Criterion Press Release: Dressed To Kill (Blu-ray) (2 Viewers)

[haineshisway]

Have we not learned not to rush to judgment on these things, especially in terms of comparing to other transfers? It's also important to note, that while he doesn't really have a clue, the Beaver, who is the ONLY one of us who's actually seen the transfer, ultimately says he's beginning to think the Criterion is correct. In other words, our eyes are fooled by the caps because it is not possible to look at the Criterion and judge it when the cap above it is being used for comparison - of course they look different - they ARE different. This isn't the first time this has happened - if I recall there was much hue and cry about stretching on Westworld, but there it was obvious the new transfer was NOT stretched but correct and the older HAD been stretched. Criterion is not infallible but nor are they stupid and until I see this I'm not rushing to judgment and saying it's wrong. Can't comment on the color, either, until I've actually seen it, but even looking at the caps, the Criterion looks more accurate to me in terms of the cameraman's style back then.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Screwy proportions isn't something one would ever really notice in isolation unless it was very extreme. I imagine anyone watching the Criterion would be pretty happy, but that does not mean it is correct. What is most telling is that in nearly all of the comparisons the Criterion shows a very large gain in image information on the left only; the three other sides are much the same as the last transfer. Yes, it could be the old transfers that were always wrong but the fact this new one is gaining on the left only makes me suspicious.


They went back to the OCN for this, and all that erroneous space on the left that would have been hidden by the soundtrack on prints would have been right there for the taking. Isn't it possible they transferred that area and instead of trimming it like they should have, they instead compressed their wider than usual image down to 2.35:1? Leaving us with a transfer that is both incorrectly framed and dimensionally altered?

 

[CraigF]

...that while he doesn't really have a clue, the Beaver, who is the ONLY one of us who's actually seen the transfer, ultimately says he's beginning to think the Criterion is correct. ...

He always says that. It is extremely rare he doesn't prefer a Criterion, regardless of or in spite of the lack of any facts. Even when two or more versions have significant differences, and which set of "flaws" you might prefer is up to you, he always prefers the Criterion. Going back to the DVD days when Crit put out a lot of crap, stuff that wasn't optimally presented (never mind the source!) even for it's time ("best available" has no logical connection to "good" or "correct", but sounds fine for marketing).


Really all I'm saying is people who don't know for sure shouldn't say "this is the best version" sans facts when there are technical discrepancies among various apparently-fine versions. If someone is given discs by a company, that should be clearly stated in each "review". IMO. Especially these days, when the line between reviews and advertising barely exists in the general consumer market. It's always good to know where your info "comes from", some sources matter more than others.


I buy both Criterion and Arrow regularly. I am pretty happy with the stuff they're both putting out these days on BD, but can only speak for what I've bought of course, and not in general. I happen to have the Arrow BD of this title, and have no opinion on the matter, had never seen the film before this BD.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Remember folks, this is the guy who calls slightly opening up a 1.85:1 transfer "bastardizing". He's been a long bad joke since 2006 with his endless bias towards Masters of Cinema and silly made-up terminology/purple prose review style. I find Gary pretty much locked in on my list of worst Blu-ray critics arround, worse than "Glen Excellent" at this point.

 

[Cine_Capsulas]

even looking at the caps, the Criterion looks more accurate to me in terms of the cameraman's style back then.

Vertical stretching was a style?

 

[Will Krupp]

Vertical stretching was a style?

Not to put words in Bruce's mouth, but I THINK he means OTHER than the vertical stretching


but honestly, circles suddenly becoming ovals is a dead giveaway that something isn't right! What are the chances that the previous transfers were wrong and just so happened to incorrectly stretch the ovals into perfect circles?

 

[Worth]

Not to put words in Bruce's mouth, but I THINK he means OTHER than the vertical stretching


but honestly, circles suddenly becoming ovals is a dead giveaway that something isn't right! What are the chances that the previous transfers were wrong and just so happened to incorrectly stretch the ovals into perfect circles?

I have no idea which one is correct, but this was shot in anamorphic Panavision, which can indeed stretch circles into ovals.

 

[haineshisway]

Vertical stretching was a style?

Actually, if you read my post at that point in the post I was talking about - the color, not the supposed stretching.

 

[haineshisway]

I have no idea which one is correct, but this was shot in anamorphic Panavision, which can indeed stretch circles into ovals.

Yep. The circles may have always been ovals. Rushing to judgment is never a good idea.

 

[Ruz-El]

Aside from the presumed stretching, I think the Criterion looks pretty good. I'll wait for some HTF reviews before writing this one off.

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

They went back to the OCN for this, and all that erroneous space on the left that would have been hidden by the soundtrack on prints would have been right there for the taking. Isn't it possible they transferred that area and instead of trimming it like they should have, they instead compressed their wider than usual image down to 2.35:1? Leaving us with a transfer that is both incorrectly framed and dimensionally altered?

Interesting theory, but it doesn't account for the extra information on the right hand side of the frame. I think if one wasn't doing a direct A/B comparison you'd never notice this supposed "issue". I can't say which is correct (isn't it just as possible the previous transfer was stretched?) so I'll put my faith in Criterion and the director of the movie. I'm looking forward to this release!

Neil

 

[Rick Z.]

In my humble opinion the new blu ray is definately squished.


As we know, DTK was scanned straight from the negative. This element, of course, includes image information on the left side of the frame that will never be seen at the theaters since the sound stripe will be placed there on the prints.


From what I've read in the past, it's not an uncommon practice to scan the whole film element (complete with sprockets) when the image harvest is performed. According to James White (from Arrow) it helps when performing image stabilization and it will have to be discarded at some point during the mastering process... and this is the part where (I think) someone screwed up.


It would not be the only time something like this happened. Remember the original Great Escape DVD? (the one with the ultra-wide aspect ratio). It mistakenly included a large portion of the image from the soundtrack area. I also think the first Spartacus DVD also included the image from the left deriving from an incorrect extraction method.


On top of that, the Criterion Dressed to Kill looks as if everything was compressed to fit the 2.35:1 video window, not unlike an anamorphic DVD used to look on a 4:3 tv with the 16:9 setting turned on.


I also agree that previous releases cannot be cited as a reference... but really.... Nancy Allen's face looks so abnormal in that screen capture. And the lamps definately look like ovals.... and the giveaway.... theres a LOT of never-before.seen image from the left side (I can only guess, from the soundtrack area).


I will not pass judgement on the color timing. One of the most contentious aspects when evaluating a video release. I will only say I find that screenshot of Ms. Allen's eyes a bit uhmm....strange.



Oh, well, just my two cents....

 

[haineshisway]

Nancy Allen's face only looks odd if you're comparing it to the cap above. Now, a simple Google search of Nancy Allen and dressed to kill turns up a bunch of stills (not frame grabs, actual stills by a photographer). As it was in Carrie, her face is thin, sorry. Here. Looks thin to me.

 

[Tom Logan]

Other than Rick's (very plausible sounding to a non-expert) explanation, what might explain the additional left side image information? How would that happen?

 

[haineshisway]

Again, who knows WHAT the previous transfer was, how it was done, how it was cropped. You simply cannot assume the previous transfer was correct. Then again, Mr. De Palma may have seen the extra side info and liked it. I know when I did the transfer of my film we absolutely used the little bit of extra side info and then cropped to 1.78 rather than 1.85 because using the extra side info basically made 1.78 into a kind of 1.85.

 

[Will Krupp]

Nancy Allen's face only looks odd if you're comparing it to the cap above. Now, a simple Google search of Nancy Allen and dressed to kill turns up a bunch of stills (not frame grabs, actual stills by a photographer). As it was in Carrie, her face is thin, sorry. Here. Looks thin to me.

But Bruce, this isn't just "thin." Her face looks distorted and almost "horse-like" This shot looks odd without comparing it to anything:

even the headlights in this world are oval!

Ironically enough, the still you found looks a lot like the ORIGINAL transfer (perfect circles in the artwork and everything)


This is from the old transfer:

The blu-ray.com review is up and he gives the video quality a "2" based on what he calls "extreme" anomalies

There are some very strange anomalies on this upcoming release of Brian De Palma's classic thriller Dressed to Kill. The film has been recently restored in 4K and the new transfer that was created was supervised by Mr. De Palma, but I wonder if he has seen the Blu-ray. Because some of the visual anomalies are quite extreme and I have not been able to confirm that they were not caused by a technical error of some sort, I will attempt to gather additional information and will update our review with my findings before the official release date. However, folks interested in owning Dressed to Killon Blu-ray should keep in mind that our review was produced with a final market version.

 

[Giovanni DN]

Wow!! Criterion releases is a steaming pile of dog shit! What an embarrassment!

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I'm going to go in the opposite direction here and say (only after examining those screen caps not having seen the Criterion blu-ray) that the Criterion looks like the superior transfer, on the whole looks more correct to me, and the largest difference I seem to see is the Criterion is much brighter for the most part. You can see colors and detail in the Criterion that are not on the other two blu-rays. The Criterion is different but I am guessing it is different in the correct way.


I also would say we are dealing with a highly stylized De Palma film here and the look of the first couple of blu-rays is quite possibly not at all correct. Basically, I would withhold any judgement until I actually have seen the blu-ray from Criterion because those screen caps are just going to drive people crazy.


I will say if you are going to look at them blow those caps up to maximum size and then examine from there. Much of the time the Criterion does not look "squished" it looks the same but in certain caps there is a difference. If you blow-up the caps of Nancy Allen on the desk to max size and frame those up so you are looking at the same section to me the image that seems distorted is the one from the first two blu-rays and the Criterion looks better and more correct...but hey, they are caps and again I would look at the blu-ray when it comes out and I think that is the true test not toggling between screen caps.

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

Canceled order. It is really HARD to defend this release. Yes the images are at times stretched. You have shapes on Keith Gordon's chalk board that should be triangles etc and they are incorrect on the Criterion transfer. You have globes that are now oval. Possibly a Panavision anamorphic lense issue, but how come it never plagued 2 other Blu ray releases (US / UK)?


The color INcorrection changes most notably on screen shots of Nancy Allen at the police station have went from white to a greenish push. Same with notepads etc in other shots. This teal push is killing too many great movies on Blu-Ray. On top of the teal now we also have washed out images lacking detail in many scenes. Honestly how is this possible? We can try to defend the release all we want, but the facts are in front of you. Either DePalma needs new glasses, or Criterion didn't care enough do do this transfer justice. 4K transfers shouldn't look worse than a "dated" MGM transfer. The MGM looks amazing in comparison.


The release needs delayed until Criterion can release a quality product. Pre-orders should be canceled. Criterion does NOT deserve to get sales from such a horrible release. I wish I could defend it but having the original FilmWays Logo intact finally isn't enough of a selling point. The MGM disc is still the best edition in the U.S.


Let Criterion know how you feel, be nice but let them know if you canceled your pre-order. [email protected]

 

[Rick Z.]

Judging by the blu-ray.com screenshots, the "squeeze" problem does not affect the entire film, there are indeed some shots that look fine (and centered). I suspect, however, that Mr. DePalma went a bit too far revising the color timing (oh, well it's his film anyway).