ggull wrote:
> "John W." <worthj1970@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> > ggull wrote:
>
> > > I guess Criterion is pretty variable.  I rented Ozu's "Tokyo
Story"
> > and the
> > > subtitles were crap, plain white at the bottom of the screen that
> > just
> > > disappeared against the intricately patterned clothes in many
scenes.
> >  The
> > > overall film quality was OK but not great (then I don't know what
> > they were
> > > working from), but my recollection is that there was stuff that
> > should have
> > > been removable if any real digiprocessing had been done.  (The
> > commentary
> > > kind of sucked, too much on camera angle details and not enough
on
> > meaning;
> > > and the guys voice was like fingernails on blackboard.)
> >
> > My guess is the market isn't large enough to really put the time
and
> > effort into digging up old, higher quality versions of the film
> > (assuming any exist), much less reprocessing them with better sound
and
> > correcting picture quality. I also wonder if there's not some folks
who
> > believe you shouldn't retouch the classics too much.
>
> (A) Well, I thought the whole idea behind Criterion, and their high
prices,
> was 'best possible' production.
> (B) I'm not saying 'retouch' as in alter (that's another argument
:-), but
> 'restore' to the original quality.  Maybe with some judicious
improvement to
> what one hopes the director would have done with decent cameras,
film, but
> mostly to correct degradation.

I agree with that. I saw a special awhile back about the difficulties
film restorers face. It was fascinating. 

John W.