Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Criterion Press Release: On The Waterfront (Blu-ray)


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 of 12 Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Advanced Member

  • 37,284 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted November 15 2012 - 09:46 AM









Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

gallery_269895_23_10043.jpg Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders gallery_269895_23_1316.jpg Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

gallery_269895_23_773.jpg Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive gallery_269895_23_992.jpgClick Here for our complete DVD review archive

gallery_269895_23_7246.jpg Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule gallery_269895_23_3120.jpg Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#2 of 12 oscar_merkx

oscar_merkx

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 7,632 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 2002

Posted November 15 2012 - 09:51 AM

Truly outstanding news :D
Toastmasters International

Communication is Everything

#3 of 12 Russell G

Russell G

    Fake Shemp

  • PipPipPip
  • 9,519 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 20 2002
  • Real Name:Russell
  • LocationDeadmonton

Posted November 15 2012 - 10:04 AM

Agree! Those specs make this look like one of the best Criterion releases period. Can't wait.


My wallet cries me to sleep!
 
This post kills threads!


#4 of 12 JoHud

JoHud

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 2,299 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 11 2007
  • Real Name:Joe Hudak

Posted November 15 2012 - 11:38 AM

This one's loaded with extras. Also, this is a rare instance in which both 1.33:1 academy ratio and 1.85:1 widescreen presentations will be available. Is there debate on which is the "correct" presentation? Edit: Missed that the default is 1.66:1. That makes three different aspect ratios!

#5 of 12 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Advanced Member

  • 2,720 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted November 15 2012 - 11:59 AM

http://www.hometheat...50#post_4001936

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com

 

As there has been some colorful debate about the meaning of "Director-approved" transfers and how it relates to how widespread 1.66 was in the UK, I will make the following point. The dominant aspect ratio at British Studios between 1955-1970 WAS 1.75. This is based on research going through trade listings of hundreds of British films, as well as studio archives and other primary sources. 1.85 was the second most listed aspect ratio, with 1.65/1.66 a distant third.

 

Tom Crossplot - July 2013


#6 of 12 Pioneer14

Pioneer14

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 12 2012

Posted November 15 2012 - 12:27 PM

Must Own!:cool:

#7 of 12 Mark-P

Mark-P

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,927 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted November 15 2012 - 12:49 PM

That's one way to shut everybody up: offer the film in every conceivable aspect ratio! :)

#8 of 12 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Advanced Member

  • 2,720 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted November 15 2012 - 12:53 PM

What about 1.75 and 2.1?

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com

 

As there has been some colorful debate about the meaning of "Director-approved" transfers and how it relates to how widespread 1.66 was in the UK, I will make the following point. The dominant aspect ratio at British Studios between 1955-1970 WAS 1.75. This is based on research going through trade listings of hundreds of British films, as well as studio archives and other primary sources. 1.85 was the second most listed aspect ratio, with 1.65/1.66 a distant third.

 

Tom Crossplot - July 2013


#9 of 12 Yorkshire

Yorkshire

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 995 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2009

Posted November 15 2012 - 11:03 PM

That's one way to shut everybody up: offer the film in every conceivable aspect ratio! :)

What about 1.75 and 2.1?

Three minutes. Is that a record? :D Steve W
Correct a fool and he will hate you, correct a wise man and he will thank you.

#10 of 12 Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Advanced Member

  • 37,284 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted November 16 2012 - 10:34 PM

NOW AVAILABLE FOR PREORDER





Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

gallery_269895_23_10043.jpg Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders gallery_269895_23_1316.jpg Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

gallery_269895_23_773.jpg Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive gallery_269895_23_992.jpgClick Here for our complete DVD review archive

gallery_269895_23_7246.jpg Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule gallery_269895_23_3120.jpg Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#11 of 12 Dick

Dick

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 3,722 posts
  • Join Date: May 22 1999
  • Real Name:Rick

Posted November 18 2012 - 06:06 AM

I'm thrilled about this BD except for one aspect of it: The Richard Schickel commentary. I realize Schickel is considered to be somewhat of a Kazan expert, but having just listened to his commentaries for A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN and THE WILD RIVER, I am not optimistic. I once considered Schickel to be an insightful critic (his book The Disney Version was inspiring for me), but he is not an articulate commentator, perhaps because he does not do the preparation or have his notes lined up for the recording session. If Roger Ebert had given us the Kazan tracks or the Eastwood tracks, he'd have been fully prepared, and his commentaries would have been dense and informative. With Schickel, you get a lot of "And here we see..." comments that do nothing more than describe what we can plainly see for ourselves onscreen! Kazan deserved a better biographer and video commenator. I wish Criterion had broken free from his shallow track to give us a truly educational historian track. Oh, well.

#12 of 12 Mark-P

Mark-P

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,927 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted February 03 2013 - 03:35 PM

Blu-ray.com has screencaps up. I think the 1.66:1 is probably ideal and is the version I will choose to view. However, Criterion made a bum decision with the so-called "full-aperture" 1.33:1 version. The problem is, it is slightly side-cropped compared to the other two widescreen versions. They had the erroneous idea that the ratio should be 1.33:1 instead of 1.37:1. If they had done it right, there would have been no cropping at all of the full-aperture version. :(




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users