criterionforum.org

Finch wrote: Wed Mar 27, 2024 1:36 pm And Warner pushed the release for Se7en to 2025.

Guess that gives them more time to add extra DNR and "AI enhancements" to that.

It sounds like they did an actual 4K scan, though, where the Cameron titles were just upscales (as i understand it). Fincher did mention he was altering things, but it was because they scanned the negatives and that exposed things that didn't show on theatrical prints (he mentioned that you could see it was a set through the windows, for example, so he was "fixing' that). So I'm hoping that's the worst of it.

Excessive detail can be a very real problem when it comes to UHD releases - by which I mean stuff that you were never intended to see, and which the filmmakers assumed would be smoothed out once the image had dropped two or three generations as part of the usual workflow.

Famous examples include inadvertently visible wires holding up special effects, and being able to see the joins in people's make-up (especially in close-ups).

This is the downside of fetishising "detail" and "sharpness", because the fact is that UHD potentially has a significantly higher resolution than pretty much any 35mm theatrical release print.

I was joking, kind of. But the rumors floating around are that there is another title coming that has been given the treatment and speculation is that it is Seven.

MichaelB wrote: Wed Mar 27, 2024 4:49 pm Excessive detail can be a very real problem when it comes to UHD releases - by which I mean stuff that you were never intended to see, and which the filmmakers assumed would be smoothed out once the image had dropped two or three generations as part of the usual workflow.

Famous examples include inadvertently visible wires holding up special effects, and being able to see the joins in people's make-up (especially in close-ups).

This is the downside of fetishising "detail" and "sharpness", because the fact is that UHD potentially has a significantly higher resolution than pretty much any 35mm theatrical release print.

This was even an issue with the advent of regular HD. I remember Johnny Depp's makeup in Edward Scissorhands being singled out as looking a bit more obvious than people were accustomed to, something I later agreed with when I saw a 35mm screening (an excellent print projected at Burton's big MoMA retrospective in 2009) and then viewed the Blu-ray as soon as I got home. To be fair, it may be the difference of scanning the original negative and viewing an exhibition print that was inevitably at minimum three generations removed from the original film element, but it addresses the same overall issue and how that complicates the creation of any digital master.

"To Die For" belongs in the red category. It's a significant upgrade from the Image Entertainment Blu-ray regardless of the minimal issues on the encode, and this is coming from someone who is very critical of most of their 4K releases. Incredible looking disc overall.

The first shot of Suzanne Stone's video in the beginning of the film looks rough, but it quickly redeems itself and looks much better after several seconds. That's about the only issue I had with the disc.

EDIT: Didn't realize it was already added to the blue category, my bad. Either is fair!

Seven is getting a theatrical (or at least IMAX) run, so that’s probably the reason for the delay. Though I wouldn’t rule out Fincher also wanting to fiddle with effects or what not.

Yeah, he may want to add some digital cigarette burns.

Received K-19: The Widowmaker 4K from Shout. As always, exceptional picture and sound. DP Jeff Cronenweth did a bleach bypass back then, which is replicated very nicely on the UHD master in its earthy, desaturated colors in the submarine scenes. The film isn’t the sharpest during these moments but it’s a natural softness and no filtering. For comparison, some exteriors were likely shot on a less sensitive stock and look as razor-sharp as we usually expect from 4K, so no flaws in case someone‘s concerned.
Audio in 5.1 is also remarkable with significant low-end and a strong dynamic range.
I sampled a few Kino UHDs just before K-19 and the differences in the audio department are huge. I noticed that Kino’s 5.1 tracks tend to play at around 2-2.5 Mbps and due to their general muted range, I assume they compress these quite a bit. Face/Off is an exception but they‘d probably anticipated outrage if the old, full-bodied track didn’t sound as good as back then.

Added to OP (red category):

K19 The Widowmaker from Shout
Patrick and Snapshot from Indicator
A Blade In The Dark, Amityville Horror, Blood on Satan's Claw and Witchfinder General from 88 Films

Chinatown Paramount Presents UHD is on the way: https://www.amazon.com/Paramount-Presen ... B0CYK618H9

Bonus features include Nicholson’s sequel The Two Jakes (BD only) and something new on the UHD according to Pieter V on the other forum.

Take on the long-available 4K streaming master: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php? ... stcount=32

I’ve offloaded the ancient BD long ago and will upgrade nonetheless but considering it’s Paramount, expectations are low.

I saw an April Fool's joke going around today about Cameron re-releasing the recent 4Ks, with Disney handing out $5 vouchers for anyone who wants to dip again. Considering how awful and robotic their customer service is, I almost believed it

Paramount's UHD Terms of Endearment looks quite awful for the most part. I am not a tech expert, but it seems that DNR was applied liberally to many parts of the film. I do not have previous editions, so cannot tell if this represents any improvement.

How does Criterion‘s Videodrome hold up to Arrow‘s?

hearthesilence wrote: Wed Mar 27, 2024 6:52 pm

MichaelB wrote: Wed Mar 27, 2024 4:49 pm Excessive detail can be a very real problem when it comes to UHD releases - by which I mean stuff that you were never intended to see, and which the filmmakers assumed would be smoothed out once the image had dropped two or three generations as part of the usual workflow.

Famous examples include inadvertently visible wires holding up special effects, and being able to see the joins in people's make-up (especially in close-ups).

This is the downside of fetishising "detail" and "sharpness", because the fact is that UHD potentially has a significantly higher resolution than pretty much any 35mm theatrical release print.

This was even an issue with the advent of regular HD. I remember Johnny Depp's makeup in Edward Scissorhands being singled out as looking a bit more obvious than people were accustomed to, something I later agreed with when I saw a 35mm screening (an excellent print projected at Burton's big MoMA retrospective in 2009) and then viewed the Blu-ray as soon as I got home. To be fair, it may be the difference of scanning the original negative and viewing an exhibition print that was inevitably at minimum three generations removed from the original film element, but it addresses the same overall issue and how that complicates the creation of any digital master.

IIRC that extra detail was one reason most of the Astaire/Rogers movies haven't made it to blu ray..

denti alligator wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2024 8:25 pm How does Criterion‘s Videodrome hold up to Arrow‘s?

Pretty good in my humble opinion! They both look great. I don’t think most people would notice a difference. I bought both for unique extras. It’s hard not to recommend the Criterion over the Arrow for the essential Cronenberg commentary, although the Arrow has good extras too, including a commentary.

denti alligator wrote:How does Criterion‘s Videodrome hold up to Arrow‘s?

I don’t have it (kept the old BD set) but saw a comparison between the two and it’s one of Criterion’s better encodes, even though the Arrow obviously has the edge ever so slightly. The best case scenario is the old CC BD and the new Arrow UHD.

Thanks, both.

nicolas wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2024 10:00 am

denti alligator wrote:How does Criterion‘s Videodrome hold up to Arrow‘s?

I don’t have it (kept the old BD set) but saw a comparison between the two and it’s one of Criterion’s better encodes, even though the Arrow obviously has the edge ever so slightly.

I have both UHDs and fully agree with this assessment.

mhofmann wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2024 5:52 pm

nicolas wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2024 10:00 am

denti alligator wrote:How does Criterion‘s Videodrome hold up to Arrow‘s?

I don’t have it (kept the old BD set) but saw a comparison between the two and it’s one of Criterion’s better encodes, even though the Arrow obviously has the edge ever so slightly.

I have both UHDs and fully agree with this assessment.

Are Arrow's extras on par with Criterion's and worth keeping for them? I offloaded my Criterion blu a while ago, but now I'm wondering if I should go back for the supplements

There is a lot of cross over in the two extras, but the Criterion has an exclusive commentary by Cronenberg & Irwin and an exclusive track with James Woods & Deborah Harry. So it depends on how much you value those two tracks. The Arrow has its own exclusive commentary and some additional video interviews/essays and the deleted scenes from the television cut (I assume Cronenberg nixed these from the Criterion release.)

Here are the special features
Criterion
(1.) Audio Commentary with writer/director David Cronenberg and director of photography Mark Irwin (2004)
(2.) Audio Commentary with actors James Woods and Deborah Harry (2004)
"Camera" 2000 short film by David Cronenberg (7 mins)
"Forging the New Flesh" 2004 documentary (28 mins)
"Effects Men" 2004 audio interview with effects artists Rick Baker and Michael Lennick (20 mins)
Bootleg Video:
- "Samurai Dreams: Episode #13" (with 2 optional 2004 audio commentaries by David Cronenberg, and by Mark Irwin and Michael Lennick) (5 mins)
- "Transmissions from Videodrome" (with forced 2004 audio commentary by Mark Irwin and Michael Lennick) (8 mins)
- "Helmet-Cam Test" (with optional 2004 audio commentary by Michael Lennick) (5 mins)
"Effects Video Essay" photo slideshow by Tim Lucas and Donna Lucas (20 mins)
"Fear on Film" 1982 episode of the Z Channel television series Take One (26 mins)
Photo Gallery:
- Publicity (24 images)
- Cast and Crew (16 images)
Marketing:
- Trailer 1 (2 mins)
- Trailer 2 (3 mins)
- Trailer 3 (2 mins)
- "The Making of David Cronenberg's Videodrome" 1982 featurette (8 mins)
Easter eggs:
1. From the Supplements menu, navigate to the "Forging the New Flesh" submenu and press the blue button on the remote to see "Why Betamax?" a 2004 documentary deleted scene (1:10).
2. From the Supplements menu, navigate to the "Transmissions from Videodrome" submenu from the "Bootleg Video" submenu and press the blue button on the remote to see the "Spectacular Optical" animated logo (0:17).
3. From the Supplements menu, navigate to the "Fear on Film" submenu and press the blue button on the remote to see a "Sneak Preview Questionnaire" photo gallery (17 images).
4. From the Supplements menu, navigate to the "Marketing" submenu and press the blue button on the remote to see 2 TV Spots (480i, 1 min in total).

Arrow
Audio Commentary with film journalist Tim Lucas (2015)
- "David Cronenberg and the Cinema of the Extreme" 1997 BBC documentary (21:04)
- "Forging the New Flesh" 2004 documentary (27:44)
- "Fear on Film" 1982 episode of the Z Channel television series Take One (25:38)
"Samurai Dreams: Episode #13" bootleg video (with commentary by Michael Lennick) (4:47)
Helmet Camera Test (with commentary by Michael Lennick) (4:45)
"Why Betamax?" 2004 documentary deleted scene(1:11)
Promotional 1983 EPK Featurette (7:52)
Interviews (2015):
- Mark Irwin (26:27)
- Pierre David (10:20)
- Dennis Etchison (16:45)
"Camera" 2000 short film by David Cronenberg (6:40)
"Pirated Signals: The Lost Broadcast" TV version deleted and alternate scenes (25:46)
Image Galleries:
- Behind the Scenes Stills (7 images)
- Lobby Cards (43 images)
- Production Stills (77 images)
Trailers (4:33)

Thanks! Helpful to know a lot of overlap exists. I guess I'm mostly asking if the Arrow commentary is similar enough to Criterion's, or different enough (and both good enough) to warrant a double dip (I'd just listen and find out myself, but I never listened to the Criterion and only have the Arrow now)

therewillbeblus wrote:Thanks! Helpful to know a lot of overlap exists. I guess I'm mostly asking if the Arrow commentary is similar enough to Criterion's, or different enough (and both good enough) to warrant a double dip (I'd just listen and find out myself, but I never listened to the Criterion and only have the Arrow now)

Chris’ review of the two tracks on the Criterion:

“The two audio commentaries are also included with the 4K presentation of the film. The first one presents David Cronenberg and Director of Photography Mark Irwin talking about the film. Cronenberg has the bulk of the track, Irwin only chiming in once in a while (his most significant segment is where he talks about lighting Deborah Harry.) Cronenberg talks a lot about writing the film and putting it together, which includes working around the tight schedule. He touches on the film's themes and helps the viewer make more sense of the story, though he doesn't fully explain it, admitting that he was just making up things as he went. He touches a lot on Marshall McLuhan, who was a significant influence on the film, and even remarks on others, like the Canadian station CityTV (the mention of which takes me back). How this film became a bigger studio film also comes up, Cronenberg having only done independent features prior. As with all Cronenberg commentaries, it’s an intelligent and engaging track, well worth listening to, and possibly one of the more significant selling points for Criterion’s edition.

The second commentary features James Woods and Deborah Harry, recorded separately with Harry only coming on occasionally and Woods handling most of it. Woods admits that he isn’t entirely sure what the film is about but offers his opinions and thoughts. Harry doesn't speak up enough to leave a real impression, but Woods enjoys discussing the experience of making the film and working with Cronenberg. Occasionally, he comes off as egotistical when he veers into other directions, like how he sees himself in movies. Still, he usually catches himself and brings himself back to the film. He also has a habit of throwing in other thoughts and opinions unrelated to the film, but this keeps the track going, at least. Despite some of the shortcomings, I rather enjoyed it, Woods being an exceptionally engaging speaker.”

Surprisingly, there’s barely any coverage of the Lucas commentary which he did for the old Arrow BD release in 2015 already. No mention of its quality in the reviews on the other forum. I only found G. Tooze @ DVDBeaver praising it as “fabulous”.

I'm gonna assume those are very production/anecdotal tracks, whereas the Lucas is more scholarly/analytical. I am not a Cronenberg guy at all but know his commentaries are apparently really good. Chris remarked upon the split Arrow/Criterion approach in his reviews of the opposing editions of Crash too

nicolas wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2024 10:45 pm Chris' review
"As with all Cronenberg commentaries, it’s an intelligent and engaging track, well worth listening to, and possibly one of the more significant selling points for Criterion’s edition."

Surprisingly, there’s barely any coverage of the Lucas commentary which he did for the old Arrow BD release in 2015 already. No mention of its quality in the reviews on the other forum. I only found G. Tooze @ DVDBeaver praising it as “fabulous”.

ryannichols7 wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2024 11:35 pm I'm gonna assume those are very production/anecdotal tracks, whereas the Lucas is more scholarly/analytical. I am not a Cronenberg guy at all but know his commentaries are apparently really good. Chris remarked upon the split Arrow/Criterion approach in his reviews of the opposing editions of Crash too

That's very helpful ryannichols and nicolas (and Chris)! I'll probably just rent the Criterion from my lib to hear the commentaries the next time I wanna watch this movie twice in a row