Criterion Press Release: Dressed To Kill (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[Keith Cobby]

The only person who can be pleased with this is Mr de Palma. Many of these 1980's films look 'muddy' on blu-ray. If this has been scanned from the negative how is it that this vintage of film used such poor quality film stock. Didn't cinematographers care in the 1980's or was it simply down to budget.

 

[Worth]

The only person who can be pleased with this is Mr de Palma. Many of these 1980's films look 'muddy' on blu-ray. If this has been scanned from the negative how is it that this vintage of film used such poor quality film stock. Didn't cinematographers care in the 1980's or was it simply down to budget.

There was a far greater use of existing locations and available, natural light in the 70s and 80s than there is now, or than there was in the more studio-bound productions prior to the late-60s. Faster film stocks were also fashionable, which tended to be grainer, as was a softer, more gauzy style of photography.


The other thing to keep in mind is that we're now seeing older films in a way that was never seen before. Prints struck directly off the negative were exceedingly rare and were probably never seen outside of LA and maybe New York. Catch a 35mm screening of a vintage print sometime - compared to 4K or 2K digital (or even blu-ray), you'll be shocked by how soft it is.

 

[TheSteig]

I decided to cancel the pre-order because Im just NOT comfortable with what Im seeing, even the review at *the other forum* that most of the time I take with a grain of salt seems to be in agreement with Gary at DVD Beaver...

One thing Ive learned in life is that if I dont feel comfortable buying something, I dont do it - something is really wrong with this release . I can always get it later if Criterion does something to fix this apparent issue. Going by the reviews Im just *not feeling* good about this release.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I suspect, however, that Mr. DePalma went a bit too far revising the color timing (oh, well it's his film anyway).

It's his film but i remember the uproar over the first release of The French Connection and i also remember the issues with The Big Country, i don't have a clue how this film is supposed to look but a screencap is a frame taken directly off the disc, it is essentially a frame from the film, it doesn't lie unless its been taken incorrectly, the problem from judging colours or black levels from such a frame is that a lot of displays are not calibrated, you can judge other things in the image, i find it hard to believe Arrow messed up their transfer but not so hard to believe a director decided to make changes to his film just because the digital tools allow it 35 years later.


I should mention i am currently at this exact minute trying to watch The Avengers season 4 on True Drama here in the UK, seems to be the correct aspect ratio ( 4/3) but the faces and everything else are just off, everyone looks slightly fatter than they should be, not by much but its noticeable to my eye, so these things do happen.


Anyway, looking at some of the caps for Dressed To Kill, it looks almost like a deliberate lens decision for some scenes, reminds me a little of a less extreme version of the fisheye lens, it'll be interesting to hear comments from Criterion and Brian De Palma on this.

 

[Thomas T]

There was a far greater use of existing locations and available, natural light in the 70s and 80s than there is now, or than there was in the more studio-bound productions prior to the late-60s. Faster film stocks were also fashionable, which tended to be grainer, as was a softer, more gauzy style of photography.


The other thing to keep in mind is that we're now seeing older films in a way that was never seen before. Prints struck directly off the negative were exceedingly rare and were probably never seen outside of LA and maybe New York. Catch a 35mm screening of a vintage print sometime - compared to 4K or 2K digital (or even blu-ray), you'll be shocked by how soft it is.

Many films of the 70s and very early 80s are bound to be disappointing to those expecting sharp, colorful transfers. When and if Altman's McCabe And Mrs. Miller makes it to blu ray, I can already see the complaints about the grain and softness.

 

[Cine_Capsulas]

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

The previous transfers are not stretched because faces aren't inhumanly alongated, ovals are ovals and triangles are triangles.


I'm baffled by the defenses this release has been getting on this forum. Is the alleged seal of approval of a director and Criterion's reputation so important that people are willing to accept a disc with a clearly, unmistakably DISTORTED image?


Dressed to Kill is not a Sokurov film, fellas.

 

[Douglas R]

Many films of the 70s and very early 80s are bound to be disappointing to those expecting sharp, colorful transfers. When and if Altman's McCabe And Mrs. Miller makes it to blu ray, I can already see the complaints about the grain and softness.

That's certainly when the rot started

 

[cineMANIAC]

DePalma is the only director I know of that shot ALL of his films prior to Scarface in that gauzy, washed-out style - is there anyone else that shot their films in that way? Horrible stylistic choice if you ask me. Standard practice at the time or was it a matter of studios/producers cutting corners?

 

[Worth]

I wouldn't call it standard practice, but it was a fashionable. It certainly wouldn't have saved any time or money to shoot in that style.

 

[Cine_Capsulas]

In the screencaps from Blu-ray.com it seems like scenes with Angie Dickinson are unaffected by the stretching. The problem isn't even consistent throughout, which makes it even weirder.

 

[McCrutchy]

In the screencaps from Blu-ray.com it seems like scenes with Angie Dickinson are unaffected by the stretching. The problem isn't even consistent throughout, which makes it even weirder.

That's because you can bet someone was paying close, personal attention to every frame Angie is in. I know I'd be.

 

[Will Krupp]

In the screencaps from Blu-ray.com it seems like scenes with Angie Dickinson are unaffected by the stretching. The problem isn't even consistent throughout, which makes it even weirder.

Maybe DePalma decided to exact revenge against his ex-wife by making her look like Joyce "Lovely Ducks" Grenfell.

 

[Bob Cashill]

I love the way those De Palma films look, soft and inviting, and shot by great DPs who knew exactly what they were doing. Looking forward to seeing that release in motion; to hell with the screen caps (and if I hate it, I have the other two releases of a personal favorite, and I can enjoy it for some promising new extras).

 

[CraigF]

I can tolerate a lot of grain. DNL and EE have to be what many here would call outrageously egregious (recall!) before it starts to bother me *a bit*. (Don't ask me about sound anomalies that most others would never even notice though...)


But when something that's supposed to be round doesn't look round...that drives me a bit nuts. My eye, quite possibly everybody's brain in fact, can immediately detect lack of circularity. The perfect shape instantly registers as imperfect, so something's wrong. End of story for me, whatever the reason.

 

[Vincent_P]

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

12245_28.jpg


even the headlights in this world are oval!

12245_20.jpg


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:

4786_17.jpg



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

Now, I'm not saying there isn't possibly a problem with this release, but re: your second example of the headlights in the background, said headlights are out-of-focus and out-of-focus parts of an anamorphically-shot movie like DRESSED TO KILL film will "stretch", so you get oval out-of-focus lights and round objects in the background.


Parts of the image that are in focus should be geometrically correct, though.


Vincent

 

[Vincent_P]

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

Only out-of-focus elements will "stretch" (i.e., lights in the background), any part of the frame that's in-focus should look geometrically correct.


Vincent

 

[Tom Logan]

Maybe everyone reading this thread knows this, but to state the obvious: FRAMING in a DePalma film is essential to his storytelling and his aesthetic, much as color is essential to Bertolucci and sound is to Lynch.


In this film (and in many of his other films), DePalma deliberately trains us to try to look EVERYWHERE in the frame at all times, or we (like his hapless protagonists) might miss something.


For instance in DTK, in that great pan across the steps of the museum, if you blink, you'll miss something very, very important (and truly frightening when you see it). Or look at the bric-a-brac on Michael Caine's office shelves. Story is being told everywhere in the frame. (And not to mention all his split-screen sequences, forcing us to scrutinize two scenes simultaneously. Attention must be paid!)


So, to my mind, it's a pretty big effing deal if there's suddenly 5-10% more image on the Criterion than in previous releases. Maybe Criterion's is correct; maybe not.


But an explanation is in order.

 

[Cine_Capsulas]

But when something that's supposed to be round doesn't look round...that drives me a bit nuts. My eye, quite possibly everybody's brain in fact, can immediately detect lack of circularity. The perfect shape instantly registers as imperfect, so something's wrong. End of story for me, whatever the reason.

Exactly.


That's why I noticed my Brazilian DVD edition of Muriel ou le temps d'un retour was stretched. I had never seen the film before, had read absolutely no reviews of the disc beforehand, yet there it was. No need to compare to other releases in order to detect (and be bothered by) such an issue as stretching.

 

[AshJW]

I suspect, however, that Mr. DePalma went a bit too far revising the color timing (oh, well it's his film anyway).

This argument worked also for Mr. Lucas ...

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

I wonder if Criterion would somehow issue the release as a 2 Disc set with the new DePalma Transfer and another disc with the 4K "untouched" transfer at least take away the green push, washed out look and the stretching and I'd be thrilled. I just want a really great transfer with that Filmways Logo intact! Anyhow I can dream.