criterionforum.org

I think someone has confused window-box (black bars on four sides) and pillar-box (black bars on left & right sides).

Tough call, but I give Criterion the edge here. I like the inky blacks and the "deeper" more three-dimensional picture. For right or wrong, the MOC looks flat and two-dimensional to me.

dadaistnun wrote:Beaver comparison is up.

I'm curious. Both of these are taken from the same master. How does one explain a >8 GB difference in file size? That's roughly a 25% difference. The Criterion is clearly contrast boosted. Why would they compress the file also?

The most likely answer is that Criterion used a lower bit rate because their extras take up more room, which would seem to be supported by the fact that their total file size (including extras) fills the disc to the brim, while MoC have a few gigs to spare.

The review lays out the contrast differences really well, and Criterion's black levels do seem a bit excessive, though on its own terms the image is still quite superb. What I'm wondering about now is the difference in framing on the last screen grab, the one where the blind man is grabbing Peter Lorre's shoulder. The Criterion disc has more information on the left side of the frame and less on the right, compared to MoC. To me, this is much more curious than the differing bit rates if these indeed came from the same master.

EDIT: Looking at it again, I'm not sure those stills were both grabbed from exactly the same moment (Peter Lorre's head seems to be at a slightly different angle) so that probably accounts for the little difference in framing.

Kirkinson wrote:The review lays out the contrast differences really well, and Criterion's black levels do seem a bit excessive, though on its own terms the image is still quite superb. What I'm wondering about now is the difference in framing on the last screen grab, the one where the blind man is grabbing Peter Lorre's shoulder. The Criterion disc has more information on the left side of the frame and less on the right, compared to MoC. To me, this is much more curious than the differing bit rates if these indeed came from the same master.

EDIT: Looking at it again, I'm not sure those stills were both grabbed from exactly the same moment (Peter Lorre's head seems to be at a slightly different angle) so that probably accounts for the little difference in framing.

The bum's right eyelid is the only slight indication in my mind that the still is not the same; however, that doesn't account for such a large discrepancy of information IMO.

EDIT: Lorre's face is in fact not in the same position. You can tell with his right eye and the amount of space between his nose and the crest of his cheek.

Kirkinson wrote:The most likely answer is that Criterion used a lower bit rate because their extras take up more room, which would seem to be supported by the fact that their total file size (including extras) fills the disc to the brim, while MoC have a few gigs to spare.

Strike two, then. Contrasting boosting to give an ersatz sense of depth at the cost of image detail and sacrificing bit rate to cram all the extras on one disc when a second SD disc would have done fine for most of the extras. The MoC looks very much like a 1930 B&W film. The CC returns us to the earlier discussion of a more modern, noirish look. To be sure, the CC appears to be better than any other choice, save the MoC, and I suppose it had to differentiate itself in some way from the earlier BD release, still...

triodelover wrote: Contrasting boosting to give an ersatz sense of depth at the cost of image detail and sacrificing bit rate to cram all the extras on one disc when a second SD disc would have done fine for most of the extras. The MoC looks very much like a 1930 B&W film.

I know we're talking about the Blu Ray versions (and I haven't jumped into that lake yet), but will this make a visual difference depending on the size of the screen one is using to watch? I would assume that a loss in image detail would likely be much more noticeable if one is watching over a very big screen. Does that make any sense?

Didn't even hafta look past the first cap to hand the judgement over to MoC. Look at the little girl in the lower left during the kiddie street-game-- CC have black boosted the pattern detail of the fabric of her dress right off of the frame and into deep shadow... image detail that registered on the negative has been bounced right off of the palette.

They should all be that easy!

Tribe wrote:

triodelover wrote:Contrasting boosting to give an ersatz sense of depth at the cost of image detail and sacrificing bit rate to cram all the extras on one disc when a second SD disc would have done fine for most of the extras. The MoC looks very much like a 1930 B&W film.

I know we're talking about the Blu Ray versions (and I haven't jumped into that lake yet), but will this make a visual difference depending on the size of the screen one is using to watch? I would assume that a loss in image detail would likely be much more noticeable if one is watching over a very big screen. Does that make any sense?

If you look at the screen grabs at Beaver, you can see the deeper blacks have cost some detail that's particularly noticeable in things like the fabric of clothing (the children on the periphery in the first grab, Lorre's topcoat, the trousers in the next-to-last set of grabs). I know things like that are noticeable on my 50" display, but I believe I would have noticed on my old Sony 32" CRT (c.1999 model) also. I'm less certain about how the file compression would manifest itself on various-sized displays. I know it's a different thing, but if you compare a 1080p BD disc with the results of ripping that disc with a program like MakeMKV, the resulting file is some 30% to 40% smaller and there is some loss of resolution as a result. How large the display has to be before that becomes intrusively noticeable I can't say because I have no way to compare BD on different types and sizes of displays, but I should think it would depend in part on what was being filmed.

Pardon my ignorance here, but how do we know that the CC has been manipulated to appear darker, and not that the MoC has been manipulated to appear brighter?

It is clear Criterion should have used a second blu-ray for the extras...

Brian C wrote:Pardon my ignorance here, but how do we know that the CC has been manipulated to appear darker, and not that the MoC has been manipulated to appear brighter?

Because we have information that the MoC has not been manipulated at all and that the Criterion has. Of course, this isn't the end of the argument, as Criterion would presumably claim that their manipulation was done in order to make the raw transfer truer to the way the film originally appeared.

aox wrote:Tough call, but I give Criterion the edge here. I like the inky blacks and the "deeper" more three-dimensional picture. For right or wrong, the MOC looks flat and two-dimensional to me.

Completely opposite reaction from me. CC's image looks like it's been pulled towards a generic 50s film noir look.

I popped the MoC BR in my player for a quick comparison and Beaver's captures seem rather faithful to the disc. So I can only assume the same holds true for their caps of the CC BR, which means the MoC BR, in my eyes and according to my personal preferences, wins hands-down.

Brian C wrote:Pardon my ignorance here, but how do we know that the CC has been manipulated to appear darker, and not that the MoC has been manipulated to appear brighter?

There are oddball exceptions to every rule of course, so I don't want to make this sound ironclad, but as a general rule: you cannot, through manipulation of the black/shadow palette, pull details (i e fabric patterns) out of areas that were photographed in deep shadow... i e you can't create details that were not there in the first place; but you can mask details that were there originally by the digital amping up of the black/shadow palette. Try it yourself in photoshop.

In other words, potential brightboosting (which we know did not take place, both from MoC's general hands-off m.o. and from the general statements that have been in the air regarding the treatment of the film by the two co's viz this release) by MoC-- which you're suggesting as possibility-- could not possibly have manufactured detail out of a photographic zone of total black shadow... at least not to the degree in the cap. But it is a classic byproduct of blackboosting that lightly shaded areas of detail (visible in proper exposure) can be obliterated by the artificial casting them into deep shadow.

triodelover wrote:

Tribe wrote:

triodelover wrote:Contrasting boosting to give an ersatz sense of depth at the cost of image detail and sacrificing bit rate to cram all the extras on one disc when a second SD disc would have done fine for most of the extras. The MoC looks very much like a 1930 B&W film.

I know we're talking about the Blu Ray versions (and I haven't jumped into that lake yet), but will this make a visual difference depending on the size of the screen one is using to watch? I would assume that a loss in image detail would likely be much more noticeable if one is watching over a very big screen. Does that make any sense?

If you look at the screen grabs at Beaver, you can see the deeper blacks have cost some detail that's particularly noticeable in things like the fabric of clothing (the children on the periphery in the first grab, Lorre's topcoat, the trousers in the next-to-last set of grabs). I know things like that are noticeable on my 50" display, but I believe I would have noticed on my old Sony 32" CRT (c.1999 model) also. I'm less certain about how the file compression would manifest itself on various-sized displays. I know it's a different thing, but if you compare a 1080p BD disc with the results of ripping that disc with a program like MakeMKV, the resulting file is some 30% to 40% smaller and there is some loss of resolution as a result. How large the display has to be before that becomes intrusively noticeable I can't say because i have no way to compare BD on different types and sizes of displays, but I should think it would depend in part on what was being filmed.

You'd notice this sort of difference on any size of screen really. I mean you can immediately see the difference between the two transfers by looking at the compressed screencaps on Beaver without even opening them up to their native resolution.

What is the source for this print? Because there's no way (for us) to know that MOC isn't working from something that wasn't properly treated. Perhaps they have the pure copy out of the telecine but that's not accurate to the actual film?

Sorry, no. MoC is using Criterion's own master. Someone more wise will have to comment on "pure copy" out of telecine, but I doubt that Criterion didn't already fiddle with the knobs before they made a master (let alone one they can license to other distributors).

Svevan is correct. Both houses used the same master. Go read the MoC thread.

zitherstrings wrote:What is the source for this print? Because there's no way (for us) to know that MOC isn't working from something that wasn't properly treated. Perhaps they have the pure copy out of the telecine but that's not accurate to the actual film?

Actually we do have a way to know. From the MoC M thread:

peerpee wrote:We didn't do any additional restoration on the HD master, other than refusing to use grain removal or other filter software in the AVC encoding stage. The HD master was pretty lovely and clean.

The quote is from Nick Wrigley, who is one of the principals at MoC and co-producer of the disc.

HerrSchreck wrote:you can't create details that were not there in the first place; but you can mask details that were there originally by the digital amping up of the black/shadow palette. Try it yourself in photoshop.

I agree of course and for this reason prefer the MoC because if I wanted to boost the contrast I could do so on my own projector where as I couldn't undo the boosting that Criterion appear to have done.

Interesting, by the way, that the old Eureka DVD (whatever its other shortcomings) shows noticeably more image than any other release, especially in the comparisons of the balloon-seller shot where the Blu-rays crop signs on both left and right. There is also more image at the top (and the bottom edges look identical) so it is a case of more complete, rather than different, framing on the Eureka, at least in that shot. I noticed the same - though possibly only in vertical space - when I compared the MoC and Criterion DVDs with the old Eureka of Das Testament des Dr Mabuse.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, is lighter with more detail always preferred? See the debate in the Sous le soleil de satan thread.

swo17 wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, is lighter with more detail always preferred? See the debate in the Sous le soleil de satan thread.

I'm not sure anyone is saying that lighter with more detail is always preferred. This is a 1931 film, and the film stocks of the time just couldn't achieve the level of contrast available later (like in 1987). To boost contrast and deepen blacks creates an unnatural appearance that wouldn't accurately represent the original (while also obscuring detail). It's like recording a jazz quartet and over-miking the bass. Some folks may like "feeling" the bass, but it's not what the music sounded like acoustically in the recording venue. Jonathan S is correct. If you want that effect you either have or can add controls to your home system to achieve that. The producers of the disc - BD, DVD or CD - shouldn't be making that decision for you.

triodelover wrote: This is a 1931 film, and the film stocks of the time just couldn't achieve the level of contrast available later (like in 1987). To boost contrast and deepen blacks creates an unnatural appearance that wouldn't accurately represent the original (while also obscuring detail).

Now I'm confused. I understand the issues held by some regarding the boosting of contrast and the deepening of black tones...but why exactly are we leaping to the conclusion that there isn't an accurate representation of the original...without anyone around to have actually seen the original...or some other evidence? Some may find the practices objectionable...but stretching that to the conclusion that the movie wasn't "intended" to be shown that way or that its somehow not faithful to the original seems to entail a number of assumptions that "aren't in the record" (OK, OK, I'm preparing for hearing...).

Brian C wrote:Pardon my ignorance here, but how do we know that the CC has been manipulated to appear darker, and not that the MoC has been manipulated to appear brighter?

In addition to what has been noted regarding details in dark areas which have been obliterated by darkening on the CC disc, note the lighter areas, such as the close-up on Lorre's hand (I think it's Lorre's) going into his pocket. The very light shadows, such as from the knuckle, are lighter on the MOC than on the CC, but they have not disappeared as they would have had the image been overly lightened.