criterionforum.org

nitin wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2026 1:26 am describing the Criterion release as 'decent' is ridiculous though and thats the point

Calling it "decent" might be a bit too strongly mixed, and sure enough, some Criterion's UHD are definitely way worse than this (Walkabout), but while the restoration is very good, its home-video-port through Criterion still suffer from non-optimal compression DESPITE a high-freq roll-off. First, there should be no roll-off; second, if you apply one to ease the compression, then don't still get blockiness here and there. So as it stands, I understand thinking other labels could be better.

I understand what you are saying objectively but this is still like saying this release is a 9/10, I will wait for a 10/10 release and in the meantime refer to the 9/10 release as something only just above average (appreciate that you aren't exactly saying this, but that is how a lot of other posters in the 4k threads on the other forum come across as).

nitin wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2026 8:31 am I understand what you are saying objectively but this is still like saying this release is a 9/10, I will wait for a 10/10 release and in the meantime refer to the 9/10 release as something only just above average (appreciate that you aren't exactly saying this, but that is how a lot of other posters in the 4k threads on the other forum come across as).

That's exactly it.
I understand people thinking 9/10 isn't only just above average : it's actually closer to perfect 10/10. But it... isn't 10, and solely for home video reasons (and avoidable ones, at that), ie the culprit is entirely on the home video side/label.
I'm also unsure if "The Criterion 4K is certainly a decent disc" should be read as particularly pejorative, or just a variant of "is certainly a capable disc" or something like this, meaning "yeah, it's pretty good, but it should have been and could be better".
Anyway.

To be fair, don't we have the tiered upgrade thread that is meant exactly for this kind of a finite assessment? I accept that we do not need to pollute every thread with every technical quibble, but I definitely appreciate people with time on their hands giving me some shopping hints for the titles I am interest in. Also, like it or not UHD is the videophile format, so some cork sniffing is only to be expected.

I have to say it's exactly that attitude and the recent posts in the Elephant Man thread that just make me want to tear what's left of my hair out. The diminishing of a near perfect product (after all warranting a 9 out of 10) in favor of a disc that's ultimately only a little bit superior. I bet you anything that outside of Geoff D and maybe two or three others, everyone else could not tell the difference between a 9 and 10 disc in motion if they hadn't pixel peeped at 200% zoomed in screenshots instead.

I appreciate nicwood's posts because although he js a self-professed 'pixel peeper', and can see things many wont notice, ultimately his posts are fairly balanced and informative rather than just doing the usual blu ray dot com nonsense.

nitin wrote:I appreciate nicwood's posts because although he js a self-professed 'pixel peeper', and can see things many wont notice, ultimately his posts are fairly balanced and informative rather than just doing the usual blu ray dot com nonsense.

Although he does have a tendency to gush hyperbolically on a first encounter, only to significantly row back on his enthusiasm later once he’s actually watched it properly.

(I suppose this might be moved to a more appropriate topic, though I'm unsure which one exactly)

I think there are 2 slightly different subjects in this discussion.

Finch wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2026 11:28 amI have to say it's exactly that attitude and the recent posts in the Elephant Man thread that just make me want to tear what's left of my hair out. The diminishing of a near perfect product (after all warranting a 9 out of 10) in favor of a disc that's ultimately only a little bit superior.

The Elephant Man's Criterion release led to actual hyperboles on the blu-ray.com thread (and the HTF one). However, saying "this could have been better, since this other release managed to do so" isn't willingly "diminishing" a near perfect product : it can also be simply informative about a tech aspect that IS inferior. All the matter then is about classifying properly the width of the gap, which is where, sometimes, additionnal precisions and nuances and rephrasing can be useful (and where hyperboles can happen).

Not everything is My Own Private Idaho BD or Walkabout UHD, but inferior encode is inferior encode, and Criterion's positioning both in prestige and pricing doesn't help attracting leniency.

Finch wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2026 11:28 amI bet you anything that outside of Geoff D and maybe two or three others, everyone else could not tell the difference between a 9 and 10 disc in motion if they hadn't pixel peeped at 200% zoomed in screenshots instead.

To some extent, if I can see stuff like this on my 15 years old 50" HD plasma, people likely to have better equipment and still not seeing it, well, just have no excuse.

Yet, that's the world we're in, not solely because this is negligible to the point it requires zooming at 200% on screencaps to be seen (which actually rarely is required, but the problem often gets mixed up with the tool used for illustrating it), but also because 90% of the viewers never knew and/or never cared and never will, just like they could never have spotted DNR even if it sprung out of the TV and punched them in the face. Only a fraction of viewers were right to call out what we got on a recurring basis on DVD and then on early BDs (and more rarely on later BD).
And then, there are those who aren't bothered by such issues because they know they don't see it (whatever the reasons), so they can just skip those discussions. Some people aren't bothered by wobble or dust and scratches, but that's something I always address in my reviews and I can only assume such people simply skip this part, and all the best to them really.

But as I wrote earlier, we're fortunate enough that these basic issues are now mostly behind us, and with (say) 95% of the tech grounds covered, the more discerning eyes WILL focus on the remaining 5%, and those 5% WILL be what separate labels with skilled collaborators from labels surrounding themselves with lesser skilled ones and accepting to release their inferior work (and it's not as if there's a discount due to this), often despite the fact they could have asked to get it redone or hired someone better.

This is tech's last frontier for home video labels, one that is entirely in their area of influence and (normally) expertise.

It might seem trivial, and in most cases I'd argue it visually is. But, in a more general way, labels have 0 excuse in 2026 to release discs with what remains purely digitally introduced flaws, even negligible ones.
AVC is 20+ years old, HEVC 10+ years old. There are companies that have proven again and again these encoders are mastered, and since quite some time. There shouldn't be ANYTHING to point out anymore.

I'm not sure you could call Studio Canal's Elephant Man perfect either since it is missing the correct transition in one spot. Now, your mileage will vary as to what you consider more important but since SC never corrected that mistake, it's not deserving a 10 either. The addition of Dolby Vision doesn't make the release better either since it comes down to personal preference. I get the frustration that neither disc is flawless.

I'm just tired of seeing endless posts about arguably incremental improvements or an insinuation that because a release is not *quite* perfect it is not worth getting. I'm sympathetic to the argument that since this is the last format, labels should try harder. Fine, acknowledge the improvement but leave it at that, especially if the difference is between a 9 and a 10. Not directed at you personally, tenia, but just a plea to everyone not to bog down the 4K thread or others in technical minutae than is necessary.

Finch wrote:Not directed at you personally, tenia, but just a plea to everyone not to bog down the 4K thread or others in technical minutae than is necessary.

No problem, I'm trying to be nuanced too, as I think that yes, almost all that's left is up to labels so what are they doing, but also understand the frustration when facing what looks like exaggeration (which will, over time, look like yelling wolf, and dilutes actual issues with negligible stuff).

Finch wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2026 3:05 pmNot directed at you personally, tenia, but just a plea to everyone not to bog down the 4K thread or others in technical minutae than is necessary.

As you already know, Finch, but to make this 100% clear for everyone, I'm always open to constructive criticism either in the 4K thread or via PM if someone prefers that. I'd appreciate one thing though (which is not directed at you directly, Finch): If someone has anything on their minds, I'd appreciate people telling that to my virtual face instead of beating around the bush and alluding to me in other threads.

It took me some time to warm up to this forum and adapt accordingly but I certainly understand its intricacies now and try to meet people halfway. This is not the other forum and nor should it be but film discussion and technical considerations go hand in hand as dedicated people in the latter camp champion the restoration of films' artistic visual achievements which, if preserved, enable or enhance their overall appreciation and interpretation. No, you don't have to pixel-peep to do that and the world isn't ending if not every tiny particle of each image is perfectly translated to disc but pointing out flaws within reason doesn't hurt either if people are intent on getting something valuable for their money. I acknowledge that this can be done in a reasonable, informative manner, which is Finch's point, and that's what I've been trying to achieve in the UHD thread for a while now. I hope that makes sense.