Bicycle Thieves

[tenia]

There's a general tendency in these discussions to assume that any form of DNR is somehow evil - whereas in fact it's often necessary to replicate the effect of theatrical projection, given that initial HD telecines can often be sharper than the cinematographer originally intended (as demonstrated by films where supposedly invisible wires are clearly visible on Blu-ray).

For movies of this era, there is almost always a fine amount of DNR applied, because grain would be so present that it would just vampirize most of the bitrate. If you take things like the Gaumont releases, or the Borzage releases from Carlotta, DNR has been slightly used, but it is still very sharp.

The issue is not with DNR itself, and I don't believe it has been, but more with the amount applied. I would say that, if too much noise for nothing is done, it would be to claim that huge amount of DNR has been applied each time soft transfers are out. I recall Mulholland Dr for instance : scream for abuse of DNR, when the movie itself has always had a soft picture.

Still, even if I don't want to judge the Bicylce Thieves release, it seems that, when looking at andyli caps, that the Arrow release is too soft, not the Italian one too sharp.

[zombeaner]

I fucking hate screencaps because they turn every dickhead on the internet into a technician.

[MichaelB]

I fucking hate screencaps because they turn every dickhead on the internet into a technician.

Hear hear!

They've always been an inexact science, and the advent of Blu-ray has made the situation worse still, because the gap between framegrabs and the experience of watching the images in motion is so much greater.

Technically, I have the advantage of actually having seen substantial chunks of the Arrow disc - but of course I haven't seen the Italian disc (and probably never will, as I have no incentive to buy it), and since the Arrow disc comes across markedly sharper than those grabs suggest, my instinct is to assume that the Italian grabs give a similarly imperfect account.

And the fact that Andyli's comparisons were taken from screengrabs made by different people with different equipment and differing methodologies makes it an even less useful exercise.

[tenia]

And the fact that Andyli's comparisons were taken from screengrabs made by different people with different equipment and differing methodologies makes it an even less useful exercise.

OK, I haven't thought of that, and yes, it changes everything.

I admit that I have the sin to think that comparison using screengrabs made by the same person with the same settings are a discriminating method to compare editions.
In fact, the only BRs I've bought that was, let's say, not excellent on the screengrabs were disappointing for me. However, firstly, I might just have been conditioning myself (thinking "oh the screengrabs were not very good, it's gonna look awful"), and as I use this to avoid "bad" BRs, I might very well have skipped BRs that are in fact pretty good.

[MichaelB]

I think part of the problem is that the higher the resolution and the more grain we see, the more likely it is that an individual frame might come across as "soft", whereas it looks pin-sharp in motion. I've certainly noticed this phenomenon far more with Blu-ray framegrabs than I ever have with DVD, to the extent that I think it's vital to read the accompanying commentary instead of just looking at the pictures.

And it's well worth noting that for all the shrieks of outrage at the supposed softness of the grabs, Gary's verbal reaction is very positive indeed - as is mine. It's certainly the best small-screen version of Bicycle Thieves that I've ever seen, and by a very considerable margin, and I wish I'd had the BD checkdisc when writing the booklet essay, as I had to make do with multiple viewings of a vastly inferior DVD version!

(Which is why I haven't watched the whole of the BD yet - magnificent though the film is, I've seen it a little too often already this year...)

[Nothing]

There's a general tendency in these discussions to assume that any form of DNR is somehow evil - whereas in fact it's often necessary to replicate the effect of theatrical projection, given that initial HD telecines can often be sharper than the cinematographer originally intended (as demonstrated by films where supposedly invisible wires are clearly visible on Blu-ray).

For movies of this era, there is almost always a fine amount of DNR applied, because grain would be so present that it would just vampirize most of the bitrate.

One of the strengths of blu-ray is that it can handle film grain without the need for DNR. Of course the UK blu-ray of Bicycle Thieves is going to look better than a DVD, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have looked even better*. The grain literally IS the image, it can never be "too overt", and the suggestion that digital softening was somehow part of the cinematographers intent on a 35mm film shot over 60 years ago is ludicrous. Surprised to hear this coming from Michael too, given that the BFI have generally been very good at avoiding DNR on their blu-ray releases.

* I know what a DNR'ed image looks like and those screengrabs are clear cut, regardless of what 'zombeaner' says. Of course, if the grabs were softened after capture this would give a false impression, but I wouldn't expect that from DVDBeaver.

[Duncan Hopper]

One of the strengths of blu-ray is that it can handle film grain without the need for DNR. Of course the UK blu-ray of Bicycle Thieves is going to look better than a DVD, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have looked even better*. The grain literally IS the image, it can never be "too overt", and the suggestion that digital softening was somehow part of the cinematographers intent on a 35mm film shot over 60 years ago is ludicrous. Surprised to hear this coming from Michael too, given that the BFI have generally been very good at avoiding DNR on their blu-ray releases.

You miss the point, the process can in some cases pick up more grain than would ever be visible in the cinema, this is why in some cases mild DNR is fine.

[MichaelB]

Surprised to hear this coming from Michael too, given that the BFI have generally been very good at avoiding DNR on their blu-ray releases.

You miss the point, the process can in some cases pick up more grain than would ever be visible in the cinema, this is why in some cases mild DNR is fine.

Thanks - that's absolutely my point. In fact, when I first set up my Blu-ray system, I was disconcerted about how distractingly obtrusive the grain came across with certain films that I knew extremely well from 35mm screenings.

One immediate cure was to turn the factory-set sharpness setting of my plasma TV down to zero (which I'd recommend people do as a matter of course), as this had been exaggerating the grain, but this helped emphasise the fact that good Blu-ray encoding isn't so much an attempt at reproducing all the grain accurately - which in any case is impossible with 35mm-sourced material as the 1080p resolution is still too low - as striking an intelligent balance between what's on the 35mm original and an HD picture that does it justice.

And in these cases DNR can be an entirely legitimate tool if handled by someone who knows what they're doing (definitely the case with in-house BFI transfers, though I can't speak for Arrow).

[cdnchris]

I think people are overreacting to the screen grabs. I've only sampled the disc so far so my opinion could change, but from what I've seen I think it looks pretty good.

[Jonathan S]

Isn't part of the problem for Blu-ray producers that their products are often viewed by customers on small monitors which intensify the grain far more than a 35mm theatrical exhibition or even a sizeable home cinema set-up? I'm not saying this excuses excessive DNR but I suspect it's one of the primary reasons they do it. I don't have a full HD display but I own even DVDs (notably Universal R1s) that look almost unwatchably grainy on a small TV but are absolutely fine when projected 4-6 feet wide. (I suspect with many DVDs the grain is what Beaver calls "faux-grain" added in the transfer process, but I think the process of its diffusion on a larger screen is the same.)

In so far as one can judge at all from framegrabs, I suspect the Arrow looks softer than the Italian release partly because it has lower contrast, which may also be a factor in reducing the appearance of grain. In the near-comparison on the previous page the Arrow's lower contrast reveals more detail in the man's hair.

[tenia]

One of the strengths of blu-ray is that it can handle film grain without the need for DNR. Of course the UK blu-ray of Bicycle Thieves is going to look better than a DVD, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have looked even better*. The grain literally IS the image, it can never be "too overt", and the suggestion that digital softening was somehow part of the cinematographers intent on a 35mm film shot over 60 years ago is ludicrous. Surprised to hear this coming from Michael too, given that the BFI have generally been very good at avoiding DNR on their blu-ray releases.

You miss the point, the process can in some cases pick up more grain than would ever be visible in the cinema, this is why in some cases mild DNR is fine.

Exactly. As I said, I'm no expert on this topic : this part of the whole "light DNR" is taken from Jerome Soulet, head director of the video edition department from Gaumont (and has also been confirmed by people working for Carlotta).

However, for the "1080p" is too low, I found a study done in France about the actual resolution of a 35mm projection, made in partnership by the AFC (which is a agency of french DP). It turns out that a negative has a resolution of around 2100 lines in the best case, about 1400 lines for an interpositif, and about 1000 lines for a regular copy and can go down to 700 lines.

[MichaelB]

You miss the point, the process can in some cases pick up more grain than would ever be visible in the cinema, this is why in some cases mild DNR is fine.

Exactly. As I said, I'm no expert on this topic : this part of the whole "light DNR" is taken from Jerome Soulet, head director of the video edition department from Gaumont (and has also been confirmed by people working for Carlotta).

...not to mention the BFI's James White, with whom I've had many conversations on this very topic - and the Blu-rays that he's personally supervised (as opposed to ones where an existing digital master was brought in from elsewhere) consistently get some of the best reviews of anything available in the medium, which suggests that he broadly knows what he's talking about.

In a nutshell, we probably all agree that DNR that's designed purely to eliminate grain is untrammelled evil, but DNR that's designed to help compensate for visual problems introduced at some stage in the chain from film materials to final encode is a very different matter, and may in some circumstances be a more aesthetically satisfying option as far as the end user is concerned.

I certainly think that the telecine itself should be as free from digital manipulation as possible, but it's not always necessarily desirable that this should be true of the final encode.

[Der Spieler]

I'll wait until a few other reviews surface (from serious and objective reviewers) until I order it, but I might give BICYCLE THIEVES a chance.

[Nothing]

the process can in some cases pick up more grain than would ever be visible in the cinema, this is why in some cases mild DNR is fine.

Thanks - that's absolutely my point.

It's not possible for a telecine to pick up 'more grain' than the 35mm original. The image is the grain, and the higher the resolution and bitrate you can give to representing the grain structure the better a digital copy is going to look. Yes, it's possible to manipulate, say, the contrast of an image so that the grain structure is more apparent than it would be on a 35mm projection, but this isn't an argument for digital softening, simply for accurate colour timing. The reason to use DNR is if the delivery medium can't handle a detailed representation of the grain structure, in which case DNR is needed to conserve bitrate and prevent compression artifacting. However, this shouldn't be necessary on a blu-ray from a solid 16mm or 35mm source.

when I first set up my Blu-ray system, I was disconcerted about how distractingly obtrusive the grain came across with certain films that I knew extremely well from 35mm screenings.

The problem is your plasma, which is displaying the image with way too much contrast and brightness. Switch to a front projector and a 100"+ screen and the problem will go away.

Nb. I'm not saying not to give the disc 'a chance'. A DVD, or indeed VHS, of Bicycle Thieves is still going to give you a reasonable approximation of experiencing the film - and a perfect blu-ray still can't compare to a 35mm print. The Arrow would appear to be the best home video option for English-speaking viewers at the present time.

[Der Spieler]

Criterion will probably release the film on BD sooner or later, I would assume.

[MichaelB]

Cathode Ray Tube on Bicycle Thieves:

A word then about the HD transfer. This is very good indeed and is another example of how high-definition really benefits films and television made in black and white. Much of the imagery is very detailed indeed, particularly faces, costumes and set decoration and the contrast is exceptional, displaying rich black tones and it superbly shows off the deep focus cinematography. For example, when Antonio and Bruno are caught in a rain shower, the water on their clothes and faces is picked up in brilliant detail. There are moments where the picture is fuzzy and soft, but these are fleeting, and there are occasional jumps with missing frames. Neither will deter your enjoyment as you'll be beguiled by the quality of the transfer here. The sound is perhaps not as good as it could be. The soundstage tends to be murky, higher and lower frequencies never really emerging to their full potential in the mix, the incidental score perhaps coming off worse. This is a shame as Alessandro Cicognini's music is often the emotional core of the film, its mournful tone rarely forgettable, and it reflects the psychological journey on screen. A fuller restoration of the soundtrack would have been the icing on the cake here.

[Der Spieler]

Not content to thrill us just with their much admired high-definition Italian horror film releases

If they admire the Arrow Video releases, I'll take their opinion with a slight grain of salt.

[eerik]

BluBrew comparison of Bicycle Thieves

Video:

Unfortunately somewhat disappointing. Bicycle Thieves was recently restored and released by Fox in Italy and Arrow seems to make use of the same source – but the transfers differ greatly in quality.

One of the things instantly clear about the new version to be released in the UK this month, is that the transfer has been grain-reduced. Where the Italian version shows high-frequency, filmlike, grain-patterns and strong detail -Arrow’s version regularly shows undefined/waxy textures and literally frozen grain-fields. Sharpening, although not always present, is regularly noticeable in mid-range shots – giving the overall transfer a digital look. Some aliasing is also an issue of concern, and it makes one wonder if something went wrong in authoring stage.

Contrast/levels are slightly debatable on both versions. Where the Italian version might have had a slight black push, the Arrow version tends to look somewhat too bright and washed-out. The proper balance probably lies somewhere in between these two releases.

Arrow’s version of Thieves isn’t a complete waste as it looks decent at certain points, beating out the previous dvd-versions – and besides the obvious digital manipulations there aren’t too many further issues. With both releases being English-friendly, however, we recommend those looking for a strong and filmlike presentation of Ladri di Biciclette to go with the Italian Fox release.

Audio:

While the PCM-mono track might sound appropriately outdated, it isn’t likely to garner many complaints. The overall mix is far from impressive, but with a film of this vintage it sounds quite adequate. While some levels might be slightly inconsistent and thin in fidelity, dialogue is always understandable and the prominent musical score and effects are well-represented. Arrow doesn’t seem to have made use of the restored DTS-HD stereo track present on the Italian release, but the results are pretty much comparable. Optional English subtitles are available.

[andyli]

This is what I'm waiting for. Now with the clear comparisons and statement from a reviewer who has seen BOTH versions, it is clear that the Arrow edition not only suffer from DNR, but also from prominent edge enhancement, as shown in captures with medium/close-up shots. Edge enhancement has to be a sign of digital manipulation and could never be something the filmmakers want at the time the film was made, could it?

EDIT: And the reason I dismiss the Arrow ddition of The Bicycle Thieves is not that it's bad in an absolute sense. The point is it could have been better - or even perfect, with sweet packaging and a fantastic set of bonus features. Maybe I should lower my expectation for future Arrow Academy line releases.

[MichaelB]

Well, I can't argue with a direct comparison!

I wonder who it is at Arrow that's requesting these DNR jobs? Maybe they should be encouraged to have a look at City Girl or the BFI's Ozu discs to see how much better a hands-off approach looks?

[cdnchris]

Yeah, the edge enhancement was actually noticeable the second time I went through it with the commentary, though I will say grain is still there (but it appears with the comparison it's heavier in the other edition.) I actually blame the lack of details in certain scenes more on the fact that I still think it looks a little too bright.

[Der Spieler]

Well, I can't argue with a direct comparison!

I wonder who it is at Arrow that's requesting these DNR jobs? Maybe they should be encouraged to have a look at City Girl or the BFI's Ozu discs to see how much better a hands-off approach looks?

Man, I can't even count the number of times I've asked questions about it directly to the Arrow Video staff on Cult Labs, but no one ever cared to answer. The way they keep on offering DNR'd releases despite the less-than-glowing reviews that always point out the fault is straight up idiotic. You'd think they would try to improve their methods, but it seems they're too stubborn or proud or whatever.

The usual reaction on Arrow's part is denial of all problems, censorship (on their forums) and apologetic half-excuses. In the case of BICYCLE THIEVES, they had access to a great master; yet, they fucked it up. They also worked with the same material than Blue Underground with CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD; yet, they fucked it up. I'm now afraid they will also fail to deliver the best presentation possible for RIFIFI or Argento's TENEBRAE.

[tenia]

By the way, I was wondering something : if they have access to the same master than the Italian version (or for the same titles as BU, the BU masters), why don't they simply try and make the same transfer ?
What is the level of communication needed for them to go and say 'oh, by the way, you gave me access to your master, what can I do to have the same transfer ?'

Maybe it would be even simpler for Arro not to ask permission for the master but for the transfer directly ?

I don't know at all, I'm just asking.

[zombeaner]

Well, I can't argue with a direct comparison!

I wonder who it is at Arrow that's requesting these DNR jobs? Maybe they should be encouraged to have a look at City Girl or the BFI's Ozu discs to see how much better a hands-off approach looks?

Man, I can't even count the number of times I've asked questions about it directly to the Arrow Video staff on Cult Labs, but no one ever cared to answer.

FYI, no one from the Arrow Video staff is on Cult Labs. The moderators there are staff at Cult Labs and work as PR for Arrow Video, so asking them technical questions is not going to be very helpful.

[Der Spieler]

Either way the message doesn't come through. Do they even read the reviews?