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

[Vincent_P]

Could have just deleted the comment and suspended him for the infraction to set an example. Trolls will see this and try and replicate the exact same behavior in other threads just to get them closed.


Anyway, my statement still stands. That place is still way too defensive when it comes to Criterion, whether it's their reviews that gloss over the obvious negatives, the moderators trying to silence people with valid criticism or the regular members entering mob mentality mode and gang attack the people with the contrarian opinion.

You do realize that the site you're claiming glosses over problems with Criterion releases gave DRESSED TO KILL only 2 out of 5 for video, right?


Vincent

 

[NegativeCreep]

You do realize that the site you're claiming glosses over problems with Criterion releases gave DRESSED TO KILL only 2 out of 5 for video, right?


Vincent

The only 2/5 that I'm aware of out of hundreds of Criterion reviews. There's no way that they could gloss over the disaster of Dressed to Kill, but they're trying to mitigate the situation by restricting people from saying anything about the release.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Could have just deleted the comment and suspended him for the infraction to set an example. Trolls will see this and try and replicate the exact same behavior in other threads just to get them closed.


Anyway, my statement still stands. That place is still way too defensive when it comes to Criterion, whether it's their reviews that gloss over the obvious negatives, the moderators trying to silence people with valid criticism or the regular members entering mob mentality mode and gang attack the people with the contrarian opinion.

I've seen such behavior go both ways. Right now, I'm seeing some comments become more angry, emotional and hostile. I understand there is an issue with this upcoming release, but when we start turning on people with a contrary opinion then we have a bigger problem which is uncivil discourse. This we will not allow here! Furthermore, posters are starting to be repetitive which doesn't add a lot of value to this discussion except a release of frustration onto each other. This thread can remain relevant without having to resort to such posting behavior. Let's not bring BR.com issues here!


Also, I combined the posts from another thread into this one so this BD release discussion can take place in one location.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I think the key thing is you can't judge a release based on screen caps. My personal feeling is that the first thing people see is the color difference...however...if you examine the caps the color on the Criterion is not "washed out" it appears the entire image is brighter, all the color is still there but brightness has been boosted to show more detail. For example in some of the caps from the two older discs you can't see the woodwork in the background, it's mostly just black. In the Criterion the woodwork in the background is visible. There are also shots in the Criterion where colors in the carpet are visible that are not visible in the two older blu-rays. So, to me it looks like there is actually more color visible in the Criterion transfer than the older ones.


So, the "color" issue I think is the same issue that occurs anytime a film is released with color that looks different than an older release and right now is all based on screen caps not actual examination of the blu-ray.


The second thing people notice, or complain about is the "stretching or squishing" of certain caps when they compare to caps from the older disc. Here people seem to be focusing on images of Nancy Allen or a lamp. When I looked at the image at DVD Beaver of Nancy Allen layng on the desk in front of Michael Caine and compared the image from the Criterion to the older caps I noticed that the image that appeared distorted was the older blu-ray image. Here is how I discovered this...if you look at the items on the desk in front of Michael Caine, one of which is a magnifying glass you will notice that these items look normal in the Criterion cap but in the older blu-ray caps these items look blown-up and stretched in a ridiculous fashion. They are most definitely distorted in the older blu-rays but look correct on the Criterion cap.


Now again, all we are looking at is caps at the moment so we can't judge the way an entire film looks by a few frames from the film. To me what I see is that the older blu-ray images seem slightly zoomed in and blown-up...possibly leading to the loss of some of the image and the older images are darker with the color adjusted for more red in the image.


I am not saying any of this to "defend" Criterion I am only making some observations. Basically, I think the image and detail on the Criterion and the framing on the Criterion looks better than what is on the older discs. The color will never be something that pleases everybody because people will always look at caps and pick the color scheme they most prefer...even if it was not what the filmmaker wanted.

 

[Matt Hough]

Also, I combined the posts from another thread into this one so this BD release discussion can take place in one location.

Thank you so much for doing that. It's much more convenient to read this discussion in one thread only.

 

[TheSteig]

maybe in some instances , why not use short video clips of everyone in motion and not stop the image to do a screen cap... lets see if the entire scene is squished with moving characters . Something like a 30 second preview to see how it looks when the characters are moving ?

 

[Thomas T]

it appears the entire image is brighter, all the color is still there but brightness has been boosted to show more detail. For example in some of the caps from the two older discs you can't see the woodwork in the background, it's mostly just black. In the Criterion the woodwork in the background is visible.

I apologize for digressing since this isn't restricted to Dressed To Kill but is that necessarily a "good" thing. I always thought the idea was to present a good approximation of what the film looked like originally at its initial theatrical release. Just maybe that woodwork was never important and never intended to be seen in detail. This idea of "let's give them more than they've ever seen" can be tricky and indeed alter the look of a film. I saw Dressed To Kill three times in one month when it opened in 1980 at three different theaters and that scene with Allen and Caine in his office at night was always very dark.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I'm not saying one is better or one is worse in terms of the brightness just that I don't think the problem is washed out color.


Here are the woodwork images which you will see on the right side of the image:

I don't think this is from the later scene with Nancy Allen where the office is dark.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

And for the sake of argument here are the Nancy Allen on the desk images:

Look at this image and you will notice that the items on the desk look normal in the Criterion and distorted in the older blu-ray image. Also once you have noticed this you will notice that Nancy Allen's face is also distorted on the older blu-ray.


This is the scene you talked about that was always dark and it remains dark on the Criterion.

 

[Cine_Capsulas]

Look at this image and you will notice that the items on the desk look normal in the Criterion and distorted in the older blu-ray image. Also once you have noticed this you will notice that Nancy Allen's face is also distorted on the older blu-ray.

Neither the objects on the desk nor Allen's face look distorted in the first picture. Like, at all.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Neither the objects on the desk nor Allen's face look distorted in the first picture. Like, at all.

Are you clicking on the images and looking at them full size?

 

[NegativeCreep]

Are you clicking on the images and looking at them full size?

There is nothing wrong at all with the first screencap, on the second one Nancy looks very crushed.


There are, however, a few screenshots of the Criterion that have the same proportions as the other discs that don't look stretched, so are you saying that those shots are stretched in the Criterion?


In the end there's no defending the Criterion anyway you look at it due to the inconsistencies and it's obviously squashed in the images where you try to say it's normal. I'm sorry, but if you think that the squashed frames are fine then you may need to visit your optician.


There is no way that this isn't squashed

 

[TheSteig]

Your argument is lacking substance now that Reggie has done some of his own shots. No matter what you prefer, maybe we can all agree Nancy Allen looks HOT laying down on the desk in her lingerie

 

[Robert Crawford]

There is nothing wrong at all with the first screencap, on the second one Nancy looks very crushed.


There are, however, a few screenshots of the Criterion that have the same proportions as the other discs that don't look stretched, so are you saying that those shots are stretched in the Criterion?


In the end there's no defending the Criterion anyway you look at it due to the inconsistencies and it's obviously squashed in the images where you try to say it's normal. I'm sorry, but if you think that the squashed frames are fine then you may need to visit your optician.


There is no way that this isn't squashed

You need to stop with the personal comments! You can disagree all you want, but making such comments doesn't validate your argument.

 

[Cine_Capsulas]

Are you clicking on the images and looking at them full size?

Yes.

 

[NegativeCreep]

You need to stop with the personal comments! You can disagree all you want, but making such comments doesn't validate your argument.

I'm sorry but those weren't meant to attack anyone. I'm sorry if it came out that way, but I just can't see why somebody would think that the "squashed" screenshots look normal.

 

[NegativeCreep]

Your argument is lacking substance now that Reggie has done some of his own shots. No matter what you prefer, maybe we can all agree Nancy Allen looks HOT laying down on the desk in her lingerie

So what about this? The iris in the first screenshot is from the current Blu-ray and you can see that it is the usual shape of an iris. In the second, the iris is oval.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Look, I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone. I am just discussing a blu-ray and if you are asking me which of those shots of Nancy Allen laying on the desk look correct...well...it's the Criterion every time if you are talking about composition and how objects look. I am not going to comment on which color looks correct because this is a highly stylized film and De Palma used different lenses and techniques to get different shots and so I think this accounts for why only some of the caps look "squished" while the rest of them look the same. I am saying that in that shot of Nancy Allen laying on the desk on the older blu-rays that shot is most certainly zoomed in and distorts the image. On the Criterion I am willing to bet that the shot looks as De Palma intended it to look. Now, that's not about which is "correct" and it is not about my eyes, it is just about my opinion and we all have one.

 

[Vincent_P]

Look, I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone. I am just discussing a blu-ray and if you are asking me which of those shots of Nancy Allen laying on the desk look correct...well...it's the Criterion every time if you are talking about composition and how objects look. I am not going to comment on which color looks correct because this is a highly stylized film and De Palma used different lenses and techniques to get different shots and so I think this accounts for why only some of the caps look "squished" while the rest of them look the same. I am saying that in that shot of Nancy Allen laying on the desk on the older blu-rays that shot is most certainly zoomed in and distorts the image. On the Criterion I am willing to bet that the shot looks as De Palma intended it to look. Now, that's not about which is "correct" and it is not about my eyes, it is just about my opinion and we all have one.

The top/bottom framing of the MGM and Criterion transfers is almost exacltly the same so the MGM can't be "zoomed in". The Criterion ONLY gains image at the sides, mostly the left where the soundtrack would go. The MGM transfer has never been accused of looking "off" when it came to the de-anamorphosising of the image until now.


"Different lenses" won't account for the stretching we're seeing in the Criterion release. The fact that the aspect ratio of both transfers is the same and they both have essentially the same top/bottom info BUT the Criterion gains picture at the sides and mostly the left side suggest that for some of the transfer, for whatever reason, the Criterion showed the full width of the 35mm frame including the soundtrack area and "unsqueezed" it into a 2.35:1 frame, which would account for the distortion since full-width 35mm including the soundtrack area unsqueezed should be 2.66:1 in order to be geomatrically correct.


So why are some parts of the Criterion "the same" as the MGM? Well, remember 35mm films are made up of multiple reels which have to be conformed and assembled after scanning. People have pointed out that most of the Angie Dickenson shots looks okay. Angie is in what, the first two reels of the film? Perhaps the first two reels were correctly sized and then something went wrong for the rest.


OR, there's the chance that they used multiple cameras to shoot this (it's not at all uncommon to have several cameras on a film shoot), and some of them were full-aperture, shooting into the soundtrack area, while others didn't record image information into that area. During the sizing, those shots would be cropped to remove the blank area at the side where the soundtrack would go, and when resized/unsqueezed to 2.35:1 those shots would look "correct".


While I don't put 100% stock in "screen shots" to tell the whole story, in terms of the framing discrepencies visable here, there definitely appears to be something amiss which much of the DRESSED TO KILL Criterion Blu-ray in terms of the sizing/unsqueezing of the anamorphic image. Many shots don't appear to have been "unsqueezed" enough, and the abundance of extra picture info on the left suggests that they didn't properly crop out the soundtrack area then squeezed what would have been a 2.66:1 unsqueezed image into a 2.35:1 area.


Vincent

 

[NegativeCreep]

Look, I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone. I am just discussing a blu-ray and if you are asking me which of those shots of Nancy Allen laying on the desk look correct...well...it's the Criterion every time if you are talking about composition and how objects look. I am not going to comment on which color looks correct because this is a highly stylized film and De Palma used different lenses and techniques to get different shots and so I think this accounts for why only some of the caps look "squished" while the rest of them look the same. I am saying that in that shot of Nancy Allen laying on the desk on the older blu-rays that shot is most certainly zoomed in and distorts the image. On the Criterion I am willing to bet that the shot looks as De Palma intended it to look. Now, that's not about which is "correct" and it is not about my eyes, it is just about my opinion and we all have one.

Just did a circle check on the mirror in the background and the old release seemed perfect, in the new one the mirror is oval which would be very unusual.


To me, the objects on the desk look very slim in the Criterion screenshot and Nancy looks crushed and unnaturally proportioned.