criterionforum.org

Arrow wrote:My solution is to buy both. I'm still region locked (A), but I've made an exception to my minimalism for MOC and am becoming an MOC completist.

You know, I've got the CC SD (second version, which replaced the first one) and the MoC BD. I hadn't planned on buying the CC BD but I may have to just to settle this for myself. Time to price shop, I suppose.

triodelover wrote:I said that someone is less than forthcoming.

I don't think that anyone is being "less than forthcoming" either though. Mr. Kaiser's contention is that somehow Criterion messed up their original HD transfer (used for the second Criterion DVD), which they then licensed to MoC who chose to release it on Blu-ray in exactly that form. He and his company then contacted Criterion about "correcting" the gamma and black levels of that transfer to match his perception of how the print looked. He never says that Criterion didn't do anything to the transfer, he just says they didn't adjust the contrast levels. They did tweak it in other ways.

Nick is, of course, being completely forthcoming when he says that they just transferred the master Criterion gave them as is, and Mr. Kaiser is being completely forthcoming when he says that he worked with Criterion to (in his view) correct the greyscale and gamma on that master to look like what he believes the prints look like and what he believes Lang would have preferred. There's certainly a lot of subjectivity there, but no withholding of information that I can see.

As Nick says, they both look damn good. We're lucky to have either, and really just picking nits. I don't suspect that choosing one over the other will lessen anyone's appreciation for the film. If I weren't region locked, I'd probably get 'em both just for the full array of supplements.

And all...it has been awfully refreshing to see a pretty darn civil discussion over this without anyone having a meltdown. Seriously, this is when this Forum is at its very best and why I keep coming back here year after year.

triodelover wrote:

andyli wrote:So no one is lying here.

Nick has addressed most of your post better than I could, but I said that someone is less than forthcoming. That is not the same thing as accusing someone of lying, which I did not do. One may be less than forthcoming and still be telling truth with respect to those things they have chosen to reveal. I apologize if English is not your first language, but when I want to call someone a liar, I don't mince words.

That's fine. I apologize and take back my words. #-o I'll just say 'no one is less than forthcoming here' instead.

Jeff wrote:

triodelover wrote:I said that someone is less than forthcoming.

I don't think that anyone is being "less than forthcoming" either though. Mr. Kaiser's contention is that somehow Criterion messed up their original HD transfer (used for the second Criterion DVD), which they then licensed to MoC who chose to release it on Blu-ray in exactly that form. He and his company then contacted Criterion about "correcting" the gamma and black levels of that transfer to match his perception of how the print looked. He never says that Criterion didn't do anything to the transfer, he just says they didn't adjust the contrast levels. They did tweak it in other ways.

Nick is, of course, being completely forthcoming when he says that they just transferred the master Criterion gave them as is, and Mr. Kaiser is being completely forthcoming when he says that he worked with Criterion to (in his view) correct the greyscale and gamma on that master to look like what he believes the prints look like and what he believes Lang would have preferred. There's certainly a lot of subjectivity there, but no withholding of information that I can see.

As Nick says, they both look damn good. We're lucky to have either, and really just picking nits. I don't suspect that choosing one over the other will lessen anyone's appreciation for the film. If I weren't region locked, I'd probably get 'em both just for the full array of supplements.

I didn't find Mr Kaiser's first post as clear with respect chronology and specific master under discussion as you do. From my perspective, you seem to be doing a bit of interpolating since Mr Kaiser never mentions the Criterion SD precisely and it's certainly not clear that MoC received a different master (i.e. the one used for the Crit SD) than did Criterion initially.

Again, I never said anyone was not telling the truth, only that there were contradictory statements on this forum about the two BDs of M. I think the statements from Thorsten Kaiser and Nick Wrigley do a great deal to clarify some things, but by virtue that the discussion continues, there's clearly more that could be said. I understand quite clearly why both parties would not wish to delve further, but that then is the very definition of being less than forthcoming, no? It's not meant as a pejorative per se here. The statement you excerpted was my defense against being accused of calling someone a liar.

At any rate, I'm preparing to pre-order CC's M along with a few other goodies to cash in a DVD Empire coupon. When I have had the chance to see both versions on my plasma, I'll throw in another 2¢ on this issue, which I'm certain is more than it will be worth.

andyli wrote:

triodelover wrote:

andyli wrote:So no one is lying here.

Nick has addressed most of your post better than I could, but I said that someone is less than forthcoming. That is not the same thing as accusing someone of lying, which I did not do. One may be less than forthcoming and still be telling truth with respect to those things they have chosen to reveal. I apologize if English is not your first language, but when I want to call someone a liar, I don't mince words.

That's fine. I apologize and take back my words. #-o I'll just say 'no one is less than forthcoming here' instead.

We're good. See my response to Jeff, though.

Shouldn't this discussion be moved to the 'forthcoming' thread?

swo17 wrote:Shouldn't this discussion be moved to the 'forthcoming' thread?

Along with my now forthcoming copy of M from Criterion?

swo17 wrote:Shouldn't this discussion be moved to the 'forthcoming' thread?

Not when the DVD has a thread. Forthcoming discussions always get moved to the dedicated thread for the DVD.

I take it I should be more 'forthcoming' with the humor in my jokes.

Tribe wrote:And all...it has been awfully refreshing to see a pretty darn civil discussion over this without anyone having a meltdown. Seriously, this is when this Forum is at its very best and why I keep coming back here year after year.

Indeed, after initially reminding me of Magnificent Obsession what with someone having the gall to reference primary sources as an authority, I was pleased to see no one's had a meltdown and Torsten hasn't been banned yet.

swo17 wrote:I take it I should be more 'forthcoming' with the humor in my jokes.

Apologies if I missed a joke. I sometimes read things too quickly.

It didn't take long for people to dismiss those comments. You guys are getting quicker.

I think some are blowing this out of proportion and you're making it sound like Criterion royally screwed the pooch--even if you don't actually mean it that way--and they haven't. I can't compare to the MoC as I haven't seen it yet but the Criterion M looks fine. You can still see it, details are still there, nothing is really lost, and it's not that dark, just darker based on the caps of the MoC. You guys make it sound like you can't see a thing. There were very few and very minor instances where I thought the film grain looked a little funky (and maybe the lower bitrate has something to do with that) but other than that it looks fine and when you actually see it on screen I doubt you'll be as concerned as you are now.

I'm stunned that anyone thinks the Criterion has less detail than the MoC. It absolutely has more, especially in the highlights.

Compare the balloons in this cap from the Criterion and this one from MoC. The entire frame in the Moc is comparatively washed-out. It still looks impressive, but there's no reason to believe that Lang would've preferred the lighter print.

People are also misusing the term contrast boosting. There's no contrast boosting in the Criterion, it has simply been transferred darker across the range, without losing shadow detail, while gaining a great deal of highlight detail. If the shadows look blocked up to you in any of these caps, you should calibrate your monitor.

Here's another example: Look at Lorre's face in this Criterion cap. Note the detail. Now note the loss of detail in the MoC. Also note what appears to be a vertical scratch in the film that passes through Lorre's eye in the Criterion. Where does it go in the MoC?

Again, the MoC is quite a lovely thing, and it would in no way be a mistake to purchase it. Nick has again assembled a stunning package. But the tonality and detail on the Criterion as a result of their darker transfer is simply better.

Donald Brown wrote:Here's another example: Look at Lorre's face in this Criterion cap. Note the detail. Now note the loss of detail in the MoC. Also note what appears to be a vertical scratch in the film that passes through Lorre's eye in the Criterion. Where does it go in the MoC?

I'm with you and Chris except to note one thing, almost none of those are exact frame matches--the one with the guy on the stairs is an exact match where you can see identical scratches on his lapel, for example, but on the Lorre close-up there's a different horizontal scratch across his other eye on the MOC. I suspect it's only a frame off, Lorre's head is moved slightly. Neither version obliterates detail but, again, I'd also give a slight edge to Criterion texture-wise.

triodelover wrote:With all due respect, the quotes you've lifted sound like a canned press release. And as I'm sure you're aware, canned press releases are designed to say nothing and offend no one.

Well, with such a welcoming attitude, it's a wonder more insiders don't share their experiences....

captveg wrote:

triodelover wrote:With all due respect, the quotes you've lifted sound like a canned press release. And as I'm sure you're aware, canned press releases are designed to say nothing and offend no one.

Well, with such a welcoming attitude, it's a wonder more insiders don't share their experiences....

You do understand that I was referring to your choice of excerpts and not Thorsten Kaiser's original post. Selectively editing one person's assertions does not constitute proof of anything.

While I think we should always welcome the input from those inside the industry, we should also not forget that insiders have vested interests and therefore evaluate that input accordingly. Nick acknowledged this very thing in his response (which was spot on in every respect).

FWIW, I pre-ordered the CC last night to keep my MoC version company. I'll post my impressions when I've had a chance to view both together and you can do with them what you will.

triodelover wrote:While I think we should always welcome the input from those inside the industry, we should also not forget that insiders have vested interests and therefore evaluate that input accordingly.

So... assume they are out to get your dollar by forsaking their integrity? Gotcha.

In my experience, formal press releases and statements aside, the type of post Mr. Kaiser made is 99.999% of the time done out of complete sincerity. I don't believe that .001% is worth the skepticism.

While I'm happy that everyone has been mostly civil to one another to this point, can we all agree to drop the subject for now? Everyone is free to buy one or the other (or both or neither), and I don't think continuing the discussion along these lines is going to be fruitful (or remain civil much longer).

The fact of the matter is that we are spoiled for choice. Fifteen years ago, we were all making do with gray-market VHS tapes of this film and now we've got two HD versions of a beautiful restoration to choose from. If you like the brighter image and/or want to support MoC or are restricted to region B, get the MoC. If you like the darker image and/or want to support Criterion or are restricted to region A, get the Criterion. Or if you have more time and money than you know what to do with, get both. But no one's going to get anywhere here trying to tell everyone else which one they should buy.

Matt = the Martin Luther King of the specialty DVD internet discussion forum world?

mfunk = the guy who questioned Martin Luther King?

Donald Brown wrote:I'm stunned that anyone thinks the Criterion has less detail than the MoC. It absolutely has more, especially in the highlights.

If the shadows look blocked up to you in any of these caps, you should calibrate your monitor.

....the tonality and detail on the Criterion as a result of their darker transfer is simply better.

Donald - I'm all set to follow Matt's advice and let this lie, but in response to your specific comments above -- they simply don't apply consistently. Look at the detail below, the girl at the bottom, the patterning on her dress, her hair:

The transfer comes down to personal taste it seems. I am leaning towards the MOC purely because amazon's prices are ridiculous at the moment, but am still undecided.

I'm wondering which bunch of extras area better? Also, which has the better booklet?

But in all, what a fantastic forum this is!!

david hare wrote:The only thing I dont have and would love is the Chabrol piece on the Crit. BUt Beaver deson't have anything to say about it.

The film itself is interesting (and only a few minutes) but I got more out of the interview with Chabrol, who ends up breaking down a couple of sequences and the techniques Lang used to make them work. He gets into detail about how there's a couple shots he tried to recreate that weren't working and couldn't figure out why, but it wasn't until after intensely studying the sequences in Lang's film and finally noticing some subtlties that didn't register at first where he was finally able to make his recreations work.

To add some extra detail to cdnchris's comment Chabrol talks about the preciseness of Lang's filmmaking where "nothing exists outside the frame" - taking the example of three people sitting at a table where one person gets up and leaves, Chabrol talks of Lang either honing in intently on the two remaining characters at the table and excluding the person who has just left from the world of the film, or either he follows the person who leaves, closing off the conversation at the table just as it would close off for this person who is leaving (the way Chabrol describes this made me think about those 'stream of consciousness' style films like Slacker). Chabrol talks about the simple, efficient camera movements that don't draw attention to this transition but instead feel fluid and subconsciously 'correct'.

He describes the difficulty he had in the timing of two shots - the shot where Beckert is beginning to be surrounded by the gang just before he runs into the offices and there is a pan to one menacing figure leaning up against the corner of the building watching him intently, and the sequence as Beckert is captured in the storage space as he stands up an instant before the light from the torch hits him. Chabrol talks of trying to reproduce those moments but finding that something was slightly 'off' about the result, until he realised that the only way to get the correct tone to the shots was to pan the camera from Becket to the menacing figure at the exact speed it occurred in Lang's film, and to get Beckert to stand up a second before (not two seconds, or half a second before) the torch illuminates him.

Chabrol ends by saying this is the reason why he would never try to make a completely Langian film, as that would be madness. But he'd steal the techniques! (I guess that's why Dr M doesn't really feel like a Langian styled film but more in a Chabrol style containing Lang elements) This short interview puts the M le maudit film into context as a kind of experimental film making it seem as much, if not more, for Chabrol's benefit and inspired by his interest in Lang as intended for viewing by an actual audience.





The M le Maudit piece is 10 mins 44 seconds and the interview with Chabrol is 6 mins 47 seconds.