Press Release Criterion Press Release: The Flight of the Phoenix (1965) (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

Accurate to what? Unless you have a low-fade 35mm reference print handy, it's all conjecture.

That is the point. Unless you have a known reference there is no way to tell which is the more accurate colour grade and both images would have to projected or displayed on equipment that has been calibrated to equal tolerances to eliminate as much error as possible.

 

[PMF]

I’ve wanted to own Flight of the Phoenix for a long time and therefore I shall purchase. It’s finally available, and I plan on sitting back and enjoying both the work of its filmmakers and that of Criterion.

 

[haineshisway]

Review

"Presented in its original aspect ratio of 1.85:1, encoded with MPEG-4 AVC and granted a 1080p transfer, Flight of the Phoenix arrives on Blu-ray courtesy of Criterion.

The release is sourced from a recent 2K master, which isn't the same master British label Eureka Entertainment used to produce this Region-B release in 2016. (For what it's worth, this master is even older, and was used for a couple of different domestic and international DVD releases).

Unfortunately, this recent 2K master is quite disappointing. Why? Because it is graded in a way that gives the entire film a brand new, completely unnatural color temperature, and as a result alters its identity. Indeed, because of the awkward color values virtually all of the desert footage looks like it takes place during a very nice and cool autumn, rather than during a hot summer with a dangerously unforgiving sun. Many of the yellows, browns, and blues are dramatically desaturated in favor of cool whites and very pale greens that never give the desert yellows a chance to make their presence felt. Needless to say, the damaged by the sun faces, the hot sands, and even the scorching sun can look very, very strange with the current color settings."

You can't be serious You just CAN'T be serious, posting a "review" from the bassoon playing Dr. whose only film expertise is - nothing.

 

[PMF]

You can't be serious You just CAN'T be serious, posting a "review" from the bassoon playing Dr. whose only film expertise is - nothing.

What’s wrong with bassoon players?

 

[haineshisway]

What’s wrong with bassoon players?

When they try to act like they're a "reviewer" and have some expertise, they've crossed the bassoon line.

 

[titch]

Life was so much easier back in 1983...

 

[darkrock17]

Life was so much easier back in 1983...

View attachment 129529
View attachment 129530
View attachment 129531

Not just the 80's, but the 90's too.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

When they try to act like they're a "reviewer" and have some expertise, they've crossed the bassoon line.

More science based, but the principles apply.

 

[JoshZ]

When they try to act like they're a "reviewer" and have some expertise, they've crossed the bassoon line.

There is certainly no love lost between myself and Dr. Svet. We clashed heads plenty when we worked together at DVDTalk, and I have no desire to defend him on any issue.

With that said, this comment is unfair. You will not find very many full-time professional reviewers in the home theater community, especially not those who write for the web. Sites like these pay a pittance at best for reviews, if they even pay at all (many don't). Most reviewers have day jobs to pay the bills and do freelance writing as a side gig. That alone should not dictate how much knowledge, experience, or expertise one has on a topic they are passionate about. I've known many excellent home theater reviewers whose day jobs ranged from bicycle repair to insurance sales.

If you want to mock Svet, the content and quality of his writing should give you ample ammunition. The fact that his other career involves playing a bassoon is incidental.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

You can't be serious You just CAN'T be serious, posting a "review" from the bassoon playing Dr. whose only film expertise is - nothing.

What’s wrong with bassoon players?

When they try to act like they're a "reviewer" and have some expertise, they've crossed the bassoon line.

To paraphrase the late, great Frank Zappa, "Shut up and play your bassoon."

 

[Edwin-S]

This thread has taken a weird turn.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

Titch has a point in his pithy 'Life was so much easier...' post.
After all, is there really all that much difference between VHS and UHD? Wouldn't we be more relaxed and less critical if we reverted to that trusted and true technology? Forward to the Past, I say.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Titch has a point in his pithy 'Life was so much easier...' post.
After all, is there really all that much difference between VHS and UHD? Wouldn't we be more relaxed and less critical if we reverted to that trusted and true technology? Forward to the Past, I say.

VHS looks like it was, in my son's words, "Shot by potato."

 

[PMF]

This thread has taken a weird turn.

We “Reed” you.

 

[DBF]

I “Reed” you.

I'm sure everyone will soon get back to the bocal.....uh, focal point of this thread.

 

[PMF]

I'm sure everyone will soon get back to the bocal.....uh, focal point of this thread.

Well, we could easily navigate this thread back to topics such as the differences between a blinding sandstorm versus a visible structure of grain.

 

[Edwin-S]

Maybe I should have said, in keeping with the theme, that it took a low note.

 

[Ryan Barrett]

I understand the arguments on grain, color, and FRAMING (as some of you have argued vs the word cropping), but given Criterion's pedigree - (a label meant for true film connoisseurs last time I checked), wouldn't you want to mirror the look of the original prints/negatives? Surely there exists some type of reference?

Is it possible FOX handed Criterion a "blue" tinted medium? Or was the cooler color gradient added during the 2K Digital Restoration (whatever the hell that means anymore)? When I hear restoration, I see it as synonymous with "tinkering." Someone is fooling around with colors, cropping, etc...my hope that in doing so, is that the digital artists are following some "frame" of reference.

If that's not the case, we're simply getting someone's interpretation of how they feel something should look, yes?

As I mentioned previously - I am deeply saddened as I see this as being the final stop for this film in physical media. Total Bummer.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I understand the arguments on grain, color, and FRAMING (as some of you have argued vs the word cropping), but given Criterion's pedigree - (a label meant for true film connoisseurs last time I checked), wouldn't you want to mirror the look of the original prints/negatives? Surely there exists some type of reference?

Is it possible FOX handed Criterion a "blue" tinted medium? Or was the cooler color gradient added during the 2K Digital Restoration (whatever the hell that means anymore)? When I hear restoration, I see it as synonymous with "tinkering." Someone is fooling around with colors, cropping, etc...my hope that in doing so, is that the digital artists are following some "frame" of reference.

If that's not the case, we're simply getting someone's interpretation of how they feel something should look, yes?

As I mentioned previously - I am deeply saddened as I see this as being the final stop for this film in physical media. Total Bummer.

Or is it possible that the color scheme and framing on this Criterion release is just fine.

 

[Alan Tully]

If that's not the case, we're simply getting someone's interpretation of how they feel something should look, yes?

Ha, yup, that's about it, & the person making that decision probably wasn't even alive when the film originally did the rounds at the cinema. I prefer the warmer look (after all it is set in the desert) & other people here prefer it cooler, but that's just personal preference (& there's nothing wrong with the reds in the old transfer). Just because it's a new transfer doesn't make it right (& vice versa). I don't own it (I've just seen the film too many times, including on its original release), but if I did want it, it would have to be the older transfer.