criterionforum.org

jwomaha wrote:Check the amazon.com criterion best-sellers for yourself...you'll see most of the top sellers are on blu...multiply that by the thousands of people who have gotten blu-ray players in the last year... Cheers!

You do realise that the profit margin on the Blu-rays is slim-to-none? Until recently Criterion were making a loss on Blu-rays.

jwomaha wrote:Check the amazon.com criterion best-sellers for yourself...you'll see most of the top sellers are on blu...multiply that by the thousands of people who have gotten blu-ray players in the last year... Cheers!

In all fairness the Blu-rays are cheaper than the DVDs (which I think is great) so they're likely to sell better. But then that's just a thought.

At any rate, I suspect you're a blu-ray.com member trying to show some members here the errors in their ways. In all honesty a lot of members here love Blu-ray (including me,) there are just some that don't see the point in upgrading and/or really don't care what format the film is on because they're more concerned about the film itself not the technology. So it's probably a futile effort.

jwomaha wrote:They exist as a service to us

Nope. The fire department exists as a service to you. Criterion exists, like all for-profit corporations, to make money. They are currently doing so in spite of the trend toward Blu-ray, not because of it. Because of extremely high production and replication costs, making Blu-rays is a speculative industry right now. It is rarely profitable even for the Time Warners of the world, and certainly not for Criterion.

None of this means that I don't love or support Blu-ray. I bought 96 Blu-ray discs in 2009. I don't feel though, that just because I like or want something (or even because something's popular), that the world owes it to me at all costs.

Jeff wrote:

jwomaha wrote:They exist as a service to us

Nope. The fire department exists as a service to you. Criterion exists, like all for-profit corporations, to make money. They are currently doing so in spite of the trend toward Blu-ray, not because of it. Because of extremely high production and replication costs, making Blu-rays is a speculative industry right now. It is rarely profitable even for the Time Warners of the world, and certainly not for Criterion.

None of this means that I don't love or support Blu-ray. I bought 96 Blu-ray discs in 2009. I don't feel though, that just because I like or want something (or even because something's popular), that the world owes it to me at all costs

well said. I'd also like to add - since i was the one who started this Sisyphean exercise - I too own a blu ray player and about 50 films on blu ray. I also own an HD DVD player and about 50 of those which I bought on the cheap for the guest room....so i'm hardly a format whore. In other words, I am not one of those 'blu ray will never take' people who like to bash the format. I love my blus...but also recognize that expecting every single one of my DVDs to be redone in blu is ridiculous, nor would it be worth it economically to replace everything - that's reserved for absolute favorites.

In the end, my samsung blu ray player is a great upconverting piece of hardware, and I'm ecstatic to have Criterion continue their mission with something like Rossellini's War Trilogy on DVD...and I am sure it will look fantastic as is and have zero problems with it not being on blu - because it would probably mean waiting a lot longer to see it become a reality and cost a lot more if it came to that.

So again, just be happy we're getting it at all and enjoy it NOW! I'm turning 40 this year, and know that what I buy today I'll get to enjoy - hopefully! - for 30 years or so....I don't see any reason to postpone my enjoyment of things like films because of some theoretical future where it *might* get better.

jwomaha wrote: In addition, I have never read anything from the Criterion company that has stated that the elements for "The War Trilogy" were so bad there is no possible way they could ever be released on bluray. If that were to happen, then that would end the argument. Until then, one can assume they could put it out on blu-ray if they so desired.

Actually, they have. But you wouldn't ever know (it's in the set's liner notes), since you've decided to boycott one of the most impressive releases.

For decades the available versions of these films have been based on later generation elements exhibiting physical wear and tear and printed-in dirt and damage. These defects have often been attributed to the circumstances under which the films were made, especially Rome Open City, for which Rossellini resorted to using scavenged and mismatched film stock.

The disastrous conditions of Paisan's materials has rendered the film virtually unavailable for decades. While Germany Year Zero has never been seen in the United States in this original version, with German opening titles and its complete and correct original-language soundtrack.

Would you take DVDBeaver's analysis as a better judgment than us? Check the screen captures.

I'd much rather not have Criterion bankrupt itself or produce significantly fewer titles, simply for the added bonus of HD. Would you similarly have a grudge against the Eclipse line? Non-HD and no extras- but films that would otherwise have never been released.

I've been mad at Criterion before- I made the fatal mistake of purchasing the OOP The Seventh Seal right before they announced the redux (I couldn't wait any longer)- but I bought the new edition and have been happy since. When I first bought a Bluray player, I was annoyed with the Criterion Blu upgrades of films I previously bought on SD (especially when they pulled an 8 1/2 and added new supplements)-but I'm happy to know I supported a company I love and allowed them to continue their releases. Plus, sometimes the SD has the better package than the Bluray (Last Emperor, Man who Fell to Earth). I know the Days of Heaven and even the Yojimbo/Sanjuro upgrades come as an annoyance- since they are quite recent titles that very well could have been originally released in Bluray, but that was still the format war. Anything from the past year and upcoming in SD- I wouldn't expect to ever/within 5 years be released on Bluray. Bluray is still in its infancy and many companies have yet to release on the format- or have just started in the past year. Feel fortunate that we even get to see these films and then if you feel the need to upgrade eventually, wait for a sale and be out a few dollars.

I'm still waiting for the Bluray treatment of Border Radio and Koko...

aox wrote:EDIT: also, Criterion themselves lamented to me that they thought The Human Condition was a perfect candidate for blu and that they wish they could have done it.

This means one of two things to me:

1. The source material is fine and they just didn't have the money/time/resources to do it even though they really want to.
2. The source material is terrible and they were lamenting about them not being able to do blu and the comment was based on the scope of the film itself (or course a 11 hour film is an ideal candidate for the capacity of Blu)

I'm guessing it's the first one. I believe Criterion does a digital restoration of sorts when they transfer their masters to disc. If that restoration was done at 1080p or 2K, then the quality would probably result in a sub-par Blu-ray, as you'd probably see a lot of artifacting that wouldn't show up at 480p. My guess is that for a top-notch Blu-ray release you'd need a top-notch restoration at 3K, 4K, 6K, or something like that, and for a film from the 40s, I'm guessing that would only happen after a larger restoration effort that Criterion was able to reap the benefits of.

Since I haven't heard anything about a major digital restoration of The Human Condition or Rosselini's trilogy, I'm guessing that it didn't make financial sense for Criterion to have the film scanned at anything higher than 2K/1080p, which would not be high enough for a 1080p final product. Most of the classics that Criterion has done Blu-ray releases for were digitally restored over the past few years, so I'm guessing that's the reason Criterion's been able to release them.

If I'm right, then probably we won't see films like these on Blu-ray until these films manage to get a major digital restoration or until 3K/4K/+ scanning becomes affordable enough for CC to consider doing it solely for a home video release.

Thought the reason they didnt release Human Condition on BD is that Toho Japan wouldn't let them release it until after they release it in Japan themselves...

It's not a Toho product.

Jun-Dai wrote:[]
I'm guessing it's the first one. I believe Criterion does a digital restoration of sorts when they transfer their masters to disc. If that restoration was done at 1080p or 2K, then the quality would probably result in a sub-par Blu-ray, as you'd probably see a lot of artifacting that wouldn't show up at 480p. My guess is that for a top-notch Blu-ray release you'd need a top-notch restoration at 3K, 4K, 6K, or something like that, and for a film from the 40s, I'm guessing that would only happen after a larger restoration effort that Criterion was able to reap the benefits of.

Most digital restoration is still done at 2K. 4K is prohibitively expensive for all but the most high-profile of projects, such as the UCLA RED SHOES or WB's OZ, GWTW, and NxNW jobs. Even when a negative is scanned at 4K, it's common to do color correction and other fixes at 2K to save on processing time and storage space. I doubt Criterion's Blu-Rays are sourced from 4K files.

Digital intermediate work is still done at 2K for most new feature films as well.

kawest wrote:I doubt Criterion's Blu-Rays are sourced from 4K files.

According to this article from 2008, Criterion had done some 4K scans. I'm sure that's continued, if not increased.

Matt wrote:

kawest wrote:I doubt Criterion's Blu-Rays are sourced from 4K files.

According to this article from 2008, Criterion had done some 4K scans. I'm sure that's continued, if not increased.

I should have more specific in my post. I know that Criterion has transferred a number of films in 4K and it's useful for them to have such an element on hand. My point was that I doubt all of the digital restoration workflow is done at 4K--it's standard practice to do most of that work at 2K because the marginal benefit of working at 4K for a restoration that will only go out to BluRay (as opposed to 35mm preservation negative) is often outweighed by the significant increase in storage cost, rendering time, etc. that accompany files that are four times larger.

The initial telecine resolution isn't always the same thing as the final 'restored' tape resolution. The article cited above says this about Criterion's backlog of pre-Blu HD transfers:

Gizmodo wrote: The good news is that once they've done their tape master, they have a high-def copy of it on hand and don't need to re-transfer the original print. The bad news is that once they've got those masters, half of the process needs to be done again because the original restorations were just done in standard definition.

On a title like The Human Condition a 2K or 4K scan is done at the outset. Whether they give it the MTI treatment at 4K, 2K, or 480 probably depends on what they assume they'll do with the title in the next five years. If a BluRay of Human Condition isn't on the hopper for the short term, it may well be cheaper and more efficient to re-do all the digital restoration work over again when such a release is more feasible.

My original point was only that 3K, 4K, 6K are not yet industry standards--and Criterion doesn't need such a third-party, multi-million dollar, all-4K-at-every-step restoration effort on hand for a BluRay release. The great majority of BluRay transfers derive from 2K elements--i.e., 2K digital intermediates that 99% of new Hollywood features utilize for all post-production editing and timing.

I meant Shochiku, my mistake! Either way, Shochiku issued The Human Condition boxset last year only on DVD, and probably didn't want Criterion to release a Bluray of it.

likely Criterion workflow today for non eclipse titles:

telecine at 4k to HDCAM-SR tapes (naturally a 4:4:4 color space)
digitize at 1:1 equivalent codec at a 1920x1080 progressive to media server (the downconvert is done through the HDCAMSR deck circuitry and exits the deck HDSDI output to the NLE system at 1920x1080p)
restoration at 1080p
output at 1080p 24 to HDCAM-SR tape (the CTM tape)
use the CTM as the source for bluray mastering (1080p to 1080p, if bluray is called for) and DVD (1080p to 480p)
check disc bluray and DVD, reauthor as necessary until the check disc passes QC.

Now they probably do most of their restoration at 1080p, because a 480p image downconverted from 1080p looks substantially better than a 480p image mastered at 480p. this is due to oversampling, which is true in the digital realm as much as it is true in the analog, film realm (for example, films like Star Wars shooting their special effects on Vista Vision). Very few films are restored in an actual 4k color space, but if they are, the initial image is harvested at 6k or 8k because the oversampling from the larger harvest will yield a better 4k image to work with. And a 1080p bluray downconverted from a 4k restoration will look better than a 1080p image mastered at 1080p to begin with.

In all likelyhood, they begin most titles with a 2k telecine, so the point is pretty much moot.

So why would Criterion want to have an HD master of a film like Fugitive Kind if they're only releasing an SD version commercially? Well for one, its no further investment other than the authoring and check-discing process to put out a bluray later on (this is why we're able to get Pierrot le Fou on bluray, it was done at 1080p to begin with). Another reason would be television licensing, say IFC, or MGM-HD or TCM wants to run a criterion show, they may order the criterion tape, and janus gets paid for that tape, rather than run an older, shittier version. particularly for HD channels. Actually, since television is 1080i, this is probably why they switched over to mastering everything in 1080i to regular HDCAM nearly a decade ago, to have an HD master they can license for TV (that and 1080p SR format wasn't available in 2001, iirc). but using Fugitive Kind is probably a bad example, because it could very well be an HD telecine that MGM made and MGM sent criterion a cloned tape of the raw telecine and had Criterion do the finishing work on it. MGM then as part of the deal, MGM gets back a clone of the CTM and can naturally broadcast their own film on MGMHD for free. But it is worth remembering that an HD CTM has more revenue stream possibilities than just a commercial release as DVD/Bluray.

This is all speculative of course, but there's very little reason to master any of criterion's releases in a non-HD format. Once they switched to HD restoration, they'll have a CTM HD tape sitting on their vault shelf waiting to be authored to disc. the problem of course lies in any HD restoration they did at 1080i, which will need to be redone.

An eclipse Workflow could very well look like this:

Criterion receives PAL, NTSC, or SECAM Digibeta of a film (for example Shimizu) probably a raw textless telecine, rather than a CTM, though this could work with a textless CTM as well
digitize at 480p
color correct
output to NTSC digibeta as your new CTM.
author DVD from CTM digibeta
Check disc DVD and repeat until check-disc passes QC.

sometimes criterion may do their own telecines for eclipse, but I wouldn't be surprised if often they simply used an existing telecine and do what they can within the constraints of 480p.

I confess I don't know terribly much about the subject, but I suppose the same principles that dictate a higher resolution for capture for a given end-product don't necessarily apply to the restoration or DI portion of a project. I.e., while I've heard that it's best to shoot/scan a film at well above 1080p for a 1080p final product (downrez), it doesn't automatically follow that it needs to be much above 1080p for the bulk of the work done on the captured image. On the other hand, if this is actually true, it may then be that most of Criterion's DVDs are restored at 480p, even if they're scanned at 1080p, 2K, or above. That would explain Becker's comment (or was it Turell's?) that releasing a Blu-ray of a given title is like releasing another title altogether, since a 480p digital restoration definitely would not be sufficient for a 1080p product.

On another note, with 4K projectors becoming more common (and starting to be targeted at the very high-end consumer), it seems to me that that's likely to put pressure on the other stages of film production and restoration. Are digital intermediates still really 99% done at 2K? Even if they are, it doesn't seem likely that that would still be true in 2–3 years.

movielocke wrote:but using Fugitive Kind is probably a bad example, because it could very well be an HD telecine that MGM made and MGM sent criterion a cloned tape of the raw telecine and had Criterion do the finishing work on it.

In the case of FUGITIVE KIND, MGM did not have an HD transfer, so Criterion borrowed film elements. My understanding is that for other titles they will work with MGM's existing transfers, possibly doing additional digital cleanup.

In response to a query regarding The Game:

Outlook good.

Tribe wrote:In response to a query regarding The Game:

Outlook good.

Wow. I never thought I'd live to see the day.

cdnchris wrote:

jwomaha wrote:Check the amazon.com criterion best-sellers for yourself...you'll see most of the top sellers are on blu...multiply that by the thousands of people who have gotten blu-ray players in the last year... Cheers!

In all fairness the Blu-rays are cheaper than the DVDs (which I think is great) so they're likely to sell better. But then that's just a thought.

At any rate, I suspect you're a blu-ray.com member trying to show some members here the errors in their ways. In all honesty a lot of members here love Blu-ray (including me,) there are just some that don't see the point in upgrading and/or really don't care what format the film is on because they're more concerned about the film itself not the technology. So it's probably a futile effort.

Agreed, I think this summarizes it pretty well.

Tribe wrote:In response to a query regarding The Game:

Outlook good.

I know I'm one of the few excited about this. A Blu-ray would be nice as well since the HD DVD blew goats (I swear it was just an upscaled DVD transfer.)

We've lost Kubrick's The Killer if it was ever a part of the deal.

Looks to be referring to John Woo's The Killer.

Yeah, I think so. Why in the hell are people still asking a film that has been out-of-print for years. ](*,)

Cinephrenic wrote:Yeah, I think so. Why in the hell are people still asking a film that has been out-of-print for years. ](*,)

It appeared for a while that Dragon Dynasty had gone under, so all of the John Woo titles they owned (Hard Boiled, The Killer, A Better Tomorrow 1 & 2, Bullet in the Head) might be available again. But after several months of silence, Dragon Dynasty announced they are back with two new releases in March (Return to the 36th Chamber and The Killer, also on Blu-ray). My bet is that whoever was asking the question was unaware of the new announcement.

cdnchris wrote:I know I'm one of the few excited about [The Game]. A Blu-ray would be nice as well since the HD DVD blew goats (I swear it was just an upscaled DVD transfer.)

I'm very excited about it too. As much as I love Zodiac, I still think The Game is Fincher's best film -- or, it's my favorite; maybe those are two different things. I hope they get Mike D'Angelo to write the liner notes. Criterion's been trying to seal this deal for years, and if doing Benjamin Button finally got the job done, than it was worth it.

Cinephrenic wrote:We've lost Kubrick's The Killer if it was ever a part of the deal.

The Kubrick film is The Killing, which should still be in the works as part of the MGM deal.

JHunter wrote:

Cinephrenic wrote:Yeah, I think so. Why in the hell are people still asking a film that has been out-of-print for years. ](*,)

It appeared for a while that Dragon Dynasty had gone under, so all of the John Woo titles they owned (Hard Boiled, The Killer, A Better Tomorrow 1 & 2, Bullet in the Head) might be available again. But after several months of silence, Dragon Dynasty announced they are back with two new releases in March (Return to the 36th Chamber and The Killer, also on Blu-ray). My bet is that whoever was asking the question was unaware of the new announcement.

Dragon Dynasty did change distributors from Weinstein/Genius to Vivendi Visual, so let's hope that helps improve their quality (I'm really hoping this BD release of The Killer is good. A/V can only improve from its various R1 DVDs from throughout the years, but I'm concerned it'll have dub-titles.)