Don't Look Now (Blu-ray SteelBook) (Zavvi Exclusive) [UK]

[snooloui]

Release date: May 30th, 2015
Purchase link: Don't Look Now (live)
Price: £15.99
Notes: Limited to 2,000 copies.

Spoiler

 

[lolwut]

I have the Criterion, and have not yet seen the Optimum. So I have not 'chosen a side'.
My informed opinion will be when I can have both copies side by side.
And if you go back, the 'experts' loved the first PATTON release- before they became educated about DNR and recanted.

The first Patton release is comparable to the UK Don't Look Now release, and the second Patton release is comparable to the Criterion Don't Look Now release. Not the other way around.

 

[C.C. 95]

The first Patton release is comparable to the UK Don't Look Now release, and the second Patton release is comparable to the Criterion Don't Look Now release. Not the other way around.

Understood.(But I'm still gonna have the UK steel because, well- it's the only Don't Look Now steel.) So I'll still be able to compare.

 

[JackRegan]

Well, I've read all the latest additions, and frankly no matter, it's going to comedown to watching one and then the other on the same set up - can't say I really trust screencaps no matter what, and any quality review is also subjective, especially without dat on th equipment used etc.

But here is a dilemma - Both Criterion and Optimum claim their release is a 4k Restoration approved by Nic Roeg - btu Nic Roeg only approved one blu ray release - and it wasn't the Criterion.

So, laying aside whatever anyone may think of the screencaps and their accuracy (btw, I can't remember where the last Critrion cap came from), given the fact listed above, then if the Criterion is indeed Nic Roeg approved, and frankly it can't be otherwise - then this MUST be the same transfer, and which, as I was told way back has just had the colour timiing altered.

 

[C.C. 95]

Well, I've read all the latest additions, and frankly no matter, it's going to comedown to watching one and then the other on the same set up - can't say I really trust screencaps no matter what, and any quality review is also subjective, especially without dat on th equipment used etc.

But here is a dilemma - Both Criterion and Optimum claim their release is a 4k Restoration approved by Nic Roeg - btu Nic Roeg only approved one blu ray release - and it wasn't the Criterion.

So, laying aside whatever anyone may think of the screencaps and their accuracy (btw, I can't remember where the last Critrion cap came from), given the fact listed above, then if the Criterion is indeed Nic Roeg approved, and frankly it can't be otherwise - then this MUST be the same transfer, and which, as I was told way back has just had the colour timiing altered.

Well, also keep in mind that directors are sometimes odd ducks. Look at what William Friedkin did to The French Connection on the first Blu transfer. He thought it looked great!
Back in the Laserdisc days, when The Abyss was released- James Cameron openly said he preferred the Pan & Scan version, and hated the letterboxing of movies.
Whatever the case may be, I have no qualms about buying both the Criterion and the Optimum. The Optimum, if inferior, still has a wealth of extras the Criterion does not. (Kinda of the same as THIEF having different extras on Criterion vs. Arrow blu rays). So, no real loss.

 

[JackRegan]

Well, also keep in mind that directors are sometimes odd ducks. Look at what William Friedkin did to The French Connection on the first Blu transfer. He thought it looked great!
Back in the Laserdisc days, when The Abyss was released- James Cameron openly said he preferred the Pan & Scan version, and hated the letterboxing of movies.
Whatever the case may be, I have no qualms about buying both the Criterion and the Optimum. The Optimum, if inferior, still has a wealth of extras the Criterion does not. (Kinda of the same as THIEF having different extras on Criterion vs. Arrow blu rays). So, no real loss.

Freidkin is the perfect example of how odd 'auteurs' can be (to give them their correct nomeclature), not to mention Friedkin's legendary temper on and off set- he was married to Lesley Anne Down and beat the crap out of her, poor girl.

Like you, I'm not that worried, as you say there are some very nice extras on the Optimum -- I haven't seen it but am hoping it is actually better than some of the caps show - then again, look closely at the longshot of the canal - cap 4 (from capsaholic), and go back and forth from one to the other, and frankly, neither are brilliant, and there's little to choose between them.
Either way it isn't a patch on Patton mk1, A Bridge Too Far, and the worst two I have seen recently (borrowed the Amarays) Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid, and The Great Escape - both of which are truly appalling!

As for Thief - there was no question - I simply had to buy the Arrow limited Edition - it has everything you could possibly want.

 

[C.C. 95]

Freidkin is the perfect example of how odd 'auteurs' can be (to give them their correct nomeclature), not to mention Friedkin's legendary temper on and off set- he was married to Lesley Anne Down and beat the crap out of her, poor girl.

Like you, I'm not that worried, as you say there are some very nice extras on the Optimum -- I haven't seen it but am hoping it is actually better than some of the caps show - then again, look closely at the longshot of the canal - cap 4 (from capsaholic), and go back and forth from one to the other, and frankly, neither are brilliant, and there's little to choose between them.
Either way it isn't a patch on Patton mk1, A Bridge Too Far, and the worst two I have seen recently (borrowed the Amarays) Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid, and The Great Escape - both of which are truly appalling!

As for Thief - there was no question - I simply had to buy the Arrow limited Edition - it has everything you could possibly want.

One thing to add that hasn't been mentioned- when you take a fast film stock from the 70's and take a still capture, it freezes the grain in a way that makes the still unrepresentative of the quality of the image in motion.
Anything with significant grain is gonna look bad still framed....
By the by- the restoration of the Mad Max films is stunning (from what I've seen). It looks like Road Warrior was shot yesterday.

 

[lolwut]

Understood.(But I'm still gonna have the UK steel because, well- it's the only Don't Look Now steel.) So I'll still be able to compare.

Well, I've read all the latest additions, and frankly no matter, it's going to comedown to watching one and then the other on the same set up - can't say I really trust screencaps no matter what, and any quality review is also subjective, especially without dat on th equipment used etc.

But here is a dilemma - Both Criterion and Optimum claim their release is a 4k Restoration approved by Nic Roeg - btu Nic Roeg only approved one blu ray release - and it wasn't the Criterion.

So, laying aside whatever anyone may think of the screencaps and their accuracy (btw, I can't remember where the last Critrion cap came from), given the fact listed above, then if the Criterion is indeed Nic Roeg approved, and frankly it can't be otherwise - then this MUST be the same transfer, and which, as I was told way back has just had the colour timiing altered.

It sounds like you guys only trust your own eyes. Fair enough I guess, if you have the extra time and money. I would go broke if I didn't put trust in other people's reviews and screenshots.

For the record though, the screencaps are accurate. Obviously more than just the color timing is different and it's not the same transfer. But I've already mentioned the reviews stating that they're not the same transfer and the screenshots showing that they're not the same transfer.

Like you, I'm not that worried, as you say there are some very nice extras on the Optimum -- I haven't seen it but am hoping it is actually better than some of the caps show - then again, look closely at the longshot of the canal - cap 4 (from capsaholic), and go back and forth from one to the other, and frankly, neither are brilliant, and there's little to choose between them.

I don't know how you don't see that the Criterion is obviously better than the Optimum on cap 4. Look again: http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_verg...55&disc1=5503&disc2=5504&lossless=1#vergleich

The Optimum looks like a watercolor painting with the detail and grain smoothed over. Look at the water, the sky, the bricks. Maybe zooming in will help:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_verg...55&disc1=5503&disc2=5504&lossless=1#vergleich

Or zooming out all the way:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_verg...hd_multiID=2246&action=1&lossless=1#vergleich

 

[JackRegan]

One thing to add that hasn't been mentioned- when you take a fast film stock from the 70's and take a still capture, it freezes the grain in a way that makes the still unrepresentative of the quality of the image in motion.
Anything with significant grain is gonna look bad still framed....
By the by- the restoration of the Mad Max films is stunning (from what I've seen). It looks like Road Warrior was shot yesterday.

That's another good point no-one has taken into account previously - and grain becomes smeary etcetra,

Max was restored in 2013 wasn't it?

I bought the 'Petrol Can' but haven't watched them - got the new, individual ones on order from France as well - one of these days I'll get round to watching everything!

It sounds like you guys only trust your own eyes. Fair enough I guess, if you have the extra time and money. I would go broke if I didn't put trust in other people's reviews and screenshots.

For the record though, the screencaps are accurate. Obviously more than just the color timing is different and it's not the same transfer. But I've already mentioned the reviews stating that they're not the same transfer and the screenshots showing that they're not the same transfer.



I don't know how you don't see that the Criterion is obviously better than the Optimum on cap 4. Look again: http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_verg...55&disc1=5503&disc2=5504&lossless=1#vergleich

The Optimum looks like a watercolor painting with the detail and grain smoothed over. Look at the water, the sky, the bricks. Maybe zooming in will help:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_verg...55&disc1=5503&disc2=5504&lossless=1#vergleich

Or zooming out all the way:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_verg...hd_multiID=2246&action=1&lossless=1#vergleich

Now come on, be fair with me.

I didn't say either was better than the other in cap 4.

I said, neither is brilliant - and they're not, and that there's little to choose between them - there isn't.

As regards the Nic Roeg approval.

Roeg approved the UK transfer. There is no evidence that he then went on to separately approve the Criterion.

So, unless such proof comes to light we must assume they are the same transfer. They could hardly be anything else - QED.

That, of course, does not mean that either, or both of them could NOT have been altered after the approval process clearly they could.

 

[lolwut]

Now come on, be fair with me.

I didn't say either was better than the other in cap 4.

I said, neither is brilliant - and they're not, and that there's little to choose between them - there isn't.

As regards the Nic Roeg approval.

Roeg approved the UK transfer. There is no evidence that he then went on to separately approve the Criterion.

So, unless such proof comes to light we must assume they are the same transfer. They could hardly be anything else - QED.

That, of course, does not mean that either, or both of them could NOT have been altered after the approval process clearly they could.

I don't know what you mean by "there's little to choose between them". I interpreted that to mean neither is better than the other, when the Criterion is clearly better.

As for your other claim that there's no evidence he approved the Criterion, that they have to be the same transfer, I don't know what to say other than quote Criterion:

• New 4K digital restoration, approved by director Nicolas Roeg, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray

http://www.criterion.com/films/27928-don-t-look-now

 

[JackRegan]

I don't know what you mean by "there's little to choose between them". I interpreted that to mean neither is better than the other, when the Criterion is clearly better.

As for your other claim that there's no evidence he approved the Criterion, that they have to be the same transfer, I don't know what to say other than quote Criterion:

• New 4K digital restoration, approved by director Nicolas Roeg, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray

http://www.criterion.com/films/27928-don-t-look-now

Which is exacty what the Optimum one says.

The point is, Roeg is on record as having approved the Optimum restoration; he has not gone on record as having approved a second, and different restoration.

'Little to choose between them' means just what it says: There is little to choose between them as neither is a shining example of cinematic brilliance. If you want me to be picky about them, then the Optimum's colour timing is better; the Criterion has a pink hued sky which is way out.
Now I know you don't want to hear it, but a lot of what you're seeing there in the Criterion IS a difference in the colour timing. The fact that it is producing deeper colour textures, and adding shadows, actually changes the whole appearance of what you're looking at. Change the blues for instance, and the eddies on the water will take on a different appearance.

Also, I can tell you that clicking in and out to see one then the other does NOT give you a facsimilie picture.
Look at the right hand side of cap 4 in Optimum - there is a white post and a rather large tree - go to Criterion and the post disappears as does most of the tree.

And if you keep on defending caps-a-holic so robustly, people are going to begin thinking you have a vested interest

 

[lolwut]

Which is exacty what the Optimum one says.

The point is, Roeg is on record as having approved the Optimum restoration; he has not gone on record as having approved a second, and different restoration.

'Little to choose between them' means just what it says: There is little to choose between them as neither is a shining example of cinematic brilliance. If you want me to be picky about them, then the Optimum's colour timing is better; the Criterion has a pink hued sky which is way out.
Now I know you don't want to hear it, but a lot of what you're seeing there in the Criterion IS a difference in the colour timing. The fact that it is producing deeper colour textures, and adding shadows, actually changes the whole appearance of what you're looking at. Change the blues for instance, and the eddies on the water will take on a different appearance.

Also, I can tell you that clicking in and out to see one then the other does NOT give you a facsimilie picture.
Look at the right hand side of cap 4 in Optimum - there is a white post and a rather large tree - go to Criterion and the post disappears as does most of the tree.

And if you keep on defending caps-a-holic so robustly, people are going to begin thinking you have a vested interest

If you genuinely prefer the Optimum release from those caps, no one will ever be able to convince you. I've tried to explain it as simply as possible, with pictures to make it easier to understand. And now you're insinuating that I have a "vested interest" in caps-a-holic (just when I thought this couldn't get any more bizarro world). You're the one saying they can't be trusted without any evidence whatsoever. You didn't even know how to use the site yesterday, yet you knew all you needed to know about them.

Assuming you're not just trolling me, I'll leave you with this review of the Criterion release:

"The following text appears inside the leaflet provided with this Blu-ray release:

'Approved by director Nicolas Roeg, this new digital transfer was created in 4K resolution on a ARRISCAN film scanner from the original camera negative at Deluxe Digital London. Thousands of instances of dirt, debris, scratches, splices, warps, jitter, and flicker were manually removed using MTI's DRS and Pixel Farm's PFClean, while Digital Vision's Phoenix was used for small dirt, grain, and noise management.

Transfer supervisor: Lee Kline.
Colorist: Stephen Berman/Deluxe Digital London.'

The release eliminates the big issues that compromised StudioCanal's presentation of the film (you can see our review of the Region-B release here). To be perfectly clear, there are no visible traces of the electronic sharpening that affected detail and depth. Various density fluctuations remain -- in areas of the film where light is captured in specific ways and grain is over/underexposed -- but they are part of the film's original cinematography. (Examples of the type of fluctuations addressed above can be seen in screencaptures #8 and 17). Unsurprisingly, definition is better and image depth far more convincing (compare screencaptures #1 and 14 with screencaptures #3 and 5 from our review of StudioCanal's release). Minor contrast variations are present, but they are also part of the original cinematography. Colors are stable and natural, and I would specifically like to mention that here they are slightly better saturated as well (the general flatness present on the StudioCanal release is also a byproduct of the compromising digital corrections). Lastly, overall image stability is excellent, and there are no large debris, cuts, damage marks, or stains. The encoding is very good, but I did notice some extremely light shimmer trying to sneak in during a short sequence early into the film. All in all, this is a strong organic presentation of Don't Look Now that is likely to remain the definitive presentation of the film on the home video market."

 

[JackRegan]

If you genuinely prefer the Optimum release from those caps, no one will ever be able to convince you. I've tried to explain it as simply as possible, with pictures to make it easier to understand. And now you're insinuating that I have a "vested interest" in caps-a-holic (just when I thought this couldn't get any more bizarro world). You're the one saying they can't be trusted without any evidence whatsoever. You didn't even know how to use the site yesterday, yet you knew all you needed to know about them.

Assuming you're not just trolling me, I'll leave you with this review of the Criterion release:

I didn't say I preferred the Optimum, you're putting words in my mouth, nor did I insinuate anything.
Also whilst you say I assume the caps cannot be trusted and I don't have evidence to back it up; by the same token you can produce no evidence whatsoever to prove their reliability - that's called 'hoist by your own petard'

Actually, I hadn't even LOOKED at the site until a few days ago, and then only gave it a cursory glance; but yesterday - yes, sorry but I was using it as they'd like you to - and equally sorry, you do not get a facsimilie passing from one to the other; so they cannot be viewed ojectively side by side, or one after the other - as I said previously.

The piece from the blu ray which you have quoted only reinforces what I'd already said - it IS the same restoration; you've just shown the evidence that bears that out.

Oh, and I do NOT appreciate you calling me a troll!

 

[lolwut]

I didn't say I preferred the Optimum, you're putting words in my mouth, nor did I insinuate anything.
Also whilst you say I assume the caps cannot be trusted and I don't have evidence to back it up; by the same token you can produce no evidence whatsoever to prove their reliability - that's called 'hoist by your own petard'

Actually, I hadn't even LOOKED at the site until a few days ago, and then only gave it a cursory glance; but yesterday - yes, sorry but I was using it as they'd like you to - and equally sorry, you do not get a facsimilie passing from one to the other; so they cannot be viewed ojectively side by side, or one after the other - as I said previously.

The piece from the blu ray which you have quoted only reinforces what I'd already said - it IS the same restoration; you've just shown the evidence that bears that out.

Oh, and I do NOT appreciate you calling me a troll!

How is this not insinuating: "And if you keep on defending caps-a-holic so robustly, people are going to begin thinking you have a vested interest"

How is this not preferring the Optimum: "There is little to choose between them as neither is a shining example of cinematic brilliance. If you want me to be picky about them, then the Optimum's colour timing is better; the Criterion has a pink hued sky which is way out."

The burden of proof is on you. You're the one claiming that caps cannot be trusted. I HAVE provided evidence that they can - the reviews I referenced and the caps that back up the reviews. You can also look at the caps on the Blu-ray site that the reviews there mention. They also back up the reviews.

Now you're claiming the way the caps are presented is subjective, because they're not displayed side by side...the way they're displayed, on top of each other, is the most efficient way to compare specific areas of the image.

How on earth did you read that review and come to the conclusion that it reinforces what you've been saying instead of the exact opposite?

And then of course there's the irony in you saying I called you a troll, after saying I put words in your mouth. I said: "Assuming you're not just trolling me..." But honestly, I hope you're trolling me.

 

[UpsetSmiley]

*cue popcorn gif*

 

[C.C. 95]

*cue popcorn gif*

O.K....

 

[JackRegan]

How is this not insinuating: "And if you keep on defending caps-a-holic so robustly, people are going to begin thinking you have a vested interest"

How is this not preferring the Optimum: "There is little to choose between them as neither is a shining example of cinematic brilliance. If you want me to be picky about them, then the Optimum's colour timing is better; the Criterion has a pink hued sky which is way out."

The burden of proof is on you. You're the one claiming that caps cannot be trusted. I HAVE provided evidenc - the reviews I referenced and the caps that back up the reviews. You can also look at the caps on the Blu-ray site that the reviews there mention. They also back up the reviews.

Now you're claiming the way the caps are presented is subjective, because they're not displayed side by side...the way they're displayed is the best way to compare areas of the frame. Viewing small portions of an image side by side is impractical and inefficient.

How on earth did you read that review and come to the conclusion that it reinforces what you've been saying instead of the exact opposite?

And then of course there's the irony in you saying I called you a troll, after saying I put words in your mouth. I said: "Assuming you're not just trolling me..." But honestly, I hope you're trolling me.

1. Look up insinuating!

2. I selected an item which clearly shows that the colour timing of the Criterion is way out; this is clear fro the fact that the damned sky is pink!!
That is a statement of fact regarding the colour timing. Period!

3. No 'burden of proof' lies on my shoulders whatsoever - you have provided NO PROOF or 'EVIDENCE' AT ALL that the caps are accurate; what you have provided is your OPINION - anything beyond that lies in your head alone!

4. What I said about the caps was that going from one to the other does NOT provide a facsimilie - period!

5. What you said was a review, was in point of fact the text from the leaflet issued with the Criterion (as you also said)
Quote: "Approved by director Nicolas Roeg, this new digital transfer was created in 4K resolution on a ARRISCAN film scanner from the original camera negative at Deluxe Digital London."

That refers to the restoration of the Optimum. Please understand, it was NOT done for Criterion.
The proof of that statement lies in the last three words: Deluxe Digital London - Criterion work out of the US for their own restorations.

5a. This wouldn't be the first time that Criterion have borrowed.
Their release of A Night to Remember for one.

6. I'm sorry but you wouldn't know irony if you fell over it in the street.

7. Call me a troll once more and I start reporting your posts.

 

[Sigill]

Ok guys lets keep it friendly. We don't want to start having to delete posts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, whether you agree with that or not please be respectful of other members. Thanks.

 

[lolwut]

Ok guys lets keep it friendly. We don't want to start having to delete posts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, whether you agree with that or not please be respectful of other members. Thanks.

Please don't delete posts, I'll be polite

1. Look up insinuating!

2. I selected an item which clearly shows that the colour timing of the Criterion is way out; this is clear fro the fact that the damned sky is pink!!
That is a statement of fact regarding the colour timing. Period!

3. No 'burden of proof' lies on my shoulders whatsoever - you have provided NO PROOF or 'EVIDENCE' AT ALL that the caps are accurate; what you have provided is your OPINION - anything beyond that lies in your head alone!

4. What I said about the caps was that going from one to the other does NOT provide a facsimilie - period!

5. What you said was a review, was in point of fact the text from the leaflet issued with the Criterion (as you also said)
Quote: "Approved by director Nicolas Roeg, this new digital transfer was created in 4K resolution on a ARRISCAN film scanner from the original camera negative at Deluxe Digital London."

That refers to the restoration of the Optimum. Please understand, it was NOT done for Criterion.
The proof of that statement lies in the last three words: Deluxe Digital London - Criterion work out of the US for their own restorations.

5a. This wouldn't be the first time that Criterion have borrowed.
Their release of A Night to Remember for one.

6. I'm sorry but you wouldn't know irony if you fell over it in the street.

7. Call me a troll once more and I start reporting your posts.

1. insinuating: "suggest or hint (something bad or reprehensible) in an indirect and unpleasant way."

What you said: "And if you keep on defending caps-a-holic so robustly, people are going to begin thinking you have a vested interest"

2. The only positive thing you had to say about either transfers was for the Optimum, which makes it seem like you prefer the Optimum. Also the fact that you've been defending the Optimum release.

3. That's not true at all, I have repeatedly directed you to evidence that shows that the caps are accurate. On the other hand you have provided no evidence that they're inaccurate.

4. Not sure what you mean here. You were saying putting the images side by side would be objective, as opposed to on top of each other (which is subjective?). On top of each other is more practical.

5. All of the quote was from the Blu-ray review but you only read the first part. There's an entire paragraph of the reviewer's words that compare it to the Optimum release.

6. Again you say I don't know what a word means. You said I put words in your mouth, and then later you ironically put words in my mouth.

7. Oh dear

 

[snooloui]

 

[BluSteel2012]

Lol!!