UK Director's Cut
Blu-ray
Arrow Films
AVC • 1920x1080
US
Blu-ray
The Criterion Collection
AVC • 1920x1080
UK Director's Cut Blu-ray
Arrow Films
PLAYLIST REPORT:
Name: 00002.MPLS
Length: 2:04:36.969 (h:m:s.ms)
Size: 40.231.259.520 bytes
Total Bitrate: 43,05 Mbps
VIDEO:
Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
MPEG-4 AVC Video 34995 kbps 1080p / 23,976 fps / 16:9 / High Profile 4.1
AUDIO:
Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
DTS-HD Master Audio English 3343 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 3343 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 24-bit)
LPCM Audio English 2304 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 2304 kbps / 24-bit
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps
SUBTITLES:
Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Presentation Graphics English 27,544 kbps
Added on January 21st 2015 05:51:15 PM
US Blu-ray
The Criterion Collection
PLAYLIST REPORT:
Name: 00001.MPLS
Length: 2:04:41.474 (h:m:s.ms)
Size: 35.493.795.840 bytes
Total Bitrate: 37,95 Mbps
VIDEO:
Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
MPEG-4 AVC Video 32488 kbps 1080p / 23,976 fps / 16:9 / High Profile 4.1
AUDIO:
Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
DTS-HD Master Audio English 3314 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 3314 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 24-bit)
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps
SUBTITLES:
Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Presentation Graphics English 38,450 kbps
Added on January 22nd 2014 01:43:36 AM
@Maarten0402
March 10th 2016 01:27:30 PM
The Arrow Blu-ray is not PAL and the Criterion is not NTSC, They are both HD 1080P 24fps. The Criterion version is capable of looking exactly the same as the Arrow one, but it doesn't as less effort was put into the encode.
Nick
March 10th 2016 11:24:14 AM
Nice work, Criterion! but Arrow has better grain structure :)
Maarten0402
March 10th 2016 10:17:34 AM
@F.I.S.T. and all: The Arrow Director's Cut version is the same as The Criterion Collection. Criterion did the remaster and Arrow published that version via their company. I got the Arrow version and they mentioned it that Criterion did all the remaster work for it.
The reason why the Arrow looks a little, but only a little better is just the PAL encoding that is slightly better than NTSC. Like if Criterion can do anything about that.
If Criterion did not remastered it we wouldn't get this nice remastered version of an underrated movie.
F.I.S.T.
December 17th 2015 03:44:01 AM
Arrow looks better. Like the details more.
Whats Up Doc
November 26th 2015 02:58:09 PM
Wow, Criterion's release is absolutely awful. Ignoring colour scheme, it's so compressed -- check out the grain structure on Arrow. Arrow are owning the Blu Ray market right now.
5/5 from Dr Svet.
C.
July 16th 2015 02:36:28 AM
Check out that beach scene. Dear god the Criterion looks horrible.
C.
July 16th 2015 02:34:57 AM
This is crazy bad compression. Some people were harping on the Easy Rider release and that one looks honestly really good in motion and only has a few artifacts here and there. Very good detail.
This is an abomination. How can you have so many problems with such a high bitrate. I have no clue. maybe DNR or something IDK.
OverpricedCriterion
April 12th 2015 01:11:39 AM
Arrow wins.. Criterion and there sloppy compression can go the way of the dodo bird.
formerly Anonymous
February 5th 2015 04:37:40 AM
@Mentasm yeah I do, sorry, I was going to edit it but obviously I couldn't.
"Either of those scenarios is as likely as the other and the only person who knows for sure isn't likely to show up on here to put us out of our misery." I'll settle for this
Mentasm
January 28th 2015 02:02:49 AM
You do know that by not using a unique username you add needless confusion to the thread, right?
Anyway, to address your point, yes I do, but I also know that directors often have an intended look in mind for their films that they are not able to realise at the time of release for a variety of reasons. I also know that the old home video releases were very unlikely to be an accurate representation of the original intended grade. In light of that, I'm willing to give the *director* of the film the benefit of the doubt when he personally supervises a restoration using original materials as a reference *and* the "original" version is also included to appease the malcontents.
Either of those scenarios is as likely as the other and the only person who knows for sure isn't likely to show up on here to put us out of our misery. In any case, I've watched both versions and each has its merits.
Anonymous
January 27th 2015 09:22:05 PM
"when a director is heavily involved in a restoration and they use original materials as a reference, I'm inclined to believe that the revised grading probably looks closer to his original vision than the old grading" You do know that a director, much like any other person, might have changed his mind about what he wanted a film to look and will take this opportunity to push a different look for it, right? See also
LinkAnonymous
January 27th 2015 09:12:03 PM
"Watching the Criterion, I don't really see any grain" are you serious?
Oblivion
January 25th 2015 10:29:32 AM
Yes, Melville is a prime example of a filmmaker who graded his films stylistically (and specifically to the cool end of the spectrum) long before the age of digital intermediates and digital color grading.
James Cameron is another, though people still insist on arguing that the remastered Terminator is revisionist. In spite of old Cameron interviews where he describes the film's grading as a "cool, cyan look," and the fact that one of the earliest DVD releases (a German release that was almost certainly struck from a theatrical print) is considerably MORE "teal" than the remastered BD transfer.
But these are the arguments that come from people who are used to a certain look, and therefore assume it is accurate, and also mistakenly believe that "teal" is something unseen in film grading prior to the advent of the DI.
@ Sven
January 25th 2015 12:44:59 AM
Jean-Pierre Melville used a blue/teal push on his movies - check out the screencaps for Le Samourai and Le Cercle Rouge on this site. And I've read a quote of his where he says that he uses a blue tint on his movies. With that said I am not saying that the same necessarily applies to Mann and Thief. Mann has been notorious for tweaking his movies. There are so many of his movies that have several cuts, and where he removes lines from the movie for a new home video release (Heat).
@Sven
January 24th 2015 03:48:53 AM
Pushing cyan in photochemical grading wasn't a very difficult thing to do. It was not a widespread aesthetic trend at the time, but there's nothing to say that certain directors, for certain projects, wanted a certain look, and did what they could to achieve it. Again, unless one is looking at an original answer print, anyone saying they know how this movie is "supposed" to look is simply arguing from ignorance. And when arguing from ignorance, it's probably best to avoid calling others "clueless."
Sven
January 24th 2015 01:07:53 AM
I think Bob may have a point . Apart from Certain FOX cinemascope films, I don't think Teal was part of the industry until digital colour timing came in . I certainly don't recall films I saw in the 70" and 80's having such an obvious teal cast. Of course Teal exists in nature, that was never in dispute.
@bob smithe
January 23rd 2015 11:52:47 PM
"Proof:
Teal and other digitally induced colors did not appear until films were digitally graded."
Typical uninformed nonsense. People who think that "teal" is somehow a new color need to stop talking. "Teal" is a dark variant of cyan, and has always existed. It exists in nature, and certainly, it has existed in art for thousands of years. Go back to early two-strip Technicolor film, and you will see a lot of cyan. It was not invented by digital colorists, nor was it impossible (or even particularly difficult) to grade a cyan push in the pre-digital days.
If anyone is "clueless" in this argument, bob, it's you.
bob smithe
January 23rd 2015 06:08:35 PM
Proof:
Teal and other digitally induced colors did not appear until films were digitally graded.
It's not surprising the clueless who have not seen actual film prints from the pre-digital era would not understand this but if the self proclaimed experts here who cannot tell the difference between colors that can only be digitally created and what photography can capture are the biggest joke of all.
Of course these are the same 'experts' who keep claiming each new BD version is the 'accurate' one no matter how many wildly different previous BD releases of the same title are because they only judge accuracy by newest and only newest, not by any knowledge.
Mentasm
January 23rd 2015 12:53:45 PM
Come on, you know we don't do proof on this site. Just uninformed opinion and wild speculation ;)
As for my opinion (not that anyone besides me cares...), when a director is heavily involved in a restoration and they use original materials as a reference, I'm inclined to believe that the revised grading probably looks closer to his original vision than the old grading (which itself has problems). To me part of the issue would appear to be that they would originally have achieved the film's look photochemically, but these days things are graded digitally and that doesn't look the same. So you get a general approximation of what it was intended to look like (but probably never did due to various limitations), but it looks too 'modern' for some. Sure some scenes have gone pretty overboard with the effect, but on the whole it works tonally and a number of those caps actually show more natural colours than the theatrical version.
It's a fairly redundant argument with this release anyway. You get both versions, so those who claim to remember what it looked like theatrically back in 1981 (let's put aside how utterly laughable that assertion is) can simply watch the theatrical cut. Everyone else can watch the pristine 4K-mastered version that looks bloody marvellous! Oh, and a shout out to David McKenzie for once again providing superior encoding to the American equivalent.
Francis the talking mule
January 23rd 2015 12:52:24 PM
. I do not have a photographic memory buy I don't remember many films that i saw in the 1970's and 1980's having such a blatant Teal leaning. I think this 4k transfer and mackenzie's compression is world class. One wonders if this teal obsession is to win over the younger generation now growing up with Tealed films such as transformers. Are the studios trying to give vintage films more sex appeal in this way ? Just a thought
@bob smithe
January 23rd 2015 08:54:58 AM
Proof?
Anonymous
January 23rd 2015 06:54:55 AM
sorry but I'd rather trust the director over all of you peanut gallery armchair screenshot "scientists."
Teal wins.
lolwut
January 22nd 2015 06:21:44 PM
I wasn't really convinced one was better until I saw the beach sky:
Linkbob smithe
January 22nd 2015 06:01:39 PM
The DC is more crisp with a bit more detail in some shots but the massive teal ruins it. No matter what the clueless claim no way in hell did the original film look like the DC color grading, the TC is by far closer to the original grading.
freedomland
January 22nd 2015 05:50:45 PM
I will not defend the slovenly lackadaisical encodes of Criterion Blu-rays, I wrote them several times, even with direct links to this site, they dont care.
But, this one of the companies releasing a lot of good and unknown films, which are not have the guarantee for the best possible sale. They have a lot of good transfers and bad transfers, too, because this is a matter of business. Think about Univsersal, they have some really good releases and some are the worst.
Oblivion
January 22nd 2015 10:33:14 AM
And for the record, I'm not the one who insists that he knows how the movie is supposed to look. I readily admit that I've not seen an answer print, and can't say conclusively that the Director's Cut look is accurate.
It'd be nice if the "OMG, TEALED TO DEATH!" people were as willing to admit that they don't know what is or is not accurate.
@One Of The Many Anonymouses
January 22nd 2015 10:29:43 AM
Hi, I'm Oblivion, and no, I'm not a troll, nor do I feel like a dumbass. The Arrow Theatrical Cut comes from an old HD master, and proves nothing with regard to the look of an original answer print. Now, if you showed me an original answer print, and the grading was completely different from the Director's Cut, then I would say, "Okay, it's different." But I should say that because a previous HD master looks different? That's kind of a dumbass thing to imply.
@ Anon
January 22nd 2015 07:36:42 AM
I don't think it's "lazy" in that sense, I think there might be a problem with their encoding equipment. It obviously can't handle ultra detailed 4K masters, compression problems are evident in every movie they've released that stems from a 4K master.
Anon
January 22nd 2015 06:53:41 AM
yes, criterion compression often is very lazy
Anonymous
January 22nd 2015 05:52:22 AM
The Arrow actually looks way better in motion. It's not just something you can see with comparing screenshots. Watching the Criterion, I don't really see any grain and can occasionally see some macroblocking, watching the Arrow, I see lots of natural film grain and no compression artifacts. Of course the usual Criterion shills will predictably get upset over this and try and convince everybody that Criterion cures cancer, but it isn't the first time Criterion have been exposed with having serious compression issues on their releases. Check Koyaanisqatsi and Time Bandits.
...
January 22nd 2015 05:45:20 AM
The Criterion and Arrow are identical, except Criterion has an edge since it's Criterion and I praise everything they do, even when they take old Universal transfers with sharpening, DNR and EE like with Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Dazed and Confused, I give them high ratings because... Criterion.
Everybody, please don't compare the caps, Criterion is best because it's Criterion. Please don't buy the Arrow edition, the theatrical cut isn't Criterion approved and the color timing isn't accurate. How do I know this? Because I read a vague sentence in the back of a Criterion booklet, that's why! No company in history has ever lied or mislead their customers, especially a company like Criterion.
Now maybe if I keep defending everything they do, they'll stumble across my shameless ass-kissing and pay me a few cents to mislead people into buying their products and lying about better editions being released elsewhere.
Keep calm and love Criterion everybody!
Anon
January 22nd 2015 12:35:24 AM
I want David Mackenzie to do the compression for the 4k restoration of One Eyed jacks
Anonymous
January 21st 2015 10:06:06 PM
despite the worse PQ, I prefer the UK theatrical cut. that one hasnt been teal raped.
this movie was done in the 80s which the original colours reflect and now gets the teal treatment so it looks more contemporary and sells better? no thank you.
Tech-UK
January 21st 2015 07:54:52 PM
The Sky says it all:
Link
Blotchy, inconsistent grain structure throughout the Criterion release.
Great job Arrow! Grain fans unite! ;)
dvdmike
January 21st 2015 07:25:26 PM
I thought they were identical and I imagined the difference..........
tenia
January 21st 2015 06:49:58 PM
Grain restitution seems indeed much better on the Arrow disc, even without having to use the Detail or Zoom option.
No Lifer
January 21st 2015 06:48:21 PM
Arrow and Criterion obviously has the same master (on the director's cut), but encoding is certainly better on the Arrow in almost every screenshot from what I can see. I think both BDs are fine but since I haven't got this film on any format (and haven't seen it either) I will probably purchase the Arrow someday.
LordAwesome
January 21st 2015 06:42:30 PM
The technical superiorites of the new version are all for nought due to the disgusting, vomit-inducing colour scheme.
Arrow TC all the way baby.
tenia
January 21st 2015 06:41:47 PM
Don't forget that the previous masters were made with older expectations, notably in terms of contrast (usually poor black levels) and color scheme (usually too red).
While I do believe the new color scheme does not look like what the movie was in 1981, I also believe the theatrical cut presented here by Arrow does not either.
The truth probably lies in between.
Anonymous
January 21st 2015 06:23:16 PM
Arrow comes out (slightly) on top once again, great work!
Anonymous
November 21st 2014 08:36:02 PM
I remember a troll called Oblivion on the Blu-ray forum used to attack anyone for even doubting that it wasn't originally teal upon release and used the note from the back of the Criterion booklet saying the color was based on Michael Mann's own print as reference, as proof it was originally that way.
I bet he feels like a dumbass now.
Anonymous
November 21st 2014 06:26:31 PM
The teal was the way it was always supposed to look? Yeah sure, and 'The French Connection' was always meant to be bleach-bypassed as well.
Anonymous
November 21st 2014 02:50:11 PM
I like the look of the new color timing, but it obviously isn't what it originally looked like. Now Arrow will be releasing the original theatrical cut on Blu-ray with the original color timing as well as the Director's Cut with the new teal color timing.
Now those people who are insisting that it was always teal won't have a leg to stand on.
Anonymous
January 24th 2014 12:08:58 AM
Wow, einen besseren Bluray-Transfer hätte ich mir für "Thief" nicht wünschen können. Meilenweit besser als die DVD.
Sam
January 23rd 2014 12:36:32 AM
It says in the booklet that they used Michael Mann's original 35mm answer print as source for colour reference. I happen to like the look of it.
dvdmike
January 22nd 2014 11:26:32 PM
SO.MUCH.TEAL.
lolwut
January 22nd 2014 04:28:48 PM
Wow, looks fantastic. I'm guessing the teal is closer to the director's intent.
Tom Brady
January 22nd 2014 03:31:33 PM
Looks very nice. Let's hope for a german release.
