Criterion and UHD

[MichaelB]

IIRC the Ranown westerns are short, like 70 minutes each - prob makes the condensing onto three discs more feasible

If I remember rightly, most if not all of the Indicator discs are single-layered for that reason - the feature bitrate was still perfectly healthy.

[tenia]

Yes, the Indicator set was 5xBD-25, which was plenty enough for movies roughly 77 min long each (and allowing for subsequent standard individual releases of the exact same discs).

[captveg]

IIRC the Ranown westerns are short, like 70 minutes each - prob makes the condensing onto three discs more feasible

It also helps save a little space on encodes if films have more matted black area (2.39, 1.37, etc.) within the 1.78 16x9 video, as that part of the "picture" requires minimal dedication.

[cdnchris]

I haven't been able to sit down and watch the film itself yet, but is anyone having issues with the UHD of Walkabout? My Blu-ray drive had a hell of a time reading it, grinding and making all sorts of concerning noises for an incredibly long time. Then, doing a spot check in my player, I noticed the menu music skips and things seemed to freeze before starting again. Playing the first 20 minutes or so of the film was fine, but looking online I noticed a user on the other site noting they had issues with the menu as well.

Funny enough, despite others having issues with The Princess Bride my PC loaded that disc quicker than any other one I've ever popped in.

Also, Criterion has changed the programming on their menus with this batch of 4Ks (haven't looked at the new Blu-rays). The timing of the menus seems smoother and the "Resume" pop-up that opens looks bigger than it had before. Small detail and really not worth noting, but I find it odd they'd cut out the Timeline but then bother to reprogram their menus in such a slight way after a decade and a half.

[captveg]

Also, Criterion has changed the programming on their menus with this batch of 4Ks (haven't looked at the new Blu-rays). The timing of the menus seems smoother and the "Resume" pop-up that opens looks bigger than it had before. Small detail and really not worth noting, but I find it odd they'd cut out the Timeline but then bother to reprogram their menus in such a slight way after a decade and a half.

They likely did a single overhaul of the Java programming core code when they removed the timeline/bookmarks.

[flyonthewall2983]

For All Mankind is the 4K disc I notice that flubbed a bit on my player.

[Ribs]

It's kind of remarkable to see that Criterion has probably taken the sharpest turn into UHD of any of the major labels - with this month's announcements it seems basically anything that is remotely arguable as feasible for 4K will get the bump. Of this year's releases, the only ones with 4K masters that are not seeing UHD releases are All That Money Can By and Nothing But a Man, both of which I think seem like totally ridiculous for 4K - everything else is a 2K master. By my calculations, by the end of April Criterion will have released 64 4K titles including three box sets and one multi-film release spanning 73 titles.

Kino, who have been releasing titles for what is approaching 5 years, will have released 65 by the end of March (probably 68-70 once April is announced). Arrow, who has been releasing titles since 2020, will have released 80 film by the end of March. Pretty impressive turnaround for Criterion to be essentially caught up to them despite starting years after the fact! It's clear that 4K really is selling for them, as catalog upgrades for stuff like the Apu trilogy (which of course must have been a strong seller) suggest. I don't think any of us will be surprised if 4K upgrades follow for other clearly popular titles that had 4K masters released before the end of 2021 - Portrait of a Lady on Fire seeming like a very obvious one to me.

[rrenault]

Does this mean anything from here on out with a 4K master but for which a UHD release wouldn’t be economically feasible will likely just be tossed on the Channel without any physical release at all? Perhaps they could do a new “Janus Classics” line to complement the Janus Contemporaries line for titles that aren’t economically viable for the 4K format but that still demand physical releases. I can’t imagine Black God, White Devil, the unreleased Sembene titles like Xala, or Jean Eustache’s Mes Petites Amoureuses getting UHDs, and I’m pretty sure some of the Janus Contemporaries titles do have 4K masters. Even Rivette’s L’Amour Fou(which I think Janus has acquired but don’t quote me) and La Maman et Le Putain feel like long shots for the UHD format.

P. S. Some of the stuff in the Akerman set is also 4K-sourced I think.

[Ribs]

No. As I said, there are titles with 4K remasters on the schedule (All That Money Can Buy & Nothing But a Man), but they're titles that would really truly be unfeasible in terms of expected sales and/or the actual restoration element. And there's stuff like the Akerman box, which has individual 4K restored titles but is obviously a BD set. But Criterion seems to be much more willing to just do the 4K release now of these titles, possibly on account they're aware they actually won't be back around to them in a few years, this is probably the last stop for these titles. I think we all would have been pretty surprised before yesterday to be told I Am Cuba is a title that gets a 4K release.

And for the Contemporaries titles, if the right title comes along that has an actual 4K master (which is not guaranteed!) that would sell well, I'm sure they'd figure out a pricepoint to make it economical. Not really sure why you'd take "Criterion is proving much more adventurous with 4K releases then every other label" as a sign they're going to be doing less of their library then they have been at any other point in recent times.

[rrenault]

Yes, but even Soy Cuba feels like a more economically feasible 4K release than Les Rendez-Vous d’Anna or Mes Petites Amoureuses, even if yes, I was surprised it’s getting a 4k too.

[MichaelB]

Indicator had the materials to do a UHD release of John Frankenheimer’s ultra-obscure Impossible Object, but I’m not sure the world (or the market) is ready for that just yet.

[macaca]

Criterion has been re-releasing some older titles on 4K discs with accompanying blu-ray's as newer 4K scans become available (in some instances)
My question is: Why does Criterion just issue the older transfers on blu-ray as the 4K discs benefit from the new scans?
Having 2 transfers in the same package doesn't make sense to me, especially since a newer one is available.

[Matt]

I have no evidence for this, but my guess is:

1. Criterion is still selling the Blu-ray editions on their own. If people are buying the 4K edition then they are probably buying it to watch the 4K disc and don’t care as much about the Blu-ray.

2. Criterion already has the Blu-ray master (or even previously pressed discs) ready to go and doesn’t want to undertake the expense of making a brand new master for a slight difference in quality.

It’s a little annoying that I’ve had to buy several of the exact same discs I already own. They could just sell the 4K discs on their own (as Arrow often does), but they wouldn’t charge any less for them.

[CSM126]

Criterion seems to have no interest in putting extras (other than commentary tracks) on UHD discs, so tossing in the existing blu with all the extras is just easier for them. The fact that the movie is on there is probably an afterthought.

[AxeYou]

It allows them to maintain a smaller set of disc variants throughout the entire production pipeline, from encoding to manufacturing, which means lower cost and fewer mistakes. Remember that they already have thousands of disc variants to make (1000+ spines with both DVD and BD). Probably can’t afford to scale that further as more 4K upgrades are announced.

And likely nobody is going to not buy a 4K release solely because the included Blu-ray isn’t upgraded, so there’s no incentive.

[swo17]

In theory there are probably some people who have not upgraded to 4K that would be enticed by an improved transfer on Blu-ray and the comfort of being future-proofed if they ever upgraded to a 4K setup in the future. But how many people are too cash-strapped to upgrade their system yet can still afford to be triple dipping on releases? Criterion is probably right to think there aren't a lot of customers like this

[tenia]

I'd love to future proof re-releases but since the BD is the older one which in most cases I already have (and in most cases is a decade old with an obsolete master), I don't buy the UHD/BD DF and thus the re-release at all. It's been the case for instance for Days of Heaven and Dazed and Confused.

It's clear it allows Criterion many logistics savings (being in avoiding making remastered BDs in the DF while not remastering the BD-only one, or saving all previous extra features without bothering including them on the UHD, just like most US studios who can't be bothered to), but it also means this for me.

And the "cash strapping" issue actually is more logical than this : buying the player I want and the TV I want would cost me about 1350-1850€ (1000-1500€ TV + a Panasonic UB820 around 350€). I currently only buy Criterion stuff during the 50% sale and their UHD/BD releases cost me about 32€, 4-5€ more than a Criterion BD-only release. I'm not interested by 100% of those, so I can definitely buy a few of those each year and when dealing with new inclusions released in 4k, I buy the DF release (like Thelma and Louise or After Hours) but that's only 13 of them I bought in the course of over 2 years. I can definitely smooth these expenses out, as it's also only a total of 430€, and adding the 5 or 6 releases I didn't buy isn't going to put me near those 1850€, even less so if one doesn't think in overall price but only in cost-difference vs a BD-only release.

(I'm also still unsure if I'd have to change my Yamaha RX V467 amp because of the whole HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 stuff, though it seems I won't).

[macaca]

Criterion seems to have no interest in putting extras (other than commentary tracks) on UHD discs, so tossing in the existing blu with all the extras is just easier for them. The fact that the movie is on there is probably an afterthought.

So even though there's a blu-ray disc in the package already (I'm not sure it's an issue of being interested. It's more technical than anything) and a new scan is available,
Criterion throw and older, much inferior looking version of the movie in as a thank you? I don't know how that sits well with anyone.
It's not an expense issue as the blu-ray discs are already being included (rendering an already cleaned up 4k print is not an expense).
I just hope this is a little error is judgment, and they start issuing the same version of the movie on both discs.

And likely nobody is going to not buy a 4K release solely because the included Blu-ray isn’t upgraded, so there’s no incentive.

If that's the case, why add it at all?

[dwk]

The Blu-ray is purely a vehicle for the special features. Creating a whole new disc is an extra expense (authoring/encoding, glass master, etc), while including a copy of the currently available Blu-ray really isn't.

[andyli]

Has there been a two-disc blu-ray release with the first dedicated to the main feature alone? If Criterion ever decides to upgrade it with a newly restored UHD then it would have served as a litmus test for the future-proof and for-extras theories.

[macaca]

The Blu-ray is purely a vehicle for the special features. Creating a whole new disc is an extra expense (authoring/encoding, glass master, etc), while including a copy of the currently available Blu-ray really isn't.

This is a one time expense and is not exactly costly.
The time consuming and major expense of the project has already been completed for the 4K,
Kind of weird giving people a coaster so they can just watch the extras.
Either just make it the extras or don't bother, since like people have pointed out, no one will watch an old looking blu-ray when they have a brand new 4K.
Again, it's a weird choice having some titles in the collection to not be on blu-ray even though a newly restored 4K transfer exists in the collection.

[swo17]

It's more costly than the alternative, multiplied by however large the print run is. Also, that's not how coasters work

[macaca]

It's more costly than the alternative, multiplied by however large the print run is. Also, that's not how coasters work

It's not multiplied. It's a one time cost (and a small one). The expense of the discs are the same.

[Matt]

It's more costly than the alternative, multiplied by however large the print run is. Also, that's not how coasters work

It's not multiplied. It's a one time cost (and a small one). The expense of the discs are the same.

If you already know all these answers why are you asking these questions?

Kind of weird giving people a coaster so they can just watch the extras. Either just make it the extras or don't bother, since like people have pointed out, no one will watch an old looking blu-ray when they have a brand new 4K.

You want them to include a Blu-ray that is exactly the same as the one they already include, just without the movie on it because that’s too weird for you otherwise. Please be serious.

And please can we not relitigate Dual Format releases? We’ve already had 28 pages of the “coasters” argument with Criterion’s DVD+BD releases in which you made these same complaints and arguments!

[MichaelB]

It's more costly than the alternative, multiplied by however large the print run is. Also, that's not how coasters work

It's not multiplied. It's a one time cost (and a small one). The expense of the discs are the same.

The choice is between spending a four-figure sum and spending nothing. Factor in the number of people who actually care about it, stir in the fact that people who do care will most likely be watching the UHD disc, and it gets harder and harder to justify that cost.