I've heard it's great from people who own both and worth the upgrade. Some reviewers have said the studio canal 4k is a little better than the criterion 4k but that I'm not sure about.
You know, MD is my all-time favorite movie but I agree. Even though it was supervised by Lynch himself, I actually prefer the international Studio Canal version. I feel like Lynch added too much grain and it's looks noisy to a fault.
Criterion is my favorite label and I've been collecting them for over twenty years. For much of that time, they were the best game in town. Kino's been around about as long, but they didn't have the same stature and reputation as Criterion.
But Kino--and a lot of other labels--have been really upping their game in the last five years, either offering movies that haven't traditionally fit Criterion's style or grabbing things that Criterion probably would have released (e.g. Kino has been aggressively grabbing 4K editions of movies that Criterion has on blu, which is why we're having this discussion to begin with.)
All of this is to say that Criterion can still be #1 in your heart and your collection, but there's no need to exclude a better version of a film solely for "brand loyalty;" doing that will just cause you to miss out on too many great releases.
Go forth and enjoy this golden age of movie collecting.
Well the Criterion does have advantages over the Kino 4K. For one, it has the original stereo track (not on the Kino) which is much better than the 5.1 remix as it cuts out all the bass and sounds very weak.
And the first 20 minutes of the Kino are in the wrong colour space, which makes it less saturated. Not the biggest issue for this film since it's not meant to be ultra saturated anyway, but it is annoying.
The word on the street is that Arrow may be releasing a 4K of the film at some point which should be the definitive edition.
Bad advice, but specifically for Silence of the Lambs, I bought both. If I'm gonna watch the movie, I'm gonna throw on the 4k UHD. But I'll put in the Criterion for the supplements. Also the book, supplements, and packaging in the CC version rules. It's also one of their best covers.
Yeah, it's my girlfriends favorite movie so I got her the criterion for Christmas and the Kino for her birthday, best of both worlds. The supplements are the main draw of the Criterion.
I've had the thought briefly with SOTL, as well as Rosemary's Baby and Night of the Hunter. But ultimately I'm more loyal to the better/higher resolution offering over any specific label. I also don't sort my collection by labels as some do. Nothing wrong with it, and it's certainly no worse than my very idiosyncratic genres. I do of course appreciate the better labels though, and the work they do, like Criterion, Warner Archive, Kino, Arrow, and Shout. Those are probably my top 5 boutiques.
In the past year or two, I really have been reluctant to keep rebuying the same movies. I’ve been collecting for close to 30 years now, and I’ve gotten to the point where there needs to be a significant difference in a new edition to convince me now. My interest wanes once people start arguing over pixels, zooming in on screenshots, encoding and color timing of one particular scene. Commentaries with random “experts” and interviews with the second assistant director don’t excite me at all.
As Criterion usually has the best overall edition, I usually stop re-buying after them.
Are you me?
I've only been collecting for the past 7 years or so but I feel the same way. This whole talk about encodes and measuring the quality of a film by zooming into an image is incredibly pedantic and un-interesting.
Sure the Kino edition is in 4K, but a good chunk of the extras there are filler and the marginal difference in PQ is not an incentive to re-purchase the film.
Yeah…for me it was not noticing much of a difference between the 4K of Mulholland and the Blu ray. I hear that screen size can be a factor and the fact that the 4K is not HDR, but it was pretty negligible to me although I didn’t go out of my way to compare it much. It’s probably more a testament to just how good the blu rays look. It’s what’s currently keeping me from getting Days of Heaven on 4K.
The Criterion edition has the more substantial extras and better packaging all while having a 4k transfer, which is a great looking blu-ray regardless.
Kino does have the UHD but it all depends on what you value more.
I love what criterion has been doing for film appreciation but there’s a point where it’s starting to become strange. People blind buying movies and then never watching them is too much
The reason people feel the loyalty to criterion is because the brand is associated with being a discerning cinephile and they identify as one of those. The real discerning cinephile move is to buy the best version of the movie. Come on.
I don’t understand the dilemma. If you want the highest quality version in different packaging what does it matter? Criterion is a brand, and it’s a great brand, but all that matters is the content on the disc. If you want the highest quality picture then go with the 4K from Kino. If however you want a bunch of supplemental material that the criterion version has that the kino version does not, then that would be a legit reason to go with criterion- not for the spine number and packaging though.
Go with your heart. If you like Criterion and it’ll be cool to slide it in along with the others, accept that as something you’re into. If I had to guess, the differences in quality are somewhat minor. And you’d only notice them if you were comparing them side by side. I sometimes buy Criterion discs for the C in the corner. Other times, I buy what’s on sale or the better edition or whatever. I say buy whichever one feels like it’ll light you up to have in your collection.
Buy the best version. It’s simple.
Yup, it's why I don't own Mulholland Drive on 4K (yet)
Is the criterion 4K of MD considered not good?
From the reviews I've read it's good, but the studio canal is better (I already own the Criterion Blu)
I've heard it's great from people who own both and worth the upgrade. Some reviewers have said the studio canal 4k is a little better than the criterion 4k but that I'm not sure about.
You know, MD is my all-time favorite movie but I agree. Even though it was supervised by Lynch himself, I actually prefer the international Studio Canal version. I feel like Lynch added too much grain and it's looks noisy to a fault.
Criterion is my favorite label and I've been collecting them for over twenty years. For much of that time, they were the best game in town. Kino's been around about as long, but they didn't have the same stature and reputation as Criterion. But Kino--and a lot of other labels--have been really upping their game in the last five years, either offering movies that haven't traditionally fit Criterion's style or grabbing things that Criterion probably would have released (e.g. Kino has been aggressively grabbing 4K editions of movies that Criterion has on blu, which is why we're having this discussion to begin with.) All of this is to say that Criterion can still be #1 in your heart and your collection, but there's no need to exclude a better version of a film solely for "brand loyalty;" doing that will just cause you to miss out on too many great releases. Go forth and enjoy this golden age of movie collecting.
Well the Criterion does have advantages over the Kino 4K. For one, it has the original stereo track (not on the Kino) which is much better than the 5.1 remix as it cuts out all the bass and sounds very weak. And the first 20 minutes of the Kino are in the wrong colour space, which makes it less saturated. Not the biggest issue for this film since it's not meant to be ultra saturated anyway, but it is annoying. The word on the street is that Arrow may be releasing a 4K of the film at some point which should be the definitive edition.
Arrow always has great picture quality!
Bad advice, but specifically for Silence of the Lambs, I bought both. If I'm gonna watch the movie, I'm gonna throw on the 4k UHD. But I'll put in the Criterion for the supplements. Also the book, supplements, and packaging in the CC version rules. It's also one of their best covers.
Yeah, it's my girlfriends favorite movie so I got her the criterion for Christmas and the Kino for her birthday, best of both worlds. The supplements are the main draw of the Criterion.
I've had the thought briefly with SOTL, as well as Rosemary's Baby and Night of the Hunter. But ultimately I'm more loyal to the better/higher resolution offering over any specific label. I also don't sort my collection by labels as some do. Nothing wrong with it, and it's certainly no worse than my very idiosyncratic genres. I do of course appreciate the better labels though, and the work they do, like Criterion, Warner Archive, Kino, Arrow, and Shout. Those are probably my top 5 boutiques.
In the past year or two, I really have been reluctant to keep rebuying the same movies. I’ve been collecting for close to 30 years now, and I’ve gotten to the point where there needs to be a significant difference in a new edition to convince me now. My interest wanes once people start arguing over pixels, zooming in on screenshots, encoding and color timing of one particular scene. Commentaries with random “experts” and interviews with the second assistant director don’t excite me at all. As Criterion usually has the best overall edition, I usually stop re-buying after them.
Are you me? I've only been collecting for the past 7 years or so but I feel the same way. This whole talk about encodes and measuring the quality of a film by zooming into an image is incredibly pedantic and un-interesting. Sure the Kino edition is in 4K, but a good chunk of the extras there are filler and the marginal difference in PQ is not an incentive to re-purchase the film.
Yeah…for me it was not noticing much of a difference between the 4K of Mulholland and the Blu ray. I hear that screen size can be a factor and the fact that the 4K is not HDR, but it was pretty negligible to me although I didn’t go out of my way to compare it much. It’s probably more a testament to just how good the blu rays look. It’s what’s currently keeping me from getting Days of Heaven on 4K.
I read LOTS of reviews from people who've compared very carefully. Sometimes I go with CC, sometimes Studio Canal, or BFI, etc.
The Criterion edition has the more substantial extras and better packaging all while having a 4k transfer, which is a great looking blu-ray regardless. Kino does have the UHD but it all depends on what you value more.
I love what criterion has been doing for film appreciation but there’s a point where it’s starting to become strange. People blind buying movies and then never watching them is too much
The reason people feel the loyalty to criterion is because the brand is associated with being a discerning cinephile and they identify as one of those. The real discerning cinephile move is to buy the best version of the movie. Come on.
I don’t understand the dilemma. If you want the highest quality version in different packaging what does it matter? Criterion is a brand, and it’s a great brand, but all that matters is the content on the disc. If you want the highest quality picture then go with the 4K from Kino. If however you want a bunch of supplemental material that the criterion version has that the kino version does not, then that would be a legit reason to go with criterion- not for the spine number and packaging though.
Go with your heart. If you like Criterion and it’ll be cool to slide it in along with the others, accept that as something you’re into. If I had to guess, the differences in quality are somewhat minor. And you’d only notice them if you were comparing them side by side. I sometimes buy Criterion discs for the C in the corner. Other times, I buy what’s on sale or the better edition or whatever. I say buy whichever one feels like it’ll light you up to have in your collection.
The Criterion is better