The CRITERION DVD and Blu-ray Thread

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

Mildred Pierce is already available by Criterion in the UK.

Not as a 4K Ultra HD release (yet) though – it's annoying when it looks like we have to import for the best releases.

[Stephen@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

Not as a 4K Ultra HD release (yet) though – it's annoying when it looks like we have to import for the best releases.

Crazy that Criterion won't release their films on 4K over here.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Stephen@Cult Labs

Crazy that Criterion won't release their films on 4K over here.

I have no idea what the market is for 'boutique' 4K Ultra HD releases, but it must be large enough for limited runs of popular titles.

If it wasn't, 101 Films and Arrow wouldn't be putting such effort into collectible editions of fairly niche titles.

[Justin101]

Criterion’s rationale is that format is region free so there is no reason why you can’t import it. What’s really annoying is the recent catalogue new additions that they have released in 4k over in the USA they have given us a standard Blu-ray edition, it makes no sense.

Mildred Pierce is from a 4k master and already looks amazing on BD. I’m not entirely convinced by B&W films in 4k yet as half of the upgrade is the HDR.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Justin101

Mildred Pierce is from a 4k master and already looks amazing on BD. I’m not entirely convinced by B&W films in 4k yet as half of the upgrade is the HDR.

I was sceptical about black-and-white films as well, but the picture quality on the 4K Ultra HD Schindler's List disc is noticeably better than any Blu-ray disc I have.

Although I haven't watched the whole film, the little bits I've seen of the Psycho 4K Ultra HD disc are also superior to the 1080p releases. It has so much more clarity and contrast than the Blu-ray disc, and the HDR accentuates the black levels and detail.

I'll probably buy It's a Wonderful Life before Christmas and really want Citizen Kane.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

I was sceptical about black-and-white films as well, but the picture quality on the 4K Ultra HD Schindler's List disc is noticeably better than any Blu-ray disc I have.

Although I haven't watched the whole film, the little bits I've seen of the Psycho 4K Ultra HD disc are also superior to the 1080p releases. It has so much more clarity and contrast than the Blu-ray disc, and the HDR accentuates the black levels and detail.

I'll probably buy It's a Wonderful Life before Christmas and really want Citizen Kane.

Won't the quality on the relatively modern Spielberg film be because of improvements in filming and cameras?

I know it's black and white but you can't judge a modern (ish) film with one from the thirties or forties. Even by the sixties filming and cameras had improved drastically from the forties.

I don't know, perhaps i'm wrong. When you watch It's a Wonderful Life in 4K you'll have to tell us if it's the same image quality as Schindler's List.

[Rob4]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

Won't the quality on the relatively modern Spielberg film be because of improvements in filming and cameras?

I know it's black and white but you can't judge a modern (ish) film with one from the thirties or forties. Even by the sixties filming and cameras had improved drastically from the forties.

I don't know, perhaps i'm wrong. When you watch It's a Wonderful Life in 4K you'll have to tell us if it's the same image quality as Schindler's List.

The vast majority of films, even those from the earliest days of cinema, were filmed in 35mm. Therefore everything theoretically filmed in 35mm should generate the same amount of pixels depending on the level of the scan. As I understand it 35mm bottoms out at around 20 megapixels. Often in the modern era though 70mm was used and I understand theoretically this would have twice the resolution in megapixels. Given this, a Hollywood film from the 1930/40s should have the same resolution as Schindlers List which was filmed in 35mm.

This all assumes that the transfers would be coming from the original negatives. For many old movies the OCN might not exist or may have been stored in poor conditions. Also I'm guessing, silver nitrate stock had its own challenges in regard to preservation? Also down the years I guess the quality of the manufacture of the stock comes into play. I remember hearing that James Cameron was very disappointed in the quality of the film stock used for Aliens even though it was 70mm and filmed in the 80s.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Rob4

The vast majority of films, even those from the earliest days of cinema, were filmed in 35mm. Therefore everything theoretically filmed in 35mm should generate the same amount of pixels depending on the level of the scan. As I understand it 35mm bottoms out at around 20 megapixels. Often in the modern era though 70mm was used and I understand theoretically this would have twice the resolution in megapixels. Given this, a Hollywood film from the 1930/40s should have the same resolution as Schindlers List which was filmed in 35mm.

This all assumes that the transfers would be coming from the original negatives. For many old movies the OCN might not exist or may have been stored in poor conditions. Also I'm guessing, silver nitrate stock had its own challenges in regard to preservation? Also down the years I guess the quality of the manufacture of the stock comes into play. I remember hearing that James Cameron was very disappointed in the quality of the film stock used for Aliens even though it was 70mm and filmed in the 80s.

So basically, it depends.

[Justin101]

A lot of the original nitrate negatives are lost anyway and have been long since transferred onto 35mm 'safety' film so they are 2nd gen dupes. So I think if a new transfer is made from the original nitrates it would look stunning because that film was known for the quality of the picture, but otherwise you'll get lesser results, still good, but not AS good

I think a lot of 80s films are going to look the worst when remastered to 4k, the film stock in the 80s is well known for being cheap and low quality. This is especially bad in Asian films where they didn't use Kodak stock, I think it was Fujifilm which is why they have that weird greeny yellow look to them.

So yeah, there are a lot of reasons why a 4k disc could look awesome or not.

There is also the disc production as well, the actual mastering of the transfer, some companies do very strange things to their films to make them look more modern. Some directors as well, Peter Jackson and James Cameron like the clean modern look and try to erase the film grain that digital doesn't have. Madness!

[Rob4]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

So basically, it depends.

Yes but for the most part you will get a better picture than what was projected in a cinema because a release print is 3 times removed from the OCN. It goes like this:

Camera negative -> interpositive -> internegative -> release print

So when a release boasts that it has been taken directly from the OCN, as long as it has been cleaned up as well, you are probably seing it the best it has ever been seen up till that point.

Of course, there are the nuances of the transfer e.g. 2K or 4K, have they used too much digital scrub, getting the colour timing right etc, some of which Justin alludes to above.