639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Post Reply
Message
Author
Adam
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:29 pm
Location: Los Angeles CA
Contact:

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#126 Post by Adam » Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:16 pm

imhotep wrote:
MichaelB wrote:Ron Fricke's own projects were sometimes filmed in 65mm and/or IMAX.
Yeah. I've got Baraka already. Was hoping for something similar quality wise.
The new one, Samsara, was also shot in 65mm.

nils
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:43 am
Location: somewhere deep in Russia

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#127 Post by nils » Sun Sep 30, 2012 4:06 am

I found Evidence in good quality on the website of rightholder.

User avatar
Lowry_Sam
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 3:35 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#128 Post by Lowry_Sam » Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:48 pm

knives wrote:Anyone else surprised at the lack of Evidence which I believe is the only Reggio film missing from the set? Here is the whole thing for those curious.
While it won't stop me from buying the set (one of my most anticipated Criterion releases), I'm more disappointed that Koyaanisqatsi isn't a 2-disc, with the original full-frame version (which is how I first saw it & then again how it also toured live with Philip Glass conducting) & with the original stereo soundtrack, then the 2nd disc can contain the widescreen version with the re-recorded 5.1 soundtrack, possibly also one of the live recorded versions as an alternate on the 1st, as well as a commentary by Reggio & Glass for the 2nd. If they can release On The Waterfront in 3 aspect ratios, certainly they can release a more deserving title in 2, along with its original soundtrack & more extras. This & no Spalding Gray box are the disappointments of the year for me (as well as the lackluster The Tin Drum in January).

User avatar
The Narrator Returns
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#129 Post by The Narrator Returns » Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:51 pm

DVDBeaver for Koyaanisqatsi

I find it strange that Gary ties the first DVD with the Blu-Ray (even if that DVD is the only open-matte one).

atcolomb
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: Round Lake, Illinois USA

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#130 Post by atcolomb » Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:52 pm

The Narrator Returns wrote:DVDBeaver for Koyaanisqatsi

I find it strange that Gary ties the first DVD with the Blu-Ray (even if that DVD is the only open-matte one).
To my eyes looking at the screen shots i would have picked the first dvd because of more of the image at the top and bottom and it does look just as sharp as the blu-ray.

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#131 Post by MichaelB » Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:45 am

To me, the "extra bits at the top and bottom" are redundant - the compositions look much more satisfying to my eyes in 1.85:1.

User avatar
Dragoon En Regalia
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:52 pm
Location: Art Theatre Shinjuku Bunka
Contact:

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#132 Post by Dragoon En Regalia » Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:40 am

I prefer the Criterion aspect ratio as well. More images in Koyannisqatsi benefit from horizontal composition than the other way 'round. Plus: lossless audio and plenty of supplements really helps this release out (going by Beaver).

User avatar
daniel p
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:01 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#133 Post by daniel p » Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:50 pm

I'm on the other side of the fence, the open matte compositions work much better for me. Being able to see the 1.85:1 screenshots next to the open matte proves their lack of grandeur - they all feel too heavily cropped to me. I am hoping once I throw the disc in that will no longer be the case, having nothing to directly compare to - but sometimes I think a square composition just works better than widescreen framing, and this is definitely an example of that.

Can't wait to see the other reviews, been waiting for this for a long time!

User avatar
Lowry_Sam
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 3:35 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#134 Post by Lowry_Sam » Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:15 pm

MichaelB wrote:To me, the "extra bits at the top and bottom" are redundant - the compositions look much more satisfying to my eyes in 1.85:1.
In the case of the shot of the nuclear reactor behind the beach, the "bits" are the people sunbathing on the beach. In widescreen the sunbathers are completely cut out of the picture, which completely undermines the crux of the picture: the absurdity of people sunbathing on a beach near a nuclear reactor.

The film was shot for both aspect ratios & not to have that option is a real loss, particularly for a film where it is so much more crucial (ie. than On The Waterfront). With as much fuss as many here make over original soundtracks (particularly mono), I'm also surprised I'm the only one griping about the fact that the original stereo soundtrack has been replaced by a re-recorded 5.1 soundtrack (and without the original available as an alternative). I listened to an interview (I believe it was on NPR's Fresh Air) with Philip Glass discussing the changes that were made in the re-recording of the soundtrack and why he liked the new version better after playing it so many times over the years, but not making the original available is another loss.

User avatar
Kirkinson
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:34 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#135 Post by Kirkinson » Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:51 pm

Lowry_Sam wrote:In the case of the shot of the nuclear reactor behind the beach, the "bits" are the people sunbathing on the beach. In widescreen the sunbathers are completely cut out of the picture, which completely undermines the crux of the picture: the absurdity of people sunbathing on a beach near a nuclear reactor.
You're conveniently leaving out the fact that the shot you're referring to starts with the sunbathers, then tilts up and goes wider to reveal the reactor. There's no mistaking the point of the shot in the 1.85 version. Behold:

Image
Lowry_Sam wrote:With as much fuss as many here make over original soundtracks (particularly mono), I'm also surprised I'm the only one griping about the fact that the original stereo soundtrack has been replaced by a re-recorded 5.1 soundtrack (and without the original available as an alternative). I listened to an interview (I believe it was on NPR's Fresh Air) with Philip Glass discussing the changes that were made in the re-recording of the soundtrack and why he liked the new version better after playing it so many times over the years, but not making the original available is another loss.
Are you suggesting that the music itself was re-recorded (i.e., a new performance)? I had just assumed the original soundtrack was remixed for 5.1. I haven't heard anything about a brand new recording being made, Criterion's specs don't mention it, and as far as I can tell this is the first time it's come up in this thread.

User avatar
justeleblanc
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: Connecticut

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#136 Post by justeleblanc » Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:23 pm

Remixing a stereo or mono soundtrack for 5.1 without providing the original is a pretty terrible practice. It may not seem as egregious as colorizing a film or cropping it to fit widescreen televisions, but it does completely change the soundtrack and it makes studying the original nearly impossible. As for the differences between rerecording and remixing, many times these are one and the same. If Glass had preserved the original stems from his original recording, then it is possible that they simply split these stems across the five channels and boosted the low frequencies in the LFE, but doing so does change the loudness and it can often present a different sounding piece of music (not to mention that it completely changes the emotional expressiveness of the music). However, in many cases the original stems are lost, so when remixing a mono or stereo film for 5.1 DVD producers might add new sounds to the rear channels (as they did to Vertigo and Once Upon a Time in the West) and this then does necessitate rerecording. Either way, pretty annoying stuff.

User avatar
Kirkinson
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:34 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#137 Post by Kirkinson » Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:15 pm

The original stems are lost, or at least they were until very recently - when Glass recently reissued the complete original recording on his own label, the sound effects were included on the album because the original masters were destroyed or couldn't be found. Only the abridged version made for the original LP release still exists.

I'm not arguing the point that providing a 5.1 mix without including the original mix as an option is a bad thing, nor do I know anything about what they had to do to make that mix in the first place. I'm just interested to know where Lowry_Sam heard about a new performance being recorded for this release, since I hadn't seen that news anywhere. They couldn't have used the 1998 recording, because that doesn't sync up to the film (I've tried) and even that was incomplete; and it seems a little too early to just presume a new performance was recorded.

User avatar
Lowry_Sam
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 3:35 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#138 Post by Lowry_Sam » Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:10 pm

The original stereo soundtrack (no sound effects) was released only on the original cd (black cover w/ writing), which wasn't a complete version of the soundtrack. The 1998 release (beach w/ car & sky cover) was re-recorded & was presented as the complete soundtrack and it was released as a CD (stereo) & a DVD-A (5.1). It was at the time of this release that I heard the radio interview w/ Glass about the differences in the new version & why he liked it better than the original. The 2002 MGM DVD was released shortly therafter & since it was 5.1 (only) and the film was originally presented in stereo, I had assumed that they were using the new recording. Since I hadn't heard anything about where the Criterion 5.1 comes from, I assumed it would be a "cleaned up" 5.1 from the MGM disc. Does anyone know? I prefer the original stereo version (but with the film sound effects) to the 1998 re-recording, as that is how I came to love the film. Glass talked about how some passages were speeded up & others slowed down, so it would make sense that it would be difficult to use that as the 5.1 sountrack. I forgot about the complete original stereo soundtrack release (I thought that would just be a reissue). So maybe they mixed to 5.1 for this & downmixed to stereo for the cd?

I also forgot that the nuclear/beach shot was a moving shot, as most of the open air shots w/ lots of people were static, but I still usually like to have more info in the frame rather than less (would also love to see John Waters' early films restored to full frame, as that's how I originally saw them). Personally I prefer the full image of the Las Vegas show girls to the wide screen framing. Other shots don't look so remarkably different.

User avatar
Kirkinson
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:34 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#139 Post by Kirkinson » Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:07 pm

Lowry_Sam wrote:The 2002 MGM DVD was released shortly therafter & since it was 5.1 (only) and the film was originally presented in stereo, I had assumed that they were using the new recording.
That's funny, I had the MGM DVD right in front of me to make that gif and didn't even think to check whether it was 5.1 or not. Anyway, rest assured the MGM DVD is absolutely the original recording - you can tell not just from the sound quality (sometimes hot or muffled in certain places) but also from the performance, which is a little rougher than Glass's later recordings, especially in the way the choir sings (a little sharper and more staccato, like the first recording of Einstein on the Beach). It's also most certainly the same performance as the original VHS release (which is how I've seen the film in full-frame).

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#140 Post by Matt » Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:50 pm

Glass considers the 1998 recording to be a recording of his full, revised score, not a new version of the soundtrack, if that makes sense. It is adjusted to suit his musical aesthetic over the needs of the film.

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#141 Post by EddieLarkin » Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:36 pm

Lowry_Sam wrote:and the film was originally presented in stereo,
Wouldn't a Dolby Stereo track from 1982 have actually been surround? Left total and right total that decoded to LCR and mono surround? In theaters that supported it I mean.

Does anyone have any links (youtube?) demonstrating differences between the original recorded and the new one?

nils
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:43 am
Location: somewhere deep in Russia

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#142 Post by nils » Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:11 pm

Frame comparison: Koch media blu-ray vs. Criterion blu-ray
The German frame area is much bigger! (full frame comparison with a German release you can see here)

Why was it necessary to keep the black stripes at the top and bottom of frame? WHY???
And also, where is original Dolby Stereo track?

It's really Criterion issue? I cannot believe it :cry:
Last edited by nils on Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#143 Post by Gregory » Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:30 pm

Reggio approved the transfers. Looks to me like a totally normal discrepancy in framing.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#144 Post by swo17 » Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:41 pm

nils wrote:The German frame area is much bigger!
Going by pixel count, the Criterion only has about 1.25% of the image trimmed off of each edge compared to the other.

And the black stripes are to retain the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, regardless of how tightly framed the transfer is.

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

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#145 Post by MichaelB » Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:21 pm

The difference is negligible. I'm willing to bet the projector masking swallowed up more than that when I saw it in a cinema.

And yes, the black stripes are essential to maintain the aspect ratio that was specifically requested by Godfrey Reggio.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#146 Post by zedz » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:50 pm

It really is negligible, but if you're determined to split hairs, the evidence is all on Criterion's side, and it's Koch that koched it up. But as Michael implies, you'd probably see a greater difference between two perfectly competent theatrical projections of a film. Do people actually go to cinemas anymore, or do they just count pixels three inches away from their computer screens?

arbitrarymadness
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:06 am

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#147 Post by arbitrarymadness » Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:12 am

Found this at Home Theater Forum

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/87206 ... pect-ratio" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Joe BEIRNE (---.qatsi.org)
Date: 09-29-02 20:04

The issue with the aspect ratio of the MGM DVDs of KOYAANISQATSI and POWAQQATSI has come up here and on the Amazon website, among other places. As a producer and technical advisor on the third Qatsi film, while not involved in the process of manufacturing these DVDs, I was well aware of the decision-making behind that process. I can say definitively that the 1:1.85 aspect ratio (letterboxed) on the MGM DVDs accurately reflects the author's intentions and reproduces the original theatrical aspect ratio of the projected films.

KOYAANISQATSI and POWAQQATSI were both principally photographed in the 1980s, when widescreen television was a vague idea somewhere off in the future and a large picture tube was 27" across. While conceived as theatrical features, both films were shot with consideration for possible television broadcast, which at that time was almost exclusively full-frame 1:1.33 (4x3). The alternative to "protecting" for 4x3 by composing the image to work well in full frame would have been to "pan and scan" the widescreen image when transferred to videotape for home video release and TV broadcast.

I am sure that anyone who has seen KOYAANISQATSI and POWAQQATSI would agree the pan and scan approach would have yielded a ludicrous result for these films: for this reason when the films have been broadcast they are presented in the full "academy" aperture of 4x3, showing _more_of the original film frame than was shown in the theater. And when video transfers of the films were made prior to the MGM DVD they were also made 1:1.33. This reflected the conventional practice at the time, when very few films were transferred to video wide-screen.

However in the past few years there has been a markedly increased interest in wide-screen home video and the the technical means to display wide-screen video adequately in the home has become commonplace, arising chiefly from the popularity of larger displays. Reflecting this new environment the decision was taken now to release the films on DVD in their original 1:1.85 aspect ratio. I repeat that this image is exactly as originally intended by the director, Godfrey Reggio and the cinematographers.

I don't mean to imply that the 4x3 image in earlier transfers is somehow "invalid". I think this way of watching the films is very interesting.
It is a mark of how carefully crafted were these films that both ratios work very well. However, in no sense is the viewer of the MGM DVDs "losing" something by watching the films as they are shown as a motion picture, at 1.85, anymore than the audience was "missing something" watching the premier of KOYAANISQATSI at Radio City Music Hall in 1983.

On another matter, some people have questioned the audio reproduction on the new DVDs. Both the video and audio encoding were done by Francis Ford Copolla's Zoetrope Studios. The audio tracks are Dolby encoded. If the playback audio system does not accurately reproduce Dolby surround sound, the desired audio quality will definitely not be achieved. Like the aspect ratio, the decision to use Dolby was again conditioned by the desire for fidelity to the quality of the theatrical features, which were Dolby encoded. I think it is more than possible that issues discussed here and elsewhere concerning the sound of the DVD are due to poor Dolby-decoding on playback and not the fault of the DVD audio itself.

Joe Beirne
Producer, NAQOYQATSI

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#148 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:42 am


User avatar
ptatler
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:08 pm
Contact:

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#149 Post by ptatler » Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:04 pm

Just finishing watching the films. Moving on the the extras. KOYAANISQATSI and POWAQQATSI are fantastic films, worthy of their reputation and even exceeding my expectations. NAQOYQATSI is utter shit. Thoughts?

User avatar
Oedipax
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy

#150 Post by Oedipax » Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:02 am

I only made it through a couple minutes of Naqoyqatsi but my thoughts were obviously similar.

Post Reply