions, even digital scrubbing present as part of the narrative.

The White Ribbon came up previously in the thread, but as I understand it from an interview with the DP, every shot was heavily processed in post, and a good part of the look (including the B&W) of the finished film is derived from the 2K DI. So it would be a matter of not just redoing the entire post process, but making sure that it matched the look and intent of the original finished product. I suppose it could be done, but In my mind that is not just re-rendering some low res effect shots to match a new 4K scan, but questionable revisionism (and Haneke is retired AFAIK). A simple uprez (like the 2K Wes Anderson set) seems like a fine compromise if the demand was there.

[nicolas]

Sorry, still don’t get it. Cache was captured on a 2K video camera….thus there is no scanning of elements. Much of the noise is likely present already on the 1st gen capture medium, and maybe more introduced during the editing/post. There could be nothing lost from the source, as the source has nothing more to give.

I replied to your question about what a high frequency master is. Everything I said applies to digital content as well, of course that no film is involved in the pipeline and everything which takes place during the scanning stage for film content happens in camera for digital sources. Similarly, digitally shot films that were finished in 2K can benefit from 4K upgrades as much as celluloid films for the reasons I explained in the post you quoted.

I’ll make clear once again that the “issue” (which really isn’t one) I raised is absolutely *not* that it’s problematic that Caché has too much digital noise inherent in the master, neither that this is an artistic problem and nor that we’re missing out on significant picture information with the 2025 encode and maybe even the 2008 (?) one by Curzon. Curzon aren’t at fault here, probably neither are VDMS, nor is Haneke and his team. Being a pixel-peeper, as well as endlessly fascinated by stuff like that, I was (and still am) curious about how the original, noisy, gritty master looks like if truly every last drop of highlight detail is exposed in a home video encode, hence the idea about 4K as the BD format has evidently been stretched to its limit. My whole point has only been about my curiosity regarding the *high frequency information in Caché’s HD or 1440p source master* that VDMS’ encode for whatever reason couldn’t render to a HD Blu-ray. It really is a non-issue, so hopefully everything is sorted out now.

[Zot!]

I don't want to be rude, but I don't think you're being serious. There is no concept such as "High Frequency" film scanning or "information" that I have heard of, or can find reference to. SImilarly BD is not being "stretched to its limit" by a 1440x1080, 3:1:1 8-bit color sampling, lossy compressed source. Maybe I'm still misunderstanding, but otherwise you're trying to get the proverbial blood from a stone for this encode.

[MichaelB]

As I said, I've seen this film in the cinema. It looked like video. It was supposed to look like video. Had Haneke wanted the best possible picture quality, he'd have shot it on 35mm as per usual - indeed, I'm pretty sure superior-quality video formats were available back then, which he also chose not to use.

So attempting to achieve "the best possible picture" with a film that sports an imperfect picture as a deliberate artistic choice seems a tad quixotic. Admittedly, it's not quite in the same league as, say, misguidedly trying to clean up a Guy Maddin film, but it's certainly a similar issue.

[Peacock]

I agree that Nicolas is fighting a strange battle here and any difference between UHD and BD would be unnoticeable to the human eye on this particular picture for the reasons eloquently stated by others above.

But Michael, you are perhaps deliberately misunderstanding Nicolas’ argument. He isn’t saying he wants the best possible picture quality (at least not how you mean it), he is saying he wants the most authentic possible picture quality… which sometimes means the same thing, but in this context does not.

He is saying he wants to see all that noise and that deliberate video look, but he wants to see what was there in the original master not the additional noise etc added by disc compression.

It’s just a bit of a pointless desire as any 4K upgrade with this particular source would be imperceptible.

[nicolas]

Thanks Peacock, you summed it up perfectly.

[Zot!]

Alright, I understand the general idea now, but it was hard to comprehend, because in this unique circumstance, we have an digital source with a lower resolution than standard Blu-Ray and lossy compression already "encoded" in-the-camera. Rendering the following essentially moot.

he wants to see what was there in the original master not the additional noise etc

It's not that they couldn't screw it up and introduce even more noise during encoding, but they would have to actively work at it to ruin it for Blu-Ray. Putting it on a 4k could achieve nothing further other than leaving a lot of empty space on the disc once you run out of the ones and zeros inherent in the source.

[mfunk9786]

I’m confused - there’s a new listing for a Lars von Trier set coming in late Feb, but didn’t this already release a couple of years ago?

[Peacock]

The limited edition is out of print. This is the standard edition.

[mfunk9786]

Any other differences?

[Peacock]

From what I can tell it looks like the art cards and things like that are no longer included but I’m not 100% sure if there’s anything else missing. You can still pick up one of the last limited editions on HMV and Zavvi if you’re desperate for it but it’s pretty pricey.

[Captain Paranoia]

I think it also includes Dancer in the Dark, which was not on the previous edition (presumably with the initial edition they could secure the rights in time.), so there's that. (If it includes whatever booklet came with the set that be great, but I'm not holding my breath for that).

[Zot!]

Just to note there have also been a couple of 4Ks released since (I think it is just Dancer in the Dark from Curzon and Dogville from Eagle, although Dancer in the Dark is also announced). What difference the improved format makes is questionable with the LvT catalogue, as it is really impacted by a number of creative choices (low res capture, 25fps, wild film and digital post production manipulations, 2k DIs, etc...). Also worth noting that the current releases are all "remasters", so for Dancer in the Dark they've gone back to the 35mm OCN, and recreated the look they originally achieved through transferring to SD video with digital tools instead. So basically it is a crap shoot for authenticity, but the Curzon seems to be a great set generally speaking, and one should probably stop overthinking it like I have.

[mfunk9786]

And this lack of any kind of clarity is why I usually kind of steer clear on their releases. Thanks to everyone for your speculation on the differences between this box and the other box they already released… I’m still a bit confused, but that’s OK. I just won’t buy it.

[swo17]

It looks like they released a standalone BD of Dancer in the Dark last year. I wasn't aware

[mfunk9786]

Ironically, I do think I own that. It has a braille slipcover. Didn’t realize it was them!

[Grand Wazoo]

Can anyone comment on the PQ of the Dancer In The Dark blu from Curzon vs the old dvd? I'm not having much luck finding reviews.

[Zot!]

Can anyone comment on the PQ of the Dancer In The Dark blu from Curzon vs the old dvd? I'm not having much luck finding reviews.

I don't know if there is better info about the Curzon release, but I think it is a re-use of the master from the Koch disc, which has been reviewed positively against the DVD with multiple improvements (and according the DVDBeaver supervised by LvT)...also depends if you're talking about the New Line DVD or a European DVD. You can find the DVDBeaver review, and https://www.dvdexotica.com/2021/05/impo ... -dark.html

EDIT: Apparently

"On the new Curzon blu-ray, there's a title card after the end credits that lists the credits for a 2016 restoration of the film. Given that the German blu-ray was released in 2014, I would assume that the source of the Curzon release comes from a newer, restored master."

So I don't think we have a comparison yet.
I somehow wound up with the Japanese BD, but I can't really remember how I made that decision...I do like it better in this comparison:
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=4549&d2=4543&c=1861

All that said, I think you can safely throw away your DVDs for any of these, though I think those might still have exclusive extras.

[Lowry_Sam]

Can anyone comment on the PQ of the Dancer In The Dark blu from Curzon vs the old dvd? I'm not having much luck finding reviews.

or comparisons to 4Kult UHDs of Dancer In The Dark and Dogville. I'm curious about the decision to release these 2 in both blu-ray & UHD editions (but not Breaking The Waves) in Italy, whereas Breaking The Waves gets a UHD in the Uk but not the other 2.

[eerik]

Julia Ducournau's Alpha confirmed for a 4K UHD Blu-ray release. Release date and special features TBC.

[therewillbeblus]

And this lack of any kind of clarity is why I usually kind of steer clear on their releases. Thanks to everyone for your speculation on the differences between this box and the other box they already released… I’m still a bit confused, but that’s OK. I just won’t buy it.

It looks like it's the same set, except it probably doesn't have the LE booklet or postcards or whatever was the paper draw, and does include an extra film (Dancer in the Dark). Does that sound right?

If this is the case, I may be willing to trade my LE box for this standard edition just to save on shelf space