Raro Video

Vinegar Syndrome, Deaf Crocodile, Imprint, Cinema Guild, and more.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Giulio
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 6:35 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Raro Video

#251 Post by Giulio » Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:16 am

the conformist blu ray from raro in Italy is messed up with too much DNR so sad criterion didn't get the rights since I really think the US blu ray from raro will be the same mess...

User avatar
Koukol
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:31 pm

Re: Raro Video

#252 Post by Koukol » Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:29 am

dwk wrote:Raro posted on facebook that they are going to release Nightmare City on Blu-ray.
Future releases: "NIGHTMARE CITY" directed by Umberto Lenzi.
New HD transfer and digitally restored.DVD & BR.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYWD5vPf8xA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...
We are now working on the new HD transfer from original 35mm negative print and the production of new special features. Soon we will post he release date.....

Oh man. :x

How about Margheriti's CASTLE OF BLOOD, WEB OF THE SPIDER OR THE VIRGIN OF NUREMBERG?
Or Freda's HORRIBLE DR HICHCOCK and THE GHOST?

User avatar
vygnyr
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:21 pm

Re: Forthcoming Lists Discussion and Random Speculation Vol.

#253 Post by vygnyr » Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:15 am

Raro Video USA is releasing Il Generale Della Rovere on Blu-ray in December. Could this mean that the [Criterion] DVD edition is going OOP?

User avatar
chatterjees
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:08 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: Forthcoming Lists Discussion and Random Speculation Vol.

#254 Post by chatterjees » Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:49 pm

vygnyr wrote:Raro Video USA is releasing Il Generale Della Rovere on Blu-ray in December. Could this mean that the DVD edition is going OOP?
They are also releasing a separate DVD edition. I have already received my Blu-Ray and it really looks great. I have only watched the director's cut. I haven't checked the theatrical version yet. The extras are good too.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Forthcoming Lists Discussion and Random Speculation Vol.

#255 Post by Gregory » Wed Nov 06, 2013 1:24 pm

You already have the blu four or five weeks before release date?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Forthcoming Lists Discussion and Random Speculation Vol.

#256 Post by domino harvey » Wed Nov 06, 2013 1:31 pm

I believe it's been said in the Raro thread that either the label moved up the street date or are shipping it early, but it is out now via direct

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Forthcoming Lists Discussion and Random Speculation Vol.

#257 Post by Gregory » Wed Nov 06, 2013 1:44 pm

I had missed that. I was looking at the Raro site, which says it's still a pre-order with a Dec. 10 release. Apparently they didn't update it.

User avatar
chatterjees
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:08 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: Forthcoming Lists Discussion and Random Speculation Vol.

#258 Post by chatterjees » Wed Nov 06, 2013 1:56 pm

Gregory wrote:I had missed that. I was looking at the Raro site, which says it's still a pre-order with a Dec. 10 release. Apparently they didn't update it.
I received the BD early last week. They also sent the Django BD a month earlier than their official street date. I am sure that if you order it now, you will get it within few days.
This digipak looks stuning. I wanted to post some snaps, but I couldn't. I guess I have to learn the way of doing it first #-o

Bürgermeister
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:05 am

Re: Forthcoming Lists Discussion and Random Speculation Vol.

#259 Post by Bürgermeister » Wed Nov 06, 2013 2:54 pm

chatterjees wrote:
Gregory wrote:I had missed that. I was looking at the Raro site, which says it's still a pre-order with a Dec. 10 release. Apparently they didn't update it.
I received the BD early last week. They also sent the Django BD a month earlier than their official street date. I am sure that if you order it now, you will get it within few days.
This digipak looks stuning. I wanted to post some snaps, but I couldn't. I guess I have to learn the way of doing it first #-o
Hows the P/Q on it?

User avatar
chatterjees
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:08 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: Raro Video

#260 Post by chatterjees » Wed Nov 06, 2013 3:33 pm

I have checked the director's cut and the PQ/SQ looked really good. There are some signs of age, but that's very much acceptable. I know that my description is not very helpful. I am not a techinical person. I like this package overal and I can definitely say that it is much more superior to the Criterion DVD. I anticipate that people may go crazy when the reviews are out, because there are lot of stuff put on a single 25 GB disc.
I could not wait for the reviews. This is one of my favorite films and I had to get it. I wonder why they haven't sent it to the reviewers yet. Anyways, I am happy with it. :D

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: Raro Video

#261 Post by EddieLarkin » Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:57 am


User avatar
chatterjees
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:08 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: Raro Video

#262 Post by chatterjees » Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:24 am

I knew something like that was coming, but I am totally lost now with his technical descriptions. With all due respect to him, something is definitely wrong with the review. I would like to have a step by step analysis of the whole disc. There are multiple features on the disc, two versions of the film and some extras. RAH is really mad with this release. If I read the review correctly, the aspect ratio pissed him off ["Image - Actual picture quality - 4; As released - 0.5:"]

"The film is 1.33 or possibly 1.37. I've always viewed it at 1.66, and I like it that way" - Criterion's DVD also showed the film in 1.33:1. How bad was his review for Criterion DVD? We get some idea in this review though - "Criterion released the film on DVD not long ago, and the work is up to their normal standards". So, he was happy with their AR.

Anyways, I think this review is definitely "mind-numbing" for me.

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: Raro Video

#263 Post by EddieLarkin » Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:28 am

It reads to me like the following is his main gripe
RAH wrote:For some reason, no one felt that the film should have been cropped in any way. And by that I mean that we see the camera aperture. And all of the dirt that attached itself to the aperture during shooting. Along with a few splice lines, and an occasional area that goes outside of the aperture, and shows a white vertical line adjacent to the sound track.

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Raro Video

#264 Post by Matt » Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:41 am

That seems to be his only gripe; apart from "quite good," there is no mention of how the actual image looks.

doc mccoy
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:07 am

Re: Raro Video

#265 Post by doc mccoy » Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:51 am

I thought he originally gave Madame de a 4 for PQ; did he recently revise it down to 2.5?

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: Raro Video

#266 Post by EddieLarkin » Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:58 am

So he has. In fact, I think it was originally a 4.5.

User avatar
chatterjees
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:08 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: Raro Video

#267 Post by chatterjees » Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:06 pm

What does these mean then? Is he becoming inconsistent?

Well, I guess I should not comment too much regarding these type of reviews. Afterall, I am a happy owner of both The Earrings of Madame de . . . and Children of Paradise, and now Il Generale Della Rovere.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Raro Video

#268 Post by Gregory » Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:17 pm

So, looking at the nature of his complaints about this release and his review of Madame de... it seems he's bend over backward to approve of something that's been digitally "restored" until it looks like a cheap painting and yet can't stand any reminder that a disc came from a celluloid source with imperfections such as dirt and the occasional hair in the gate. Does anyone realistically expect Raro to clean up all the specks and scratches the way Criterion does?
"Image quality is really quite good" and yet virtually everything has gone wrong?
RAH wrote:Most of the film was shot on sound stages, and it can take awhile to get used to the sometimes artificial look of the film. What we don't need is anything continuously reminds us that we're watching that stuff with the holes on the side, and not any sort of drama.
Whaaat?

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: Raro Video

#269 Post by EddieLarkin » Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:47 pm

It's hard to determine exactly what the problem is without seeing the disc ourselves, but you're clearly downplaying his criticisms Gregory. This does not seem to be an issue of a damaged/dirty element, more a case that way too much of the element has been presented on the disc, certainly more than just the image area.

This is in line with his comment about it looking like it came from the machine, without anyone bothering to look at it. As in, the element was scanned and then no attempt was made to hide parts of the element that are obviously not supposed to be seen, including the camera aperture and beyond.

The part of his review you've quoted clearly means we are reminded we are watching a film because said aperture is visible, when it shouldn't be. I don't think he has any problem with the dirt and damage, except that which is there because the aperture is visible.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Raro Video

#270 Post by Gregory » Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:00 pm

I'm not claiming that the disc looks better than he describes it, because I haven't seen it. I'm questioning his priorities vis-a-vis the good qualities of this release that he points out as well as his approval of the botched Madame De.
I have quite a few DVDs that transferred the source elements all the way out to the aperture marks and as long as the aspect ratio is correct, that would never bother me anywhere near as much as it apparently does RAH. I've also had great experiences watching prints projected with notable amounts of dirt and damage around the edges and I'm sure the projectionist hadn't masked with any real precision. I'm certainly not saying the Raro disc wouldn't look better if they'd zoomed it in a little, but RAH basing his entire review on this one flaw and saying that there are no thrills to be had watching the blu-ray even though the "image quality is really quite good."

What is so bad about being reminded that we're watching something shot on film? It's not as though sprocket holes or an optical soundtrack are visible on this release (he's clear about that). And What's so unusual about shooting on soundstages? All dramas have various types of artificiality inherent in the ways they're presented. It's part of the art form. RAH comes across as very easily perturbed and distracted in this way, at least that's how it reads to me.

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: Raro Video

#271 Post by EddieLarkin » Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:07 pm

I see what you mean. Ideally we need some caps. Raro have just posted on their Facebook what is likely a retort to his comments; they reference an image but seem to have forgotten to upload it.

djvaso
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:00 am
Location: Serbia&Montenegro

Re: Raro Video

#272 Post by djvaso » Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:41 am

The picture on Raro's disc has imperfection on the bottom and the corners are round ones. The Gaumont blu-ray has aspect ratio of 1.33:1 also but picture misses some information due cropping.

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: Raro Video

#273 Post by EddieLarkin » Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:17 am

RAH's main gripe is all too clear in the screenshots in the new Blu-ray.com review.

I don't think it would bother me too much with overscan on, but I've never seen such extreme lack of matting to a film on Blu-ray. Even Kino's Scarlett Street, which had visible rounded corners, was not that bad.

RAH also mentioned that he has only ever seen the film 1.66:1, and I've since heard that 1.37:1 is definitely correct, but some of those caps speak quite loudly on the issue, I think.

Rupert Pupkin
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:34 am

Re: Raro Video

#274 Post by Rupert Pupkin » Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:37 am

An existential question : I've just read the blu-ray test. I would like to know if Gaumont included the "missing scenes" like the Raro release ? (if yes, did they use the same alternate source (weaker) or did they do something else ?)
is the Gaumont Blu-Ray the Director's Cut version or the theatrical cut ?

User avatar
manicsounds
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: Raro Video

#275 Post by manicsounds » Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:34 am

Seems the Gaumont only includes the 2 hour 12 minute theatrical cut and no deleted scenes, according to the box.

Post Reply