pro-bassoonist

This anything but clears things out and I am sad to see that it took some court-room fan-testing to prove that there was a French 16/9 version. Either way Metrodome chose what was best for them. Considering the fact that they COULD HAVE invested in a 16/9 master, borrowed it, ect which Ken Law now admits in the above statement I see no reason to further argue with him.

There is a reason why Criterion charges higher prices and Metrodome just missed the opportunity to get closer to them. Too bad as mediocrity in this age and era is still flourishing.

Regards,
Pro-B

Daniel Windsor

I could not have put it better by my own pen.

moviezzz

I keep wondering if I am reading different emails.

What Ken Law said was "What I believe the French have done is used this existing master to transfer out and convert to 16:9 anamorphic. This will mean the image resolution will be compromised and some of the image may well have been lost. Either this or they undertook a brand new. Either this or they undertook a brand new telecine from a 35mm print at their own expense - which I would doubt. "

As he stated, if they had made a 16x9 transfer from the master they have, it would look even grainier than it did to start with. Then, everyone would complain about how awful the transfer was.

And a French company isn't likely to just loan out the transfer they made to another region, for free. If they did it at their own expense, they would want to be compensated for it.

Plus, you can't compare them with Criterion. They aren't in the same league. Besides, Criterion makes rather expensive DVD sets, and this set isn't as expensive as most of those. Then, people would complain about how overpriced the set was, and not buy it for that reason.

BuddhaWake

nobody is saying that the french would have let them use it for free, these are businesses but what is being said is that the french have an anamorphic transfer and Ken and them could have as well looked it up if they really wanted the highest intregity/quality or plain and simple, get down with modern times. they could have researched it and even offset the cost from paying the french by changing the price of the box as has been said here. plain and simple; they did not do their homework. Also, from the email it seems that Ken Law is assuming or rather especulating that the French did this (make a 16:9 from and old master) and is not based on something he actually knows, especially considering that 3 days ago the official line was "an anamorphic transfer doesn't exist".

Cygnet74

a conversion would not add grain to the image. any loss of resolution would soften the image, reducing the perceived grain. i have a 16x9 front projection screen that measures 110" diagonal. so a drop in resolution would not be acceptable either.

that's clear. the additional cost would be balanced by people like me that would spring for a 16x9 transfer of this film. right now, i either watch the film with black bars on ALL FOUR sides (yes top, bottom, left AND right) so i can read the subtitles, or i zoom in so the image fills the screen and I miss the second row of subs. another 4x3 release will still be incompatible with all owners of 16x9 sets. a 16x9 transfer would be compatible with everyone.

why are you defending mediocrity? anyone who wants this title already has it. this was an opportunity to improve on what's already out there. keeping it cheap isn't going to sell many more copies. people who wanted this film already own it. in fact, a 16x9 transfer with english subtitles would have sold many more copies.

moviezzz

I'm not.

Everyone is trying to villify Metrodome, attacking them, when they, at the beginning, honestly didn't know about the French version.

They were told by the studio that an anamorphic version didn't exist, so they went with what they were given. I don't see how anyone can fault them for that.

By the time they found out, it was too late for them to recall the title.

pigmode

Can a blind man see a dead horse when he sees it?


The fact that Metronome *said* that they did not know about the French anamorphic version is mediocrity in itself. They go through the labors of releasing a 4 piece boxset without researching all possibilities and knowing what's already out there in the market? Strange. The Metronome statements do seem like damage control more than anything else, but that's just a personal impression.

splattii

So please bear with me, but let me ask one last time. If I do not purchase this box set, is it even possible for me to get a proper English Subb'd Amal?? I only needed the Amal and Hole discs. Since Hole is 15 pounds on it's own, I might be willing to spend the 29 and get the short + Amal and get it over with.

Avenkeri

Watching subtitles of letterboxed DVD (Such as Fucking Åmål) with Widescreen TV isn't such bad if the DVD is just mastered properly. At least in the scandinavian release subtitles are located high enough in the picture that it can be zoomed with no problem in the widescreen TV.

Cygnet74

the north american release has burned-in subs -- the second row of which are below the lower matte line. a DVD that is "mastered properly" is exactly what we're seeking...

Daniel Windsor

Utter bull.


You never answered my question:
It is up to Metrodome to obtain quality elements. The fact there are several anamorphic PAL DVD releases has nothing to do with the film's owner.

Anamorphic DVDs have been available for years. So even if your bizarre and ignorant claims were valid then it makes Metrodome look even worse and plain lazy.

Any 10min search of most DVD groups, European shops or Google would have come up with the facts. If Metrodome can't do that then they are useless. We have HD DVD soon, so will Metrodome (and the rest of the crap distributors) still be using these excuses?

Of course they will.

moviezzz

To answer your question:

"So, you are saying a film company own film stock for every film they own the rights to and they have struck video transfers from those films and no local distributor anywhere in the world is allowed to use any other video transfer or elements other than rights' owner's video transfer? "

If a film company were to tell me that there is not an anamorphic transfer of the film available, I would believe them. They are the ones who would know. Especially if the director wanted the film to look purposefully grainy. That would make sense as to why an anamorphic transfer never existed.

What other transfers exist out there in the world is irrelevant. This is a business. You can't just call up another company and say "Hey France, can I borrow your transfer?". If they paid to have that made, they aren't likely to let another company borrow it. Toyota doesn't call up Honda because they created a better steering wheel and want to use it.

"It is up to Metrodome to obtain quality elements. "

It is up to Memphis to obtain the best elements and pass those along. They should have passed along an anamorphic transfer if one was available and if Moodysson agreed that it could (an issue that no one has even mentioned).

Metrodome is only licensing this title.

A company licensing a title doesn't go around, scouring the world for the best print, soundtrack, etc. They are given the transfer from the licensee and use that.

Cygnet74

moviezzz, your claims are bizarre to me.

first, the film was shot on high-speed Super 16 to achieve the grainy look. its transfer to video as 4x3 or 16x9 has no effect on the inherent grain structure in the image. the most it could do is soften the image, reducing the perceived grain. but that would be true whether it was anamorphic video or not.

second, Artifical Eye licensed a few Tarkovsky titles from MosFilm but negotiated the use of video transfers done by RusCiCo. acquiring the rights and source materials from two different sources is hardly a rarity, let alone your claim of non-existence. are you just making this up as you go?

BuddhaWake

This is crazy, Cause yes that's exactly how it works. NOT! Companies do have deals with each other and pay for rights to transfer as well just as Cygnet has said. Just like you can get extras from other sources as well. Also, whether is 4:3 or 16:9 would have no effect on the image at all.

pro-bassoonist

Absolutely right!!! What exactly a 16/9 transfer and the look Moodysson intended have in common I have no idea. There is simply no argument here...

Moviezzz: Both Cygnet74 and BuddhaWake are trying to explain something to you and quite frankly I am not sure you understand what the debate in this thread is all about.

Regards,
Pro-B

moviezzz

First, about the transfer, I was referring to this comment from Ken Law about the French anamorphic transfer

"What I believe the French have done is used this existing master to transfer out and convert to 16:9 anamorphic. This will mean the image resolution will be compromised and some of the image may well have been lost."

If Memphis and Moodysson aren't even aware this transfer exists, how can we be sure it is what Moodysson wanted? That picture information isn't lost and the image isn't compromised?

And again, on the licensing, if the French company were to lend their transfer out, to fill out a superior DVD, with extras the French DVD doesn't have, can they expect anyone to buy their title any more?

Is Criterion in the habit of lending out the transfers they create to European or Asian video companies? Do they routinely let them use the extras they prepare, the commentaries they sometimes pay the participants to record? Do they help so that every version released in ever region is as good as theirs?

BuddhaWake

How do you know that's not what he wanted? And again, this statement from Mr. Law came after he argued that there was no anamorphic transfer. So now you are telling me that he went from arguing that one didn't exist to saying that one existed but they didn't do it right? I serously doubt it considering that he sounded like he didn't have a clue and got caught in the act and try to cover his and their asses for not having done their homework. Has he seen the french disc? so what?, he went from denying to now being an expert in wht the fench did and did not do? it took him a couple of hours to get the french disc, to see it and go from having no clue calling the (their) transfer at first 4:3 to a 4:3 widescreeen (to clear the confussion) to now ASSUMING what the french did and didn't do to being the expert? I'll take fellow DVDTalk members that even if having no clue sound like they do compared to this guy.

Is not a tomato or a car that you lend, you pay a price for someone else's work then compiled with your own work you are the best out there and can charge 40$ for a disc and have people buy them.(if you do it properly) then you make money you buy other movies make deals with others, release other films charge 40$ a pop and become the number one and respected for being the best or as close as you can or you make deals for future or other works such as licensing extras, or audio tracks etc. They are bussinesses they should know what they are doing. wouldn't you agree? Well, do you thing that there is some sort of secret mission that the french want to control the world's DVD empire by having the best DVDs and hoping that someone outhere doesn't do their homework. That's funny considering that practically non of their DVDs have English subtitles so i'm sure the rest of the world outside of their country is not a high priority for them. Rather i'm sure they would want to make even more money on a lump sum for a film that's not going to be making them millions. But like Mr Law, i am only assuming.

Not necesarily but it has been done the other way around. Especially with their mainstream releases where they have cross deals with major companies.

So let me ask you this then. Lets say that in all honesty Mr. Law and his people did not know about the anamorphic transfer the french have. Why not create a new one? Before you requote what Law ASSUMED about the french set. why not call the director and/or his publicist and ask him? why not send him an email? why not do anything? anything at all? was it to keep cost down? That's mediocrity at its best when you could post a poll here and ask people? obviously it has been seen that people would not mind paying a little more if its something they can enjoy to the fullest without having to do anymore work besides cliking, opening the box, hitting play and sitting back.

pigmode

I just ordered the box set, and the price came in at 25.52. Might be a sale going on as 3 other single discs came in 2. under list.

moviezzz

It takes months to create a DVD. They have only been notified of a French anamorphic transfer in the past couple weeks. The DVD is set to street is it next week? They would have had to cancel the entire box set, delay it for months, to redo that one title.

And as for having to pay more, this is a very small film that I believe everyone who has seen it is posting in this thread. Economically, it wouldn't make sense to delay it for the very few who wouldn't buy it.

But, in the grand scheme of things in the world of DVD, where Sony is abandoning existing anamorphic widescreen transfers of films in favor of reissuing full screen pan and scan titles of hundreds of films, I don't think Metro is a villain here. I believe them that they didn't know. They are at least answering emails (something Sony isn't doing).

pigmode

Is enough not enough? This is lame. Just lock the thread already.

cynthia

The on-going argument aside - if I don't own any Moodysson discs, is this box set the best way to go?

Where did you pre-order yours, pigmode?

pigmode

Hey cynthia,
I'd think so. Although I already have the Swedish Lilya4Ever, and the R1 ver. of Show Me Love, I still went for it. I'm hoping that the Metronome release of the latter is at least an improvement to the current R1. At the price I got it for today at amazon.uk, it seems a pretty good bargain, even moreso for yourself.

cynthia

The price is showing £29.99 for me at Amazon.co.uk...

pigmode

I just checked. The price reduction does not show up till after selecting shipping.

BuddhaWake

for clarification purposes is 25.52 pounds due to the reduction of IVA.