Indeed, they've build up a fantastic resume. You can't be a serious film fan and not know of Criterion tremendous hard work for the film industry, and for providing; home cinema lovers a vast library of restored movies and thensome!

You look 50.......

MGSBigBoss77 - Unless you say just watch the forgotten movies like a bootleg that aren’t constantly revoked by their copyright or you just don’t collect physical media anymore over just streaming & digitally tenting.

@@Ajourneyofknowing criterion collection has such high quality remasters...plus all the bonus features in the box...and the beautiful box art...plus most criterion movies are great! I love criterion sales !

Pretty pathetic justification of filling a market void. For profit. Remaster, what a disgusting term, given the word Master. Criterion is about encashing Hauntology and makes a lot of money doing so... Here we find zombies worshipping technology instead of the very content which is making them rich. Duh Criterion if the word has any relevance here...

Sayantan Dutta yeah

N

Amen

I have to agree. The next generation needs to see movies with better qualitys.

ENOUGH SAID

I'm sure they'll have time when they're ready to sell the 4K Blu Ray version

No its because this was relesed in very early 2015. These days Pc's can do that type of stuff in hours instead of days

I know right? I would've scanned 4k and clean it all up. Now use it as a master for the 2k. Basically just scale it down. Less work. But they know what they're doing.

2K is enough for me. Hell, i'd even watch 720p if i can't be able to find it.

How long do you wait before you get started though? Now people are filming in 8k but you can always wait for the next big thing. Better to get it done well in 2k for at least one generation to enjoy now and then come back to it in a decade and start again.

A. "Nine Inch Nails" might be pushing it, lol. B. "Nine Inch Nails" are now old dudes in mansions who are so over it they don't even drink.

@@mnkykungfu If you don’t get it you never will.

@@chumcool I don't think anyone gets it, dude

@@luckygitane Well... I guess I’m in the shallow end of the KZfaq pool again.

@@chumcool unless you're talking about Trent and Atticus's workflow-- sitting at screens and goofing with instruments-- which is only marginally similar, I don't see how you'd compare the attitude of an industrial alt-rock outfit with a boutique DVD company.

If the negative of those films are still around and they are in good condition, they can do it!

The William Wyler masterpiece The Best Years Of Our Lives? Awesome film. They need to do another great of Wyler's too, Roman Holiday. Paramount haven't put t to BluRay so they need to permit Criterion to give it the sort of release it deserves.

Scott Luther - They don’t strictly need the original negatives (which is a blind shot if they even exist anymore) just something of a stable enough recording or copy to remaster itself.

I'm guessing they cleaned things up a bit for this video

@Inge Fossen Yeah, but 7th Seal for the Bergman Set was scanned at 4K but printed in 1080, why? Remember, with 4K comes the possibility of HDR, Dolby Vision, DTS:X, and or Dolby Atmos. So don't buy the arguments that 4K is not noticeable. It is - when it is scanned, mastered, and printed to disc properly and with compatible technologies as well. As for the "look where we used to be" argument - we used to be I love Lucy in kinescope. It's 2019, not 1951. Desi Arnaz went to 35mm, kinescope was so bad. Time marches on.

@Inge Fossen Thank you for your considerate reply. But what you're saying still sounds eerily like what some people said when 8-track tapes went to cassette, when cassette went to CD, when VHS went to DVD, and when DVD went to Blu-ray. Of course, you need a player, but that's not a reason not to buy one. You need a 4K TV as well. I still have my old VHS player, but only for some family tapes. I went to DVD but not right away. Basically, I think most film fans rush to praise a film maker's "vision," but ignore that he/she is as much imprisoned by available technology as anyone. When you point that out some will claim it was a deliberate choice, but the PRINT of that film is as much a creative artifact as it is one person's vision. Look how VHS tapes fade to washout; Was that a vision? I think not. So upconverting film to the highest available format is always to be preferred since it encodes the highest amount of data about the master and therefore renders it more truthfully. You may feel uncomfortable referring to an Auteur's film as, "so much data" but it is in fact true. If you prefer film the way it was shot then that's a good argument for attending a Film Festival, but not for buying any kind of player of any format. Yes?You may disagree but I thank you, Inge! for making me think more about my ideas.

@Inge Fossen Mostly agree with you, my friend. I too have 4K player and 55" 4KTV( mine OLED). However I would quibble on one thing: 4K difference may not be very noticeable on our 55" TVs but the HDR, HDR10, Dolby Vision (as well as Dolby Atmos, DTS:X audio) is VERY noticeable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think those are available on regular HD. They can make a HUGE difference in viewing. Also, as you admit, bigger TVs have more to gain from 4K, which in turn is an argument for it. Dolby Vision affects light as well as color, if I am correct. So it would be a very interesting experiment to take a bright, colorful Classic art house film like say, "Stalker" or "Ran" or "Lawrence of Arabia" (that one shot in 60 or 70mm, I think) and give it the full 4K Dolby Vision treatment and see what derives. It might be remarkable. I just re-watched Stalker on DVD recently and the light play that was clearly a strong emphasis in the film by Tarkovsky was superb. It's great that we can debate these questions compared to the pitiful choices we once had.

I agree, and I am the type that is complaining that he did a 2K instead of 4K! I am hoping they will go back and do a minimum of 4K or possibly even 8K. He only did 2K because of a time crunch!

@@1cathexis You're absolutely right. There is a big difference between 2K and 4K. I work in films myself, I do this literally every day. And the idea of spending all this time and work in remastering an old film IN 2K and not 4K, is unbelievable. That means everything has to be redone when doing the 4K scan, which eventually will happen. What a waste.

For print design color reproduction and gamut is way more imortant than size. Also, most of the things he will do would be in portrait orientation so aspect ration doesn't matter and it was shot in 2014

Lol 4 years ago

@@luciano_luna1941 as was his comment

Not just the technology, but the care and attention used when working with it. That's what makes Criterion stand out from the pack. There are, sad to say, still some substandard restorations being released - messed up colour balance, artifacting etc, even on 4K discs.

He said they were under a time crunch, so yes probably only had access to the film for a few days.

Shitty Productions Criterion would be able to do a far better job. The 4K version of Star Wars Online is a fan made version. It’s seriously impressive, but even the guys admit that they are limited by their knowledge and resources.

I am sure a 4K UHD Blu-ray of SW is coming at some point! They may go ahead and scan it at 8K and at least relase the 4K for now and then the 8K later once 8K TV's become more popular!

They should just do an 8k transfer now to save themselves the time, like the Wizard of OZ got. They can go and release a compressed 4k version now, and wait until 8k is more popular to double dip.

@@spookylemon4947 the quest is, will it be the unaltered versions of the OG trilogy or the special editions though?

Lucas keeps fiddling with it.

Probably had to give the film back.