Facets

Vinegar Syndrome, Deaf Crocodile, Imprint, Cinema Guild, and more.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Cash Flagg
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: Facets

#301 Post by Cash Flagg » Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:40 pm

Can anyone comment on the quality of their edition of The Lady with the Dog?

Adam
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:29 pm
Location: Los Angeles CA
Contact:

Re:

#302 Post by Adam » Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:21 pm

Cabiria21 wrote:Well, maybe Facets hasn't released Volume 3. The discs I got from Netflix are from Arte.

Regardless, they look pretty good, but can't confirm what Facets look like.
Facets now lists vol 3, 4, and 5 all coming soon (or out)!

User avatar
Cash Flagg
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: Facets

#303 Post by Cash Flagg » Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:37 pm

Cash Flagg wrote:Can anyone comment on the quality of their edition of The Lady with the Dog?
DVD Talk review
Indeed, the transfer here is just about flawless...

Perkins Cobb
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:49 pm

Re: Facets

#304 Post by Perkins Cobb » Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:28 pm

I'm skeptical though - how can this not be a bad PAL -> NTSC conversion?

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

Re: Facets

#305 Post by domino harvey » Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:04 pm

DVDTalk reviewers notoriously don't notice interlacing or ghosting, I never ever take their word on any picture quality question

User avatar
jsteffe
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:00 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Facets

#306 Post by jsteffe » Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:45 pm

Perkins Cobb wrote:I'm skeptical though - how can this not be a bad PAL -> NTSC conversion?
Yes, standard conversions are less than ideal, but some look much better than others. Now I'm curious to see this Facets version of THE LADY WITH THE DOG. Their disc of Kozintsev's KING LEAR actually looks much better than the Ruscico edition, even though it's 4X3 letterboxed. It's entirely possible that Facets licensed a better transfer directly from Russia.

The Ruscico version of THE LADY WITH THE DOG looks fine, I have that one already.

It's a wonderful film, by the way, very much worth seeking out.

gordonovitch
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:14 am

Lady with the Dog transfer

#307 Post by gordonovitch » Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:58 pm

I have the new Facets disc, which certainly outclasses the old Ruscico release. Facets' transfer appears pristine, as if the print used was very close to the original negative. Everything--detail, gray scale--appears flawless to me. How a Soviet film from 1960 survived like this is beyond me; they've taken such wretched care of their films.

Gordon Thomas

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Facets

#308 Post by Michael Kerpan » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:18 pm

The unsubbed Krupny Plan DVD transfers are reputed to be much better than Ruscico's versions. Perhaps, Facets is making use of these materials.

Is it the Lear that is markedly better -- or Lady With the Dog -- or both?

gordonovitch
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:14 am

Re: Facets

#309 Post by gordonovitch » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:23 pm

Michael Kerpan wrote:Is it the Lear that is markedly better -- or Lady With the Dog -- or both?
Sorry--I was speaking of Lady with the Dog, which is of Criterion-quality. I have the Facets Lear, too, but not the Ruscico for comparison.

Gordon Thomas

User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

Re: Facets

#310 Post by Scharphedin2 » Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:58 pm

I am delighted to hear that these two titles, that I have long wanted to purchase, have been released in such nice transfers by Facets.

There are, however, two (probably) eccentric reasons for still purchasing these from Ruscico. One is the joy of having the artwork on the shelf in cyrillic, the other being the pleasure of supporting Ruscico directly. I have ordered from them three times in the past, and they have always been very kind and prompt in dealing with me.

User avatar
kaujot
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: Austin
Contact:

Re: Facets

#311 Post by kaujot » Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:01 pm

Praise...for a Facets release?

Obama's already started changing America.

User avatar
What A Disgrace
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Facets

#312 Post by What A Disgrace » Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:30 pm

So King Lear looks good. Adding it to my rental queue.

How does Hamlet look?

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Facets

#313 Post by MichaelB » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:13 pm

jsteffe wrote:Yes, standard conversions are less than ideal, but some look much better than others.
It depends on how you do them, how much time you're prepared to devote for them and - inevitably - how much you're prepared to spend. A cheap real-time conversion will always look terrible, but a two or three-pass one that analyses each frame and calculates how to present it to its best advantage in the final video standard will be vastly superior.

I've seen NTSC-to-PAL conversions where the only giveaway is that the image is slightly softer than it could be (thanks to the lower NTSC resolution having to be blown up) - but if you step through it frame by frame you'd honestly never know: there's no ghosting or judder.

User avatar
jsteffe
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:00 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Facets

#314 Post by jsteffe » Sun Jan 25, 2009 3:49 pm

What A Disgrace wrote:So King Lear looks good. Adding it to my rental queue.

How does Hamlet look?
Here's what I said about it in a review on the TCM website:
It appears that Facets has used the same transfer and subtitles as the Russian Cinema Council disc, only with the subtitles embedded in the image and the 16X9 anamorphic transfer switched to a 4X3 letterboxed format. They have also squeezed the 2 1/2 hour film onto a single layer disc, which necessarily increases the amount of digital artifacts. As a consequence, the picture also looks softer and flatter, though it's still acceptable for viewing on an ordinary picture tube.

User avatar
jsteffe
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:00 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Facets

#315 Post by jsteffe » Sun Jan 25, 2009 3:51 pm

Michael Kerpan wrote:The unsubbed Krupny Plan DVD transfers are reputed to be much better than Ruscico's versions. Perhaps, Facets is making use of these materials.

Is it the Lear that is markedly better -- or Lady With the Dog -- or both?
The Facets Lear is definitely better, and it sounds as if *The Lady With the Dog* is, as well. I'm going to pick the latter up next time I get paid.

Metropolisforever_2

Re: Facets

#316 Post by Metropolisforever_2 » Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:43 pm

Does anyone else notice a slight improvement in Facets' DVDs?

Ever since their outstanding, director-approved Satantango box, they seem to be slightly more concerned about the quality of their transfers. If only all of their DVDs could be like their Satantango...

What really irks me is their constant reliance on pan-and-scan prints, especially their flat-out unacceptable edition of Lemonade Joe. Thankfully, they seem to have recently switched over to widescreen. It's about time (and that goes for all the other DVD companies, too!)

User avatar
Elephant
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Facets

#317 Post by Elephant » Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:09 pm

Metropolisforever_2 wrote:Ever since their outstanding, director-approved Satantango box, they seem to be slightly more concerned about the quality of their transfers. If only all of their DVDs could be like their Satantango...
Uh, I would hardly call the Facets' Satantango outstanding. Mediocre at best. Here's the previous discussion of it & the Artificial Eye version.

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

Re: Facets

#318 Post by Gregory » Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:55 pm

Metropolisforever_2 wrote:What really irks me is their constant reliance on pan-and-scan prints, especially their flat-out unacceptable edition of Lemonade Joe. Thankfully, they seem to have recently switched over to widescreen.
Do they have a lot of DVDs that are in the wrong aspect ratio? I didn't realize that. Most of the titles of theirs I've watched have been 1.33:1 OAR, so I haven't thought about pan-and-scanning.

If you have specific complaints or praise, you should list them here, and perhaps Scharphedin will incorporate them into his Annotated Facets Catalog post, here. His efforts in that vein are appreciated.

As for whether they're improving, I'm not convinced they are. The most recent Facets-authored title I've purchased was The Lawrence Jordan Album which I thought had disappointing picture quality issues. DVD Savant praised the transfers quite highly, but I saw combing, lots of jaggies, and I still suspect that most if not all the films are too zoomed-in. Furthermore, Sophie's Place on disc three is several minutes shorter than the (correct) listed runtime, which suggests that it is either incomplete or was transferred at too fast a speed. That's one of Jordan's greatest films, so it's pretty distressing.

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

Re: Facets

#319 Post by domino harvey » Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:21 pm

I think I've said this elsewhere, but you cannot go by anything DVDTalk says about picture quality, as they routinely ignore combing issues to the point that their reviewers must be watching the discs on CRTs

User avatar
SoyCuba
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Facets

#320 Post by SoyCuba » Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:31 pm

domino harvey wrote:I think I've said this elsewhere, but you cannot go by anything DVDTalk says about picture quality, as they routinely ignore combing issues to the point that their reviewers must be watching the discs on CRTs
Or more propably they have players that de-interlace the image automatically. Before I bought such player myself I was very annoyed about interlaced DVDs but nowadays I wouldn't even know about without checking the DVD on my computer. This of course doesn't mean they shouldn't find these things out some way and inform the reader.

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

Re: Facets

#321 Post by Gregory » Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:45 pm

I have a progressive scan player (Oppo 970 HD), if that's all you mean about de-interlacing, and yet I have noticed minor combing on three discs recently: the Jordan one I discussed above and the Kino discs of Applause and Love Me Tonight.
I don't know what kind of display Savant uses but I routinely see him at least attempt to make careful rankings of the transfers of discs within a Warner box set, for example. If he was watching Sophie's Place carefully, he should have noticed all the jaggies and the fact that the film is about 8 minutes too short. The digital artifacts are really bad, and it's particularly noticeable about 30 minutes into the film where all the straight lines and edges of the classical architecture and geometric shapes are crawling with some kind of moiré effect. Hard to think of any way my player or my projector are causing all these problems with transfers that are supposedly "clear and sharp, often looking almost too good to be 16mm in origin" (Savant). I did not buy the set on the basis of his review and I'm not sure why I even cited it ,except perhaps to note the way that many reviewers seem to give Facets a pass on picture quality (more so recently?).

User avatar
SoyCuba
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Facets

#322 Post by SoyCuba » Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:27 pm

Gregory wrote:I have a progressive scan player (Oppo 970 HD), if that's all you mean about de-interlacing, and yet I have noticed minor combing on three discs recently: the Jordan one I discussed above and the Kino discs of Applause and Love Me Tonight.
I don't know much about these technical matters, but this is what Wikipedia says about progressive scan and scaling:
Scaling works well with full frames, therefore interlaced video must be deinterlaced before it is scaled. Deinterlacing can result in severe "combing" artifacts.
and on this page about deinterlacing:
If done by an embedded electronic device, the quality varies depending on the overall quality of the device. High-quality electronic devices are in many cases defined by their deinterlacing ability.
I just checked my copy of Applause with my player (PS3) and I couldn't spot a single instance of combing, either by looking at the moving picture or by pausing it. So my guess is that PS3 has better deinterlacing filters than your player. Again of course interlacing should be mentioned as as I've understood, interlaced image can never be as good as progressive no matter how good the deinterlacing filters are, though the image on Applause still looks very beautiful and sharp to me.

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

Re: Facets

#323 Post by Gregory » Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:38 pm

It was minor, only noticeable when looking closely at objects in motion. I have a screen that's 8 - 9 feet, so that may be one reason why it was noticeable. I'm not denying that there might be player issues involved here, though.
The combing was also minor with the Jordan set -- far from the top of my list of complaints. The weird patterns I'm noticing around edges of things are, I'm assuming, compression artifacts. I also am not expert in techincal matters.
As for Savant, at least he reviewed the set. I didn't see any of the other usual DVD review sites do so.

User avatar
Hopscotch
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:30 pm

Re: Facets

#324 Post by Hopscotch » Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:46 am

Can anyone comment on Facets' DVD of the Karoly Makk film Love? I'll wager the Second Run disc is superior, but just in case...

User avatar
HypnoHelioStaticStasis
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: New York

Re: Facets

#325 Post by HypnoHelioStaticStasis » Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:02 pm

Hopscotch wrote:Can anyone comment on Facets' DVD of the Karoly Makk film Love? I'll wager the Second Run disc is superior, but just in case...
It's actually more than decent. Karoly Makk is one of my favorite filmmakers, and they treat the film well, even with a minimum of extras. The transfer is pretty good, and its definitely worth picking up (I mean, who else would release this film in R1?).

Post Reply