443-445 La ronde, Le plaisir, The Earrings of Madame de...

[cdnchris]

I'm really mysitifed by his write-up. He points out everything that is wrong but then, in the end, says it's fine. I based everything I said on what I saw on screen (not screen grabs) and I can tell from his statements he saw the exact same things both Svet and I saw, yet he's cool with it? When you pop it on all of these issues are obvious. It's not just obvious from over-examining screenshots, but it's right there on screen. That scene he mentions with the trees in the background looking painted, that effect is clear as day throughout a lot of the film. It's flat, textureless, and filtered a ridiculous amount.

[Matt]

It's exactly what I fear happened at Criterion. Someone who should know better watched it once and thought, "Meh. Good enough."

[vsski]

I'm with Chris, I can't understand the Harris comments at all. First he lambasts the restauration team, then he points out everything wrong with the transfer along the same lines reported and then he highly recommends it - it makes no sense.

I really appreciate David's effort of contacting M. Soulet and hope that this will shed some clarity on all of it (as I expect no comment from CC) and I'm also hoping to hear from others on this board who will receive their pre-ordered BDs and hear their opinions.

I was doing cartwheels when this first got announced and now this - very sad.

[Moe Dickstein]

Robert Harris just gave his thoughts on this vs. CoP - and basically his feeling is that aside from a few shots this is still a good, watchable transfer where CoP is a "coaster". Assuming he means the problems there are pervasive rather than limited.

He also notes that on the smaller panels you won't notice the problems to the extent you would in projection.

For what it's worth...

[Gregory]

Brilliant comments. I would also add that people with several cataracts will probably not notice the Blu-ray's problems quite as much, so go ahead and preorder!

[Matt]

If I watch it with my glasses off, it's a 5/5 transfer!

[EddieLarkin]

I'm with Chris, I can't understand the Harris comments at all. First he lambasts the restauration team, then he points out everything wrong with the transfer along the same lines reported and then he highly recommends it - it makes no sense.

He didn't lambast the restoration team for the transfer. He criticised them for risking putting the OCN through a scanner for the sake of 2K resolution.

All he has said about the transfer is that it has "Brilliant blacks, full deep shadow detail, sparkling whites. A grain structure is fake, but appears decent. No obvious anomalies, hanging grain or other problems.".

He notes that the grain management should not have been done, but in the end the damage hasn't been severe.

I'm still hopeful I'll be able to enjoy it.

[vsski]

I'm with Chris, I can't understand the Harris comments at all. First he lambasts the restauration team, then he points out everything wrong with the transfer along the same lines reported and then he highly recommends it - it makes no sense.

He didn't lambast the restoration team for the transfer. He criticised them for risking putting the OCN through a scanner for the sake of 2K resolution.

All he has said about the transfer is that it has "Brilliant blacks, full deep shadow detail, sparkling whites. A grain structure is fake, but appears decent. No obvious anomalies, hanging grain or other problems.".

He notes that the grain management should not have been done, but in the end the damage hasn't been severe.

I'm still hopeful I'll be able to enjoy it.

Eddie, if you quote me please do it correctly. I didn't say "he lambasted the restauration team for the transfer", I said he lambasts the team at first (referring to putting the OCN through the scanner without going into that detail) - and excuse me for being a bit emotional about one of my favorite films and using some more melodramatic language - and then points out what was wrong with the transfer, which describes a lot more than what you are quoting. And don't get me wrong, I usally read what RAH has to say and am interested in his opinion, but this particular write-up still doesn't make sense for me and the fact that it may be better than CoD is hardly a consolation.

I'll certainly hope you will enjoy the BD.

[EddieLarkin]

Sorry, my mistake.

I still don't think his report of the transfer is at odds with his recommendation. The only negative he has to say is the following (emphasis mine):

But the grain removal is not without problems -- and I really don't understand why it's done, as it has nothing to do with "restoration." There are occasional small processing problems, and I did note one extreme anomaly during the hunt sequence, in which the shrubs in the background of a shot or two seem to have gone totally digital, indistinct and "clumpy." I would call them almost "painterly." I don't know how to dissuade people from turning that knob.

I notice this "painterly" anomaly in a lot of the caps, especially the new ones from Blu-ray.com, but this could be down to biased selection. And hopefully it is less obvious in motion. Regardless, this disc is now a long way from the top of my buy list, so I won't see it for a long while yet.

[vsski]

You are correct that his review makes the problems sound to be more sporadic than the screencaps and Chris' and Dr. Svet's review indicate, although the problems described appear to be the same. My past experience has told me that my own impression of transfers on my set-up seem to closely mirror what Chris and often Dr. Svet describes, so I put a lot of value and faith in these descriptions, but I realize everything is personal and subjective in the end.

Therefore I'm hoping other people will describe what they see when they get their discs.

What this comes down to for me in the end is whether this BD overall is still better than the excellent DVD that I own. And by all acounts I don't see anyone saying this, but I'd be delighted if it turns out to be false (after all I'm the nutcase who so far has collected every single Criterion published).

[Finch]

I was hugely looking forward to the BD as well, and I'd also prefer if Criterion either carry out their own restorations on these French titles going forward or don't do a BD upgrade if they keep getting terrible masters from the likes of Gaumont. Luckily, dvdworldUSA have agreed for me to return the disc unopened and shrink-wrapped and they'll refund me when they get it back (it still has to arrive). I also managed to rebuy the DVD for £15 which is a minor bargain for Criterion titles (even DVDs sell close to, or over £20).

Makes me wonder how they'll proceed with Le Samourai.

[tenia]

An answer from Jerome Soulet on Classik :

"Products are being currently manufactured. I will have a copy projected on a TV screen on BD and will advise depending on the result."

He posted today this :

"Quelques éléments :
1) nous avons bien livré une copie du HD CAM SR non dégrainé de MADAME DE... à Criterion le 31/05/2013.
Et pour l'anecdote, Criterion avait apparemment apprécié le travail de restauration effectué et ils auraient même félicité Eclair (c'est en tout cas ce que m'avait dit Pierre Boustouller), dixit un membre de mon équipe.

2) visionné le BD-R et je maintiens ce que j'ai affirmé en son temps : je suis serein même si je n'ai pas votre expertise. A mon goût il y a trop de grain mais comme j'ai expliqué en début d'année à mon équipe que le dégrainage me valait des volées de bois vert, là ils ont utilisé le master non dégrainé donc les amateurs de vibration de la pellicule devraient s'y retrouver.

Si il y a un membre du team qui est sur Paris dans les 10 prochains jours il est le bienvenu pour vérifier le BD-T dans notre salle de vérifications au siège de Gaumont. Se manifester via MP et mon assisatnte règlera avec Thomas en cahrge des vérifications la petite session.

Sur ce que j'ai vu et sous réserve que le BD-T soit conforme au BD-R je confirme la sortie pour le 18 septembre 2013."

"A few elements :

1) We've given to Criterion a non-degrained HD CAM SR copy of Madame de to Criterion on 31st May 2013. For the story, they even seemed to have liked the restoration work and congratulated Eclair for it (that's what a member of his team, Pierre Boustouller told him).

2) I watched the BD-R (coming from the authorer) and confirm what I said at the time : I'm confident about it even if I don't have your (the forumers) expertise. There's still a bit too much grain to my taste, but I've explained to my team at the beginning of the year that degraining only got me angry people, so we used the non-degrained master, which should please people liking film vibrations."

He then offer to available people from Classik to come watch the BD-T (BD test, coming from the pressing comany) at Gaumont's office and confirm the results.

"Except if there is a difference between the BD-R and the BD-T, based on what I saw, I confirm the release date of 18th sept 2013".


He seems pretty confident.

[manicsounds]

Caps-a-holic compares the DVD and BD of "The Earrings of Madame De"

Check the second cap, look at the difference in the material of the jacket of the man in the middle.

[cdnchris]

Yes, it's that awful. I'm still bewildered anyone can say it's "alright." I usually don't care this much but I was so pissed when I threw this in and I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I come across comments about how great or "okay" this looks. At least with Children of Paradise I was prepared because I got the disc so late but I was so shocked at how bad this one looked.

And this is what it looks like on screen. My comments are always based on what's on screen. Nothing I said was based on over-analyzing grabs. And for those concerned I and others are only selecting crappy grabs: I had to work harder to find ones that were less crappy than others. So I wasn't intentionally looking for bad ones, I was intentionally looking for good ones.

[Roger Ryan]

That Caps-a-holic forum member who called the Blu-ray "The Earrings of Madame Tussaud's" is right on the money. Everyone's eyebrows are approaching Groucho-style exaggeration and the lips and hair don't look any better. This almost looks like an animated version of the original film. Just completely disheartening.

[jsteffe]

Caps-a-holic compares the DVD and BD of "The Earrings of Madame De"

Check the second cap, look at the difference in the material of the jacket of the man in the middle.

Taken together, these caps from various sources (Caps-a-holic, Criterion Forum, Blu-ray.com) are the most astonishing thing I have seen in some time. The more I look at them, the worse they look. It as if they have completely painted over the image--there's nothing left of the original photographic image except a crudely rendered simulacrum. I think Roger Ryan's point about this looking like an "animated film" nails it exactly.

It almost seems beside the point to mention how the contrast is also messed up in the process--a tremendous amount of shadow detail is lost, and it no longer looks anything like the natural tonal range of a photographic image. They have betrayed the delicacy and rich detail of Christian Matras's cinematography and all the labor of the production designers.

I think the ratings are too generous. Once the dust settles and more people have had the opportunity to see the Blu-ray, I'm afraid that archivists will be using this as an object lesson in bad digital restoration practices. I can't believe how much money Gaumont (and Criterion) wasted on this folly.

[jsteffe]

I am going to have to wait until I receive the BD next week before making any further comments about the Criterion disc, and then screencap comparisons of the three versions.

David, thank you in advance for taking the time to do this.

I should mention that recently at a friend's house I saw a recording of the same HD broadcast (I think) that you mentioned earlier. Taking into account the inevitable compression, the fact that some grain was filtered out, and that it's not full 1080 resolution, it looked nice. I certainly didn't notice anything remotely like the paint-by-numbers effect that one can clearly see in many caps for the new Blu-ray, especially in the outdoor scenes. I would say that it was a visible improvement (more vibrant and luminous) compared to the Criterion DVD, which I have & am still happy with given the inherent limitations of standard definition DVDs.

It's possible that Criterion could have used that same older master, perhaps with some additional tweaks, and produced a decent, if not stellar Blu-ray. However, obviously I cannot judge whether a particular HD transfer really is up to snuff for Blu-ray. Who knows, Criterion may have decided at the time that the HD master they had was only good enough for DVD.

[Jonathan S]

Thanks for confirming the worst, David. Although I admit I can't play Criterion blu-rays anyway, I'm shocked that this has been done to a film that I got to know in beautiful 35mm prints and for over thirty years has been my all-time joint favourite (with Partie de campagne). It's almost the only film that might have persuaded me to go region-free for blu-ray. I assume that any other forthcoming release of this masterpiece is likely to be similarly afflicted too, or perhaps even worse.

From how you and others describe it, the problems with this surely go way beyond subjective evaluation and it's incredible that two high-profile internet commentators should "highly recommend" it! (I sometimes feel black & white films are reviewed with a lot less care.) Thanks also for addressing the sound issues, an area that is often neglected.

[Le Samouraï]

At the end of the line I blame Criterion for ever letting this through and charging me and everybody else money for the privilege.
This in its own way puts Pathe's les Enfants in the shade. In that transfer the "corrections" and DVNR processing were consistently applied across the entire film so the image has its own admittedly awful "consistency". In Madame's case it is more selectively applied, but this proposes to me that someone somewhere considers the obliteration of physical film surface damage with nuclear strength tools to be a suitable response to restoration.

Total shit. Total disgrace.

I am flabbergasted Criterion has messed up once again after the whole les enfants fiasco. Who is in charge of their QC?

I was deeply disappointed in les enfants, but now I am more worried. My confidence in a company I have supported for 18 years over three formats is shaken. There is no way Criterion can release two such flawed masters and still pertain to be the top name to go to for videophiles and cineasts alike.

[doc mccoy]

So now, what is the best or least worst version of Madame de on dvd/blu?

[MichaelB]

The old Criterion DVD, presumably?

[Michael Kerpan]

I am flabbergasted Criterion has messed up once again after the whole les enfants fiasco. Who is in charge of their QC?

Well, in the past, Criterion repeatedly botched the color in Ozu releases -- for quite a long while.

[kingofthejungle]

Thanks for taking the time to write that up, david hare. You confirmed the suspicions many of us gathered from the awful screen captures floating around. If it's really as bad as the captures look, this is one of the absolute most offensive looking Blu-Rays in existence. Far worse than Children of Paradise, which - while awful - still resembled actual photography (though actual photography viewed through a piece of slickened, frosted glass). As other have pointed out, Ophuls' exquisite imagery seems substituted for a digital painting that gives an abstracted approximation of it. And even the abominable Film Chest Blu-Rays have the blessing of a consistent horrible image.

I don't know what's going on at Criterion these days, but it's sad to see them neglect their reputation with releases like this.

[Tommaso]

Well, in the past, Criterion repeatedly botched the color in Ozu releases -- for quite a long while.

Not just Ozu releases; a lot of their older colour releases are far too reddish. And don't forget that even today they almost always boost the blackness levels on their black and white films, which of course is particularly annoying with Japanese films. "Drunken Angel" and "Pale Flower" are prime examples. So the idea that CC constantly represent a film in the best possible quality is simply a myth, even though they're generally very good, of course. But there's a reason why films like "Vampyr", "Island of Lost Souls" or the Imamuras are preferable in their MoC incarnations, even though the differences may not be dramatic.

[manicsounds]

Maybe it was Gaumont's say: "Hey, either release it with the masters we gave you, or lose the rights to it completely!"