A PEEK AT PLAYTIME (1 Viewer)

[haineshisway]

What if the old Playtime was black and white? Would you agree if he liked it better then? Imo he should only deduct points if he knows that the old version is truer to the colors when released than with the new version. He never claims to know that. On top of that he gave a perfect 5 to the old disc when in the review of the new vesion he admits that the new transfer is dramatically improved in image depth and clarity. To me this does not add up. Imo a more balanced review would still have the rating at 5 and he could then add that to him the colors of the first release look better which clearly would be a personal opinion as long as he has no proof that the old release has the intended look.

This is how I see it anyway, and no hard feelings towards Dr. Svet as he seems like a guy who is interested in the right kind of movies and I like that.

Thank you for stating the obvious. He is not a "guy" with an opinion, he is a guy who positions himself as a reviewer who knows what he's talking about. I don't think he does, and sorry but it's fair game to review the reviewer. There are many Internet theater critics that I take exception to, as well, all fair game when they stop being guys with opinions. I don't know Dr. Svet from a hole in the ground - I just read his reviews, which I find irritating and say so. He even loves some transfers I love and I still find his whole style pedantic and irritating, like describing black-and-white films as having accurate colors - that's just pedantic to me - yes, black, white, and gray are colors, but who have you ever heard describe a black-and-white film that way? Anyway, he's not the only reviewer over there with whom I take exception, and there are plenty on other smaller sites who are much, much worse.

Guys with opinions - I just agree or disagree and that's that.

 

[Tama]

He is not a "guy" with an opinion, he is a guy who positions himself as a reviewer who knows what he's talking about.

Don't we all? When was the last time someone started a convo with "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about but let me give you my opinion anyway."

 

[ROclockCK]

I just have a problem with café klatch words like "pleasing", "organic", and "light in Italy"... at best fatuous, and at worst meaningless when evaluating the merits of any analogue film to digital video transfer*.

Fortunately, there are many folks here who do know their celluloid. That's the difference.

* not necessarily specific to this Blu-ray, but cropping up frequently from this reviewer.

 

[haineshisway]

Don't we all? When was the last time someone started a convo with "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about but let me give you my opinion anyway."

Nobody states that - we just know Joking aside, if you cannot see the difference between people here posting opinions on this board who aren't positioning themselves as reviewers, and a fellow who IS positioning himself that way, well, you know exactly what I'm talking about here, so there's no real need to go on about this as you obviously see this one way and I obviously see this another way.

And what exactly is a convo? Is that another Dr. Svet thing, along the lines of his "resto?"

 

[Robert Crawford]

Let's stop with the critique of reviewers from other sites! It's a useless exercise without much chance of any resolve. Thank you.

 

[Tama]

Nobody states that - we just know Joking aside, if you cannot see the difference between people here posting opinions on this board who aren't positioning themselves as reviewers, and a fellow who IS positioning himself that way, well, you know exactly what I'm talking about here, so there's no real need to go on about this as you obviously see this one way and I obviously see this another way.

And what exactly is a convo? Is that another Dr. Svet thing, along the lines of his "resto?"

I guess then you take issues with individuals like Matt Hough who is an official reviewer for this site? An official reviewer for ones website is just that, a reviewer for that website. In the end you do the same thing they do, offer an opinion on what you see both audio and visual quality wise on these disc. And there's nothing wrong with that as is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone else dissenting opinion. Just that there are those who can express an opinion without a contempt for others.

You're right time to move on. Also please try to keep up with the acronyms of the times Bruce

 

[ShellOilJunior]

What if the old Playtime was black and white? Would you agree if he liked it better then? Imo he should only deduct points if he knows that the old version is truer to the colors when released than with the new version. He never claims to know that. On top of that he gave a perfect 5 to the old disc when in the review of the new vesion he admits that the new transfer is dramatically improved in image depth and clarity. To me this does not add up. Imo a more balanced review would still have the rating at 5 and he could then add that to him the colors of the first release look better which clearly would be a personal opinion as long as he has no proof that the old release has the intended look.

This is how I see it anyway, and no hard feelings towards Dr. Svet as he seems like a guy who is interested in the right kind of movies and I like that.

The rating scale is relative. I do look at scores but the words behind them mean more to me. Perhaps the reviewer's opinion and scores are not consistent. That's up to him to explain because again - they're relative.

 

[haineshisway]

I guess then you take issues with individuals like Matt Hough who is an official reviewer for this site? An official reviewer for ones website is just that, a reviewer for that website. In the end you do the same thing they do, offer an opinion on what you see both audio and visual quality wise on these disc. And there's nothing wrong with that as is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone else dissenting opinion. Just that there are those who can express an opinion without a contempt for others.

You're right time to move on. Also please try to keep up with the acronyms of the times Bruce

The Acronyms of the Times is the title of my next novel. I don't have many issues with MattH because he's not pretentious, doesn't act like a know-it-all, and writes clearly and succinctly. I don't always agree with his views on the films themselves or on the star ratings, but I have no problem with him for the reasons stated above. I don't take exception to ALL reviewers on all Internet sites - just most.

 

[rich_d]

Attack? Really? snip ... I should have thought that point would have been obvious

Well, Mr. Ames, I should think it would be obvious to you ... snip ... I put no more stock in Dr. Svet than I do with most online reviewers because most of them, when it comes to transfers, simply do not have the history to be commenting beyond the obvious.

Thank you for stating the obvious. He is not a "guy" with an opinion, he is a guy who positions himself as a reviewer who knows what he's talking about. I don't think he does ... snip

Nobody states that - we just know Joking aside, if you cannot see the difference between people here posting opinions on this board who aren't positioning themselves as reviewers, and a fellow who IS positioning himself that way, well, you know exactly what I'm talking about here, so there's no real need to go on about this as you obviously see this one way and I obviously see this another way.

“I expect that you must receive top marks at school, young lady."
Madeleine smiled as she stirred her tea. "There are always rewards for those who state the obvious frequently and with conviction.”
― Scott Westerfeld, Touching Darkness

 

[Persianimmortal]

Are we really debating whether a professional review should just be "one guy's opinion"? I hope not. A good review always provides facts which substantiate a reviewer's opinions. Thus there is a fine balance between objective and subjective components in every good review. The problem is that too many reviewers find it much easier to load up on the subjective component, and skimp on the objective part because it requires knowledge and research.

Also, any scoring system used by a particular reviewer should never be constantly fluctuating or "relative"; it should always be fixed and strictly comparable to any other score provided by the same reviewer - that's if the reviewer wants readers to actually make sense of the scores. There's no point giving one disc a 5 out of 5 if it is inaccurate, and then giving another disc 4 out of 5 when it is more accurate. If that is what's happening, the scores are totally useless and irrelevant.

We have enough people posting completely arbitrary, uneducated opinions on the Internet, we don't need professional reviewers to do the same thing as well.

 

[haineshisway]

“I expect that you must receive top marks at school, young lady."
Madeleine smiled as she stirred her tea. "There are always rewards for those who state the obvious frequently and with conviction.”
― Scott Westerfeld, Touching Darkness

Obviously.

 

[OliverK]

Are we really debating whether a professional review should just be "one guy's opinion"? I hope not. A good review always provides facts which substantiate a reviewer's opinions. Thus there is a fine balance between objective and subjective components in every good review. The problem is that too many reviewers find it much easier to load up on the subjective component, and skimp on the objective part because it requires knowledge and research.

Also, any scoring system used by a particular reviewer should never be constantly fluctuating or "relative"; it should always be fixed and strictly comparable to any other score provided by the same reviewer - that's if the reviewer wants readers to actually make sense of the scores. There's no point giving one disc a 5 out of 5 if it is inaccurate, and then giving another disc 4 out of 5 when it is more accurate. If that is what's happening, the scores are totally useless and irrelevant.

We have enough people posting completely arbitrary, uneducated opinions on the Internet, we don't need professional reviewers to do the same thing as well.

What is a professional review anyway? Seeing how much many reviewers are writing I would surely hope for them that they are professionals in the sense that they get paid some compensation but that does not necessarily mean that they have an eye for things that tend to annoy or delight me in a Blu-ray.

Regarding ratings I absolutely agree that the ratings should mean something beyond the day they were posted and the first thing in my opinion would be to have some explanation of the rating system in question and how it is used.

 

[Persianimmortal]

What is a professional review anyway? Seeing how much many reviewers are writing I would surely hope for them that they are professionals in the sense that they get paid some compensation but that does not necessarily mean that they have an eye for things that tend to annoy or delight me in a Blu-ray.

Not to be facetious, but the word professional has a clear meaning in English:

pro·fes·sion·aladjective prə-ˈfesh-nəl, -ˈfe-shə-nəl: relating to a job that requires special education, training, or skill: done or given by a person who works in a particular profession: paid to participate in a sport or activity

Of particular relevance to this discussion is the first definition above (bolded for emphasis).

It's true that anyone can write a review, but once you write a review for a large audience, and in particular if you are paid and/or selected to provide such reviews regularly, there are valid expectations that you have the requisite skills and knowledge to do the job properly. In other words, there is a clear distinction between a professional review by a reputable, knowledgeable reviewer, and one by a reviewer who may be passionate but not particularly experienced or lacking the appropriate knowledge. Most reviews fall into the latter category.

As for whether a reviewer has an eye for things that annoy or delight you personally, this is largely irrelevant. The aim of a good review should be to provide every reader with sufficient objective information which then allows each individual to make appropriate judgements as to whether they wish to purchase that product. The more facts and objective observations the reviewer provides, the more information we have with which to make the right decision based on our own tastes. This, by the way, is why I personally prefer screencaps along with a review: they provide additional objective data that I can judge with my own eyes and tastes.

Of course a review inevitably has a subjective component, whereby the reviewer will typically make personal judgments and provide an overall recommendation based on their own tastes. This is fine in moderation, but there again the reputation of the reviewer is important. Only if the reviewer is highly knowledgeable and has provided enough facts to back up their recommendation will I pay any attention to their advice.
It really isn't rocket science. Once upon a time, what I wrote above would actually be the way that things worked. What's made things confusing is that these days, any chimp with a keyboard can be "published" on the Internet, and this has greatly diluted the quality and focus of writing. As a result, reader expectations are at an all-time low, with virtually anything being accepted as a review or critique, churned out by authors who have no real insight into the subject they're writing about.

 

[schan1269]

Not to be facetious, but the word professional has a clear meaning in English:Of particular relevance to this discussion is the first definition above (bolded for emphasis).It's true that anyone can write a review, but once you write a review for a large audience, and in particular if you are paid and/or selected to provide such reviews regularly, there are valid expectations that you have the requisite skills and knowledge to do the job properly. In other words, there is a clear distinction between a professional review by a reputable, knowledgeable reviewer, and one by a reviewer who may be passionate but not particularly experienced or lacking the appropriate knowledge. Most reviews fall into the latter category.As for whether a reviewer has an eye for things that annoy or delight you personally, this is largely irrelevant. The aim of a good review should be to provide every reader with sufficient objective information which then allows each individual to make appropriate judgements as to whether they wish to purchase that product. The more facts and objective observations the reviewer provides, the more information we have with which to make the right decision based on our own tastes. This, by the way, is why I personally prefer screencaps along with a review: they provide additional objective data that I can judge with my own eyes and tastes.Of course a review inevitably has a subjective component, whereby the reviewer will typically make personal judgments and provide an overall recommendation based on their own tastes. This is fine in moderation, but there again the reputation of the reviewer is important. Only if the reviewer is highly knowledgeable and has provided enough facts to back up their recommendation will I pay any attention to their advice.It really isn't rocket science. Once upon a time, what I wrote above would actually be the way that things worked. What's made things confusing is that these days, any chimp with a keyboard can be "published" on the Internet, and this has greatly diluted the quality and focus of writing. As a result, reader expectations are at an all-time low, with virtually anything being accepted as a review or critique, churned out by authors who have no real insight into the subject they're writing about.

No doubt.Want some real comedy...Go find some review sites dedicated for MEMS/Pico projectors.I have yet to find one "dedicated*" site where the brains of the operation understand the difference between "supports 1080P" and "displays 1080P"*By dedicated means...not Projector Central/People etc...

 

[PMBen]

I think the newer transfer has the color scheme right where the older was inaccurately blueish. This belief is not because I like my Playtime greenish better, but because of a book.When Playtime was restored and re-released in 2002, a book detailing the history of the film and the reconstruction process was edited by Cahiers du cinéma. The authors were François Ede and Stephane Goudet, two persons involved in the restoration process and the book was full of frame enlargements of the film. It's pretty obvious by the level of detail provided in the book that the two authors are among the leading world experts in the history, look and sound of Playtime. And their frame enlargements match quite closely the color of the newer BR transfers (and also the DVDs that came before the 2nd Criterion edition of Playtime).I am quite convinced that the original looked closer to greenish than to blueish. A few years ago, when I saw the first Criterion BR of the film I remember thinking "why so blue?".

 

[haineshisway]

But the thing of it is, it really doesn't look greenish at all. It still has all the grays and blues you'd ever want - it just has more accurate skin tones. It's a great transfer with great color.

 

[bugsy-pal]

Yes, I agree about the colours - just based on caps, the skin tones do look better and overall the colour balance seems more natural. The first Criterion bluray did seem very steely blue, a bit moreso than the BFI version. I wonder if Criterion gave a bit of a boost in that direction themselves... perhaps they did it to compensate for the greenish hue that seemed to pervade earlier DVD releases of the film.

 

[haineshisway]

The grays and blues are part of the design of the film - where the previous transfer erred, and it's just so obvious when you watch them side by side, is in the skin tones, which are completely unnatural and washed out. Here they're correct, but you never lose the grays and blues of the design.

 

[OliverK]

Not to be facetious, but the word professional has a clear meaning in English:




Of particular relevance to this discussion is the first definition above (bolded for emphasis).

It's true that anyone can write a review, but once you write a review for a large audience, and in particular if you are paid and/or selected to provide such reviews regularly, there are valid expectations that you have the requisite skills and knowledge to do the job properly. In other words, there is a clear distinction between a professional review by a reputable, knowledgeable reviewer, and one by a reviewer who may be passionate but not particularly experienced or lacking the appropriate knowledge. Most reviews fall into the latter category.

As for whether a reviewer has an eye for things that annoy or delight you personally, this is largely irrelevant. The aim of a good review should be to provide every reader with sufficient objective information which then allows each individual to make appropriate judgements as to whether they wish to purchase that product. The more facts and objective observations the reviewer provides, the more information we have with which to make the right decision based on our own tastes. This, by the way, is why I personally prefer screencaps along with a review: they provide additional objective data that I can judge with my own eyes and tastes.

Of course a review inevitably has a subjective component, whereby the reviewer will typically make personal judgments and provide an overall recommendation based on their own tastes. This is fine in moderation, but there again the reputation of the reviewer is important. Only if the reviewer is highly knowledgeable and has provided enough facts to back up their recommendation will I pay any attention to their advice.

It really isn't rocket science. Once upon a time, what I wrote above would actually be the way that things worked. What's made things confusing is that these days, any chimp with a keyboard can be "published" on the Internet, and this has greatly diluted the quality and focus of writing. As a result, reader expectations are at an all-time low, with virtually anything being accepted as a review or critique, churned out by authors who have no real insight into the subject they're writing about.

Let's look at this again:

: relating to a job that requires special education, training, or skill

Obviously there is no special education or training available to become a "professional" Blu-ray reviewer and skill clearly is in the eye of the beholder.

So I would rather go with a more reasonable expectation as this is how things really work:

: paid to participate in a sport or activity

And I am not even sure that reviewers who are expected to be professionals are actually paid much for what they do or even anything in the form of real money. I know for a fact that for music magazines many reviewers write reviews because they get free LPs and sometimes only CDs - this is not really the kind of payment that one would expect for a professional as to make real money from of his vocation he would now need to go on and sell the discs he is given in order to make some money from his review.

Apart from that it is much better to not get worked up about these things and just observe people and their advices and accordingly select the reviewers, "professional" or chimp, who best live up to your expectations of informing you about new Blu-ray releases.

 

[Persianimmortal]

The key issue - and one of the reasons why we should all take this more seriously - is that consumers make purchasing decisions, sometimes extremely expensive purchasing decisions, based on reviews. It's really irrelevant whether someone gets paid to write a review or not. If they are providing a review to a large audience, they have a responsibility to make sure it's as accurate, informative, and unbiased as it possibly can be. Otherwise we'll continue to sink into a world where sponsored advertorials and ego-boosting opinion pieces will be the only things that pop up when we try to research our next purchase of anything.

P.S. - I promise this is the last time I take the thread off-topic