CRITERION BLURAY!! PLEASE!!!!!!
oh pretty please!
sharePeople have seen this movie for years on *beep* tv, on old cinema screens, in windy rooms, on uncomfortable chairs, and they've loved it.
i've just seen it on a normal tv, and i love it as much as the first time.
Why do people keep asking for blu ray, dvd, hd, super sound ... this is not Spiderman 4 ... go watch something else if you want "High Definition".
man, i can't wait for people to ask for metropolis on blu ray ...
You've no idea what you're talking about. The Third Man, Kagemusha and Snow White absolutely rule on blu-ray. The idea that high definition is only a benefit for modern movies is absurd.
And I would love to have Metropolis on BD.
~sometimes my arms bend back~
what do you get more from the movie in HD ? tell me ?
better image ?
1st - there is a limit to how you can improve an old movie's image (cause then you'll be flirting with ... altering it ...)
2nd - if the point of the movie was to be drowned in the DETAILS of the imagery, it would have been shot some other way.
i believe these BRay, HD releases are what they are: ALTERATIONS.
And people are then saying that a HD version of METROPOLIS is like the second coming of the antichrist? we've been enjoying the movie for decades ... why the NEED for HD now ?
I do not know, it's wierd to ask for better image and sound, when we've been enjoying these things for decades ...
it feels like a new ... NEED. and markets create new needs.
\
this thread is a perfect example.
You've still got no idea what you're talking about.
Hint: even blu-ray can't capture the full resolution of 35mm film. At 1080p, we're seeing less detail in the image than we would by watching the real film at a theater (as the director intended it to be seen).
But, at least blu-ray's a damn sight closer to real film resolution than that crappy 480i stuff we've had to suffer with for decades and decades.
~sometimes my arms bend back~
And this was shot in 70mm. So it really needs to be on 4K, but Blu-ray would be a good start. A letterboxed DVD is just so inferior.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
You are such an ignoramus you force me to use the word ignoramus.
---
Obscure movie quote
Then why did Kurosawa shoot it in 70mm, the only one of his films to be shot in that high definition format?
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
"Why do people keep asking for blu ray, dvd, hd, super sound..."
Because the film is so magnificent!
Wow, what a terrible argument.
I want movies that show real life in HD – you know, real forests and real houses and real skies and real people – not special effects pieces of *beep*
---
Obscure movie quote
Here's why HD is good for ALL MOVIES. A film print is the highest possible quality version. Video converting downgrades this film image to fit on our TVs.
The picture resolution of any old analog TV is 480i. That means, 480 vertical lines are actively scanning to create a picture. The interlaced video signal runs at 29.97 frames per second speed. Movies are shot at 23.976 frames per second. To show films on TVs, technicians have to do a 3-2 pulldown which adds more frames to interlaced video for it to play correctly on an analog TV. Movies on tv often do not look like film.
A High Definition system can play movies at 23.976 fps speed. No problem. The highest picture resolution of an HD signal is 1080p. That means 1080 lines actively scanning one progressive field to reproduce an image. 480i is a lower quality. 1080p is a lot more information!
Bottom line: High Definition is just a higher quality video representation. Movies feel more film-like because of the higher resolution and 23.976 speed. Blu-ray is the closest anyone can get today to achieving the quality of a film print.
There are also good blurays and bad ones. Because there's more information every mistake is more noticeable (ie dirt and film scratches and digital noise reduction). So studios have a responsibility to take care of their films when transferring to bluray. If you're skeptical about old films I suggest you pick up:
1) An HD-TV, 2)Bluray Player and 3) Goldfinger on bluray.
You'll see, but I think you're only complaining because your TV is outdated.
silentscott86
but nobody was complaining for 50 years now
We've been enjoying movies on small screen with crappy sounds, and they were marvelous.
Why this new "need"?
Because you can ?
Because they can sell it to you.
Swallow.
"1st - there is a limit to how you can improve an old movie's image (cause then you'll be flirting with ... altering it ...)
2nd - if the point of the movie was to be drowned in the DETAILS of the imagery, it would have been shot some other way.
i believe these BRay, HD releases are what they are: ALTERATIONS."
Well, not quite. Most films, even those made almost hundred years ago, were shot on 35 mm film, which has a very high resolution, a lot higher than 1080p. If someone makes a new print directly out of an original negative (instead of a lesser source, like another print), it should look really sharp and clear, assuming the elements are still in proper condition. In terms of technical limitations, there are some differences between new and old films but they are certainly not all that huge. If an old film looks remarkably good on blu-ray, it can look that way without alterations like artificial sharpening, digital noise reduction or other crap.
Regarding alterations... The point of movie restoration should be presenting the original theater experience as exactly as possible, whereas altering the image is revisionism instead of restoration. There are some people in the movie industry who understand this, and strive to release quality products. Henche there are a lot of blu-rays which actually are rather faithful representations of the original film, certainly more faithful than DVD versions which suffer from all kind of technical limitations.
Ok, that was a long-winded way of say it. My point is that if you see new details in the film, they were there originally. They were shot that way originally, and we didn't see that with small screens because those were simply incapable of showing films in all their glory.
The gap between the movie theaters and a tv's at homes used to be huge. Today it's smaller than ever before. It's no wonder why people want old classics on blu.
Oh, and Dersu Uzala was shot on 70 mm, like Ben-Hur and Lawrence of Arabia. It was a lavish production meant for HUGE screens, meant to look ultra-sharp, extremely detailed and visually immersive. Techically it really shouldn't pale in comparison with those Spider-man 4's or other blockbusters of it's kind.
The weak quality of the previous home video releases worries me, though. The situation raises all kinds of questions regarding the condition of the negative and the availability of the elements. Nonetheless the movie restoration expert Robert Harris surmised that the film "simply needs to be scanned from the original camera negative", which should be in decent condition. Hopefully he's right.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/280316/dersu-uzala
Kino seems to release Dersu on blu-ray instead of Criterion. I kinda doubt they have gained the access to those negatives, but I would like to be proven wrong. Even if it has been sourced from a rugged 35 mm elements, it should look a lot better than those old DVD releases.
So many of Kurosawa's other films have languished on releases of mediocre to downright poor quality, but time and again Criterion comes along and presents a beautifully restored package and reminds people how these films are SUPPOSED to look. I have hope that something like that will happen for Dersu Uzala one day.
Reality is the greatest special effect, and that forest in HD would rival anything seen in BBC's Planet Earth or Life.
---
Obscure movie quote
My Dersu Uzala DVD looks like whoever made it manually recorded from VHS and burned it into a DVD. It is a shame the movie was shot in 70mm; I'd never know what I had missed with that piss-poor crap DVD.
shareReplace VHS with Betamax, that's likely the case. Sadly it seem true to way too many Soviet films (save Tarkovski's and Eisenstein's).
shareYes, a thousand times yes. I saw a decent VHS print of this about 5 years ago and it definitely ranks up there with Kurosawa's best both in terms of visuals and overall filmaking. A proper Blu ray of this would prove a revelation. How old films can become fresh and new represents one of my favorite things about the current era of cinema.
shareBy this logic, it was better to record classical or jazz concerts on scratchy old 78s than to develop hi-fi stereo equipment to allow people to hear in their homes sound that much more closely approximates the original. That sold new equipment too.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
Relevant comment, nycterr. Who cares how sharp the image is, when it is losing the depth of the image that cinema experience or old VHS formats offered. People dont understand what matters more, do we have to see everything in crisp detail, which kills the depth of the image, in the theater the depth is there because of a different projection, it is not digital. So it does not matter what resolutions youre talking about, it's the form on which it is being played. Most people seem clueless about this difference.
shareThis post is so ignorant. Jesus.
share