422 The Last Emperor

[andyli]

Yes they are. Theatrical version is 2D from the same 4K restored master as used by the Itailian 3D blu-ray. TV Version should probably be the existing master used by the Japanese blu-ray. Quite a release if you ask me.

Also, the Mandarin track features original voices from some of the Chinese cast members.

[Costa]

Yes they are. Theatrical version is 2D from the same 4K restored master as used by the Itailian 3D blu-ray.

Oh, really?
i was expecting something like this.
How are you sure about this?

And why so few copies? where can we order this?

[andyli]

I know because they have advertised the specs (only in Chinese though). I think doing very limited releases is their current business model. It's the same for all the other releases (this is numbered the first yet there are quite a few others already out).

[Costa]

Ok, thanks.
I've found it but it's very expensive!
https://www.ebay.com.hk/itm/WCL-exclusi ... Sw-ChZze0M" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

87 euros or $102!

[telecode101]

Hi, I just received my copy of the 4 disk DVD edition. I am posting on here because am curious if there are others that have the same edition. I am noticing something strage. Disk 1 contains the theatrical version and disk 2 contains the television version. I am noticing a huge difference in image quality between the two disks. Its as if they are from completely different transfers or masters. The picture is jittery and seems digitally grainy on disk 2 compared to disk 1. Are they not the same transfer and same film -- just longer version.

Can anyone confirm, are there any manufacturing defects reported for this release?

[Toby Dammit]

I have the same edition on DVD (purchased approximately 2009-2010)
and yes, the television version seems of inferior visual quality.

[swo17]

4K Aug 13

[aox]

I'm so happy they are presenting both cuts. I know it was the early days, but the TV cut missing from the initial BD release was disappointing.

[swo17]

What does "2.00:1/2.35:1" mean?

[Aspect]

My reading of the specs is that the 4K is 2.35:1 and the blu ray is the older disc with the 2.00:1 version. This would have been a great opportunity to do a brand new set with new blu rays to match, but oh well.

Edit: that said, maybe the third disc is a new blu ray with the correct 2.35:1 ratio? The older edition is one disc.

[dwk]

The third disc is the longer cut, which I assume will be in 2.35, but who knows at this point.

Looks like it has everything from the 4-DVD set's booklet, which is nice.

[Hogfather]

The third disc is the longer cut, which I assume will be in 2.35, but who knows at this point.

Looks like it has everything from the 4-DVD set's booklet, which is nice.

The longer cut was made for television, so it will probably be in 4:3. However, I'm going to guess that the Blu-ray included with the 4k will probably have the film in 2.35:1 for consistency reasons. But who knows, I could be totally wrong.

The only thing not included with the original booklet are extracts from script supervisor Fabien S. Gerard's production diary. They do include the essay Gerard wrote for the old box set, so it might just be an oversight that it's not included.

[dwk]

I never got the DVD set, so I didnt know abut the, possibly, missing production diary excerpts.

About the aspect ratio for the long version, the master used by Arrow was 2.35, and I assume that Criterion will be using the same master.

[kekid]

If you are region-free and have the Arrow LE, what would be the reason for double-dipping on this one?Arrow's 4K version was 382 minutes. I assume Criterion will have the same.
The TV version is 218 minutes, and probably not the same image quality as the 4K version. Why would someone want to see that other than as a historical remnant?
Are any of the extras reason enough to justify duplication?

[andyli]

It feels more and more like beating a dead horse but Criterion really should take this opportunity to re-author a blu-ray disc with the correct aspect ratio and the same restoration from the 4k disc. Are there still avenues left for communicating such issues, other than wait and see what happens on release date? Do they still respond on Facebook?

[tenia]

I'd guess Twitter and FB if you want it public and other people possibly adding their voices, or by email.

As a whole though, Criterion should include remastered BDs EVERY TIME instead of recycling old discs. They're not supposed to do things like lazy Paramount. Or just skip the DF altogether, get a properly skilled authoring house and do like Arrow and others : UHD-only releases with the extras on the UHD.

[dwk]

I wonder if stuff like the BBC doc in this release would have to be re-licensed if they pressed a new Blu-ray instead of using the old one? Are extras that release specific, or if a company licenses something for Blu-ray can they, for as long as the said extra is under license use it anytime they author a new disc? (i am also thinking about how Arrow bought a bunch of Universal's UK The Game DVD and included it in their Blu-ray to use Criterion's extras without paying for them.)

[andyli]

Saw this post from another forum:

I was able to confirm with Criterion's customer service department that the upcoming 4K edition will contain the following:

The restored theatrical version in 4K, aspect ration 2.39:1.
The theatrical version in 1080p, aspect ratio 2.00:1, with the extras, basically the current edition ported over to this new set.
The extended television version in 1080p, aspect ratio 2.00:1.

So, they didn't even bother to secure a master of the tv cut in the correct AR when they are producing a new blu-ray disc. That's laziness on a whole new level.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

This is pretty weird, since I don't think there's been any previous sign of a 2.00:1 HD version of the TV cut. AFAICT all existing HD releases of that cut are 2.39:1. So they're either further cropping that master to 2.00:1 (seems unlikely, since the one Arrow used was only 1080p to begin with based on the restoration notes), using a heretofore-unknown 2.00:1 master, or mistaken about the AR.

[tenia]

Looks like the UHD has the TC cut in 2.35, but Criterion re-authored the TC BD to use the new 4K resto... but cropped to 2.00, and also cropped to 2.00 the TV cut.
https://www.hometheaterforum.com/the-la ... ay-review/

Absolutely baffling if true.

[nicolas]

Looks like the UHD has the TC cut in 2.35, but Criterion re-authored the TC BD to use the new 4K resto... but cropped to 2.00, and also cropped to 2.00 the TV cut.
https://www.hometheaterforum.com/the-la ... ay-review/

Absolutely baffling if true.

I don’t think this is entirely true. Svet uploaded caps of the BD and the master looks like the old one from the colors and the blown-out highlights also give it away.
Not sure if the BD caps are from the TC or TV cut but at least on one of these discs the old master was used: https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Last ... creenshots

[cdnchris]

No, it's definitely the old master for the Theatrical Cut, not the 4K reformatted to 2.00:1, and that's clear from a quick glance of the image. It's also essentially the same disc from 2009, with the same metadata and file dates and everything. Still looks like shit.

I'm not 100% sure about the TV cut, as I've only glanced at it, but I'm pretty sure it's the same high-def master used for the DVD, and if it isn't, it's at least an older master. It doesn't look great, but I'd argue it looks better than the HD presentation for the Theatrical Cut (from what I've seen).

[tenia]

I wondered if the BD upgraded to the 4k master was true, as HTF could simply be wrong on that and, well... ugh.
Is the TV cut 2.00 ?

[cdnchris]

The TV cut is 2.00:1 as well. It's definitely an older master, possibly the same one used for the DVD. And if they're saying the theatrical cut on the Blu-ray is a reframed downscale of the 4K restoration, they're very wrong. It's clearly the same as the old Blu-ray.

[nicolas]

I wondered if the BD upgraded to the 4k master was true, as HTF could simply be wrong on that and, well... ugh.
Is the TV cut 2.00 ?

I’ve just took another look at the screenshots Svet made and he made one of the menu of the TV disc. It appears the encode is a little better than the old TC BD. That HTF claim is really quite something on its own but maybe that’s why they got confused.

On another note, the Criterion also omits the film’s 5.1 track. Jeremy Thomas found the original 6-track tapes in his basement and they made a new 5.1 in 2013 from that. Arrow included that mix on their UHD.