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

[TravisR]

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...

Yeah, I think they're useful as a tool to point towards a potential problem that a viewer should keep a look out for. They're not undeniable proof and they're not a reason to storm Castle Criterion with a pitchfork and torch but from my admittedly uneducated POV, I am certainly curious as to why things look squished on the Criterion disc.

 

[Footstank40]

It was becoming more than criticism and *Pro-B* Sven had asked the members to *cool it* on the discussion but as usual , members need to chime in talking about castrating themselves to idiotic comments like this below :


They deliberately did this just to make me angry and miserable on purpose. **** Criterion. They are sinking their reputation to the ground with this slapdash example of pure corporate greed. I wanted to own this disc and now I never will, there will be a gap in my life, being forced to buy the MGM disc because this is the ABSOLUTELY WORST THING THEY HAVE DONE TO ME!!!

THEY WILL NEVER FIX THIS, PERIOD.

I agree that was an idiotic comment. What you are missing is that the comment was made in a sarcastic manner, meant to make people who are complaining about this release look foolish. Read the thread. That poster has a history of mocking others for criticizing anything.


Apparently that thread was locked due to that comment, and I let a moderator know that was just a guy acting like an idiot because he can't stand it when people complain about stuff. The mod told me that was not why the thread was locked, that there were a lot of deleted posts that I probably didn't see.


Maybe so, but why the heck was that post not deleted?

 

[CraigF]

I'm similarly cursed Craig. Line anomalies will always jump out at me more than colour grading issues.

I bet you just love aliasing then. "Line anomalies" is a good description of what bends by head.


[I didn't mention all the things that do bug me, was just setting the stage that I'm fairly tolerant of common complaints from the discerning. Video issues have to get bad by their standards to truly bother me, in general. This doesn't mean I don't notice those other things, I do, but they don't annoy me. These things have nothing to do with this Criterion release, just general talk.]

 

[CraigF]

Ridiculous, and now the thread is locked...


That site really does get its knickers in a twist whenever criticism is directed towards Criterion.

Not in some of its subforums. A perceived unilateral praising of Criterion will get you the most ire.


But I get your point. There's a lot of juvenile style of criticism that goes on there, you have to be selective. They also have the great (IMO) Michael Reuben, and "the Doctor" ain't too shabby either.

 

[Thomas T]

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

Allen older blu.jpg

Allen Criterion.jpg


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.

While the second is obviously brighter than the first, I see no difference in the image. They both look the same. I see no distortion in either screen cap.

 

[Footstank40]

While the second is obviously brighter than the first, I see no difference in the image. They both look the same. I see no distortion in either screen cap.

These comments don't help if you aren't going to actually try. Because I'm not sure how you can say that unless you only looked for a split second.


The top pic is cropped on the side where the soundtrack area would be on an element meant for projection.


The bottom pic opens up the matting on the left and then horizontally squeezes the image to fit in a 2:35 frame.

 

[Kenneth_C]

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

Allen older blu.jpg

Allen Criterion.jpg


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.

The items on the desk in the Criterion don't look "normal" to me at all. In particular, the push-button phone looks more oblong than I am used to seeing from dozens of years of desk jobs. Similarly, whereas most switchplates are square, the one on the wall in the Criterion looks squished and rectangular.


Also, look at the white lamp on the shelf through the doorway. The Criterion makes it look slightly oval, whereas I'd bet the real lamp would have a round globe as can be seen in the other picture.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Well, in my opinion, I think the items on the desk look more normal in the Criterion image. However, again, we are discussing screen caps which is a futile exorcise and so I can't make any definitive judgement based on single frame captures. I prefer the framing on the Criterion caps but again, I'd like to see the whole thing in motion. I watched the older blu-ray yesterday and I had no problem with it but did feel that in some shots the framing on the left side of the screen looked off because it sometimes ran directly through a characters head for example. No real problems with it though and while watching it I never thought "Oh, this looks stretched!" or anything like that.


For what it is worth, I am a big fan of De Palma and his thrillers and I love this film so, as with everybody else, I just want it to look as great as it can. I have no interest in defending Criterion or arguing with anybody over screen caps. I won't continue to post thoughts in this thread until Criterion or De Palma comments on the Criterion disc.

 

[Will Krupp]

Third major review with the same conclusion is up at Criterion Forum (though, interestingly, the reviewer places the squishing problem as not occurring until after about 20 minutes in...)


http://criterionforum.org/DVD-review/dressed-to-kill-blu-ray/the-criterion-collection/1454

 

[EddieLarkin]

That review pretty much confirms without a doubt there is a major problem here. The first 5 caps, all taken from the first 21 minutes (presumably the first reel) all look absolutely fine. Cap 6 onwards the squishing is completely obvious and likely indicates that when the transfer was performed something was set incorrectly when they moved onto the second reel. What's most shocking is how no one noticed! This also explains why some of the Blu-ray.com and DVDBeaver caps do not display any squishing: they all came from the first 21 minutes.

 

[nyguy2046]

Third major review with the same conclusion is up at Criterion Forum (though, interestingly, the reviewer places the squishing problem as not occurring until after about 20 minutes in...)


http://criterionforum.org/DVD-review/dressed-to-kill-blu-ray/the-criterion-collection/1454

Also, this new review provides more evidence that the color scheme is indeed off. There are two caps from the museum scene - the first (probably from about the 16 minute mark in the film) shows white walls. The next cap (20 minute mark) has decidedly greener-looking white walls - from the same place/location in the same scene!


I know the "squishing" is the main flaw apparent in this release, but I've heard a lot of "oh the color scheme is open to interpretation/I never saw this in the original release so not sure how the colors are supposed to look". The colors are off - sorry.

 

[haineshisway]

Still have to see it and will in a couple of weeks. BUT - re the color and calling out the two caps in the museum scene - different shots, different lighting, cannot compare. And in the cap that follows where Angie Dickenson is on the steps - not a whiff of green anywhere - pure gray for the steps pure white for her coat.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Everything else about the transfer, including the colour, looks great as far as I am concerned. I will happily replace my Arrow if Criterion fix this, and now that there is a very strong indication this is a technical error rather than a choice on Mr De Palma's part, I fully expect them to do so.

 

[TravisR]

...now that there is a very strong indication this is a technical error rather than a choice on Mr De Palma's part, I fully expect them to do so.

Yeah, Criterion fixed a comparatively minor mistake on Eraserhead last year so I'd expect a fix for this too.

 

[Vincent_P]

That review pretty much confirms without a doubt there is a major problem here. The first 5 caps, all taken from the first 21 minutes (presumably the first reel) all look absolutely fine. Cap 6 onwards the squishing is completely obvious and likely indicates that when the transfer was performed something was set incorrectly when they moved onto the second reel. What's most shocking is how no one noticed! This also explains why some of the Blu-ray.com and DVDBeaver caps do not display any squishing: they all came from the first 21 minutes.

The split-sceeen screenshot is pretty good evidence of the soundtrack area incorrectly shown, as the image isn't even close to a perfect split down the middle but is noticeably off-center with a big extra chunk on the left half of the frame. Also, the screen-grab that shows the stop-watch. Yeah, pretty sure that would be round and not oblong (and the stop-watch is in focus so one couldn't put the blame on amamorphic stretching of out-of-focus parts of the frame).


Vincent

 

[CraigF]

I bet more people are aware of this release now than they would have been if it had been "perfect" from the get-go. Nothing like a bit of controversy to spur recognition and sales. Criterion looks the good guy for responding to customers, BDP and associates get a little current web push. It'll all be shortly mostly forgotten. I say it can't hurt the chances for more BDP on BD, not that it's been going too badly recently.

 

[nyguy2046]

Still have to see it and will in a couple of weeks. BUT - re the color and calling out the two caps in the museum scene - different shots, different lighting, cannot compare. And in the cap that follows where Angie Dickenson is on the steps - not a whiff of green anywhere - pure gray for the steps pure white for her coat.

The two shots in the museum scene are not different lighting. For those familiar with the sequence, they're two walls in adjoining rooms with the same lighting.

I understand people's reluctance to weigh in on this release until it's out. However, I feel comfortable calling out the color inconsistencies as I'm very familiar with the film. The comparison caps to the MGM/Arrow release also indicate that the Criterion is more green/teal. It's perfectly fair to say that's how De Palma may have wanted it to look on blu-ray in 2015 and he's welcome to change things as it's his film - but that's not how it looked theatrically or since. It's always been a warmer looking film color-wise.

 

[Tom Logan]

The split-sceeen screenshot is pretty good evidence of the soundtrack area incorrectly shown, as the image isn't even close to a perfect split down the middle but is noticeably off-center with a big extra chunk on the left half of the frame.


Vincent

This is the smoking gun. In what universe does Brian DePalma, preparing one of his signature films for a Criterion blu-ray release, say, "You know, I've always thought those 50/50 split screens should really be more like 55/45 or so. It's what Hitchcock would do!"


Really, put a fork in it. This is no longer in dispute. Criterion botched this, and I hope they fix and replace.

 

[haineshisway]

The two shots in the museum scene are not different lighting. For those familiar with the sequence, they're two walls in adjoining rooms with the same lighting.

I understand people's reluctance to weigh in on this release until it's out. However, I feel comfortable calling out the color inconsistencies as I'm very familiar with the film. The comparison caps to the MGM/Arrow release also indicate that the Criterion is more green/teal. It's perfectly fair to say that's how De Palma may have wanted it to look on blu-ray in 2015 and he's welcome to change things as it's his film - but that's not how it looked theatrically or since. It's always been a warmer looking film color-wise.

You're kidding, aren't you? One is a close shot on Miss Dickenson, one is a wide shot. Completely different shots. The wide shot would require completely different lighting than the close shot. This is not peculiar to this film, it's happened in every color film since the beginning of time. Unless I'm missing something in what you're trying to point out.

 

[Robert Harris]

This is the smoking gun. In what universe does Brian DePalma, preparing one of his signature films for a Criterion blu-ray release, say, "You know, I've always thought those 50/50 split screens should really be more like 55/45 or so. It's what Hitchcock would do!"

Really, put a fork in it. This is no longer in dispute. Criterion botched this, and I hope they fix and replace.

While I have no horse in this race, the obvious question must be asked before the release is branded technically problematic.

What if this is the way the filmmaker desired the film to be seen?

The release is "director approved." That's a huge step above kibbles and bits, or whatever.

My take is that this is the way the filmmaker wanted it. Period.

Whether major changes have been made, either color or technical, is irrelevant.

You're viewing the filmmaker's vision.

Not Criterion's.

Whether the viewer likes it, is a different situation.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

RAH