criterionforum.org

I dunno, I appreciate the obsessive nit-pickers, but shouldn't DNR be more apparent than that in screen captures? I don't see much in the way of detail being lost in the Blu.

This whole grain fetish thing is out of control. Picture quality has gotten so good that people revel in it looking bad at this point. DNR is not a bad thing when used correctly. And it is absolutely used well on this disc.

I'm an unapologetic grain fetishist with a pretty sharp eye, and I don't really see what this guy is getting at. It may be more apparent in motion, but the screen caps really aren't showing me anything.

mfunk9786 wrote:This whole grain fetish thing is out of control. Picture quality has gotten so good that people revel in it looking bad at this point. DNR is not a bad thing when used correctly. And it is absolutely used well on this disc.

Yeah, LoW seems obsessed with DNR.

Some films just have source material available that needs some cleaning up. I'm just not sure why no one had a problem with digital restoration on DVD but suddenly everyone doesn't want the more advanced and effective tools available for Blu-ray remastering used.

There were, and continue to be, plenty of complaints about DNR on DVD, particularly from fans of cell animation, where its negative effects are most keenly visible. But film grain is so much more readily apparent and better rendered in HD, and apparently so undesirable for some people who want waxy, spotless images, that it's an issue that didn't really come up as much as it does, and will continue to do, now.

I'm not defending this guy or arguing against you, I'm just sayin'...

gyorgys wrote:

mfunk9786 wrote:This whole grain fetish thing is out of control. Picture quality has gotten so good that people revel in it looking bad at this point. DNR is not a bad thing when used correctly. And it is absolutely used well on this disc.

Yeah, LoW seems obsessed with DNR.

Yeah, but in the case of Inferno he was absolutely right in complaining about DNR, I thought the Arrow disc was virtually unwatchable due to excessive DNR. Mulholland Drive on the other hand looked fabulous to me.

There's a reason that gratuitous DNR got a bad rap, but if people go around slagging off random discs the legitimacy of the general effort is compromised.

Yes, then it just becomes "there's no pleasing those movie geeks on the internet" and then studios don't even try to get it right.

Matt wrote:I'm an unapologetic grain fetishist with a pretty sharp eye, and I don't really see what this guy is getting at. It may be more apparent in motion, but the screen caps really aren't showing me anything.

Matt,

You need to do a bit of research on some of the critics' history during the HD format war. Then you will begin to understand why they see things you can't. You are even going to realize that they are indeed correct in claiming that The Thin Red Line is garbage (AVS). If you fail, then obviously you are either a fanboy or paid shill.

Pro-B

Yeah, but in the case of Inferno he was absolutely right in complaining about DNR, I thought the Arrow disc was virtually unwatchable due to excessive DNR. Mulholland Drive on the other hand looked fabulous to me.

Hmmm, the beaver caps of the BD are looking pretty good to my (undiscerning) eyes. But I haven't seen the BD in real.

mfunk9786 wrote:This whole grain fetish thing is out of control. Picture quality has gotten so good that people revel in it looking bad at this point. DNR is not a bad thing when used correctly. And it is absolutely used well on this disc.

I'd be curious to know why anyone would think that reducing the grain texture inherent to film is a good thing? That's what films look like; they should be left looking like films.

Additionally, how can you say that "DNR is used well on this disc" without seeing the master?

DNR was applied to films during the days of telecines which generated their own video noise on top of the picture. Removing that is a good thing, sure (even if the film grain ended up being a casualty of that process). But trying to reduce film grain, in a film? What's the point?

There have been more excellent discs on BD that make use of the format's potential than there *ever* were on DVD, and we should celebrate that. But that doesn't mean we should lose objectivity. Sure, there are some really nice looking moments on the new BD of Mullholland Drive, but there's a big difference between "good enough" and "the best it can be". Does it not strike you as a little bit silly that a version released on HD DVD 4 years ago could be described as better?

The HD-DVD version is by no means even close to as good as the Blu-ray.

David Mackenzie wrote: I'd be curious to know why anyone would think that reducing the grain texture inherent to film is a good thing? That's what films look like; they should be left looking like films.

Hello David,

A couple of comments:

Indeed, as mfunk points out, DNR in itself is not always a cause of concern. It is how DNR is applied that is. As you know well, some of the very best Blu-ray releases we've seen during the last couple of years contain DNR alterations; practically all of Criterion's releases, for instance, have traces of noise and grain reduction.

Mulholland Drive -- I've seen both (and should have a review for the UK disc shortly) and certainly do not agree with the notion that the HDDVD version is better. First, by default, because of the audio issue, the HDDVD release is inferior. Second, it has rampant background noise which should be a big issue for anyone with 100'+ screen; there are even light color pulsations; also, there is more noise on the HDDVD release than fine grain. Third, yes, there is grain and noise reduction performed on the BD transfer, which like most Canal transfers thus far is a dated one, but the integrity of the grain structure I would argue is preserved.

Finally, I am in full agreement with you that we should not lose objectivity, but I am also a realist (as cliche as it may sound), realizing that just like a lot of praised DVD releases did not get fresh, proper transfers during the DVD era, Blu-ray will not get fresh new transfers scanned from the best elements available every single time. Furthermore, I really do not believe that there are too many people out there arguing that Blu-ray offers the "the best it can be" simply because the economics of this market we share are very different from the ones DVD enjoyed. Which is why at the end of the day, when I draw the line and see what is feasible, what the studios are willing to give to their customers, and what actually makes it to the market, I truly feel satisfied with the type of quality Blu-ray has offered to the mass consumer. There will always be exceptions, but this year alone has been absolutely phenomenal, and we are yet to see some of the best titles announced for Q4.

Congrats on your last release by the way. Looks gorgeous.

Pro-B

I was going to buy Mulholland Drive on Blu-ray but then I attended a proper 35mm screening and now I just cannot believe how bad the Studio Canal Collection Blu-ray looks.

pro-bassoonist wrote:Indeed, as mfunk points out, DNR in itself is not always a cause of concern. It is how DNR is applied that is. As you know well, some of the very best Blu-ray releases we've seen during the last couple of years contain DNR alterations; practically all of Criterion's releases, for instance, have traces of noise and grain reduction.

A very experienced technical supervisor of my acquaintance says that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with DNR per se, provided you know what you're doing and that your primary aim is to respect the integrity of the original film.

One thing that's worth bearing in mind is that with a Blu-ray transfer that's sourced directly from the original camera neg, or a fine-grain interpos, you're actually dealing with a sharper source than pretty much any normal 35mm release print would have enjoyed, since they would be at least another couple of generations removed from what went through the camera. So if the image appears sharp to a degree that accentuates the grain (which may also have been exaggerated as a by-product of the scanning/telecine process and reduction to 1920x1080), this is almost certainly not what the filmmakers wanted, and DNR can be a useful way of getting around this.

Finally, I am in full agreement with you that we should not lose objectivity, but I am also a realist (as cliche as it may sound), realizing that just like a lot of praised DVD releases did not get fresh, proper transfers during the DVD era, Blu-ray will not get fresh new transfers scanned from the best elements available every single time.

Absolutely not - not least because in many cases viable elements just don't exist. It's obviously great that the BFI could source The Edge of the World from the original nitrate negative, but there's probably very little point in doing Blu-ray transfers of Michael Powell's earlier films, many of which only survive in a single battered release print. If anything, Blu-ray would magnify the source's physical flaws while adding little or nothing to the viewing experience.

eerik wrote:I was going to buy Mulholland Drive on Blu-ray but then I attended a proper 35mm screening and now I just cannot believe how bad the Studio Canal Collection Blu-ray looks.

Ive seen 35mm screenings of Mulholland Drive seven times but I think the blu-ray looks and sounds fabulous.

MichaelB wrote:there's probably very little point in doing Blu-ray transfers of Michael Powell's earlier films, many of which only survive in a single battered release print. If anything, Blu-ray would magnify the source's physical flaws while adding little or nothing to the viewing experience.

No BR of NIGHT OF THE PARTY, eh?

frankiecrisp wrote:Ive seen 35mm screenings of Mulholland Drive seven times but I think the blu-ray looks and sounds fabulous.

Saw it only twice theatrically but agree the Blu-Ray doesn't look "bad" by any stretch of the imagination. I'd say the image is reasonably good but the DTS-HD track is the real star.

perkizitore wrote:Nausicaa Of THe Valley Of The Wind blu-ray

Now available at Amazon for only 10.93 versus the 16.99 at HMV!!!

I've already posted this on the Amazon thread.

I noticed this interesting paragraph in the press release for Peeping Tom:

2010 also saw the return to UK cinema screens of three other iconic titles, following extensive digital restoration: The Railway Children (March) and Breathless (June). We have committed to restoring the following classics from the UK catalogue for potential cinema and blu-ray release in 2011: Brighton Rock, Don’t Look Now, The Man Who Fell to Earth, Ice Cold in Alex, The Cruel Sea, Whiskey Galore!, The Lavender Hill Mob, Quatermass & The Pit and Kind Hearts & Coronets. These releases herald an increased commitment from Optimum to preserving and restoring the vast library of classic titles that we manage on behalf of Studio Canal at a new state-of-the-art cold storage facility at Pinewood studios.

If the A/V turns out to be worthy of the format, I'll be upgrading Brighton Rock, Whisky Galore and Lavender Hill Mob.

The UK Peeping Tom Blu-ray release from Optimum has been delayed until November 22nd.

Watched the new Brighton Rock at the London Film Festival and i have to say i wasn't impressed.