Criterion Blu-rays with DNR

[Blu-ray monster]

Very Light DNR


Light DNR


Moderate DNR


Heavy DNR

[JohnCarpenterFan]

All of them.

[Burt Lancaster]

Fear and Loathing has a lot of dnr.

[AdmiralNoodles]

Originally Posted by Burt Lancaster

Fear and Loathing has a lot of dnr.

The below is the vastly superior release and I own it. Differing bonus features, obviously.

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...137371&i=0&l=1

[SilverScreen96]

Having seen them on the channel, Walkabout and M seem to have decent grain.

I can say that their release of Nightmare Alley has some light DNR, it's not egregious and their release is still, by far, the best release of the movie.

[SilverScreen96]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

All of them.

All of their releases have DNR? I hope this is a joke because I know it's not true.

Also, I want to add that a light grain level isn't necessarily indicative of DNR.

[Kyle15]

They lightly hit Mulholland Drive's 4k with a low-pass filter. The Elephant Man got a touch of EE. Now let's make a thread of all the Criterion discs with badly filtered audio!

[Egbert Souse]

Nearly any release will have "almost imperceptible" noise reduction regardless of company. Maybe the Brakhage and Frampton collections are exempt. Then there's older masters like those for older mid-2000s remasters initially meant for DVD like Fear and Loathing or Brazil.

The egregious ones that come to mind are Children of Paradise, Lola (Demy), Howard's End, The Housemaid (only the lost negative reels, out of necessity), and the solo release of Playtime.

[d3nt0n]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

Now let's make a thread of all the Criterion discs with badly filtered audio!

Be easier to list the one's that don't

[M A]

Funny Games also has lots of DNR

Edit: Basically the whole of the Wong Kar-Wai collection have DNR at varying levels.

[BlueRagtop]

The worst Criterion Blu-ray I have is



The 4K "restoration" by Pathe that Criterion used is a DNR disaster, making everybody look like a waxwork and making every scene look like it was filmed through a thin layer of Vaseline. There is no grain whatsoever; just a waxy, ill-defined mess.

It is one of my favorite films, but the image was so bad that I could only watch a few minutes of it before turning it off. Fortunately, I still had the original Criterion DVD of the film from 2002. Even upscaled it looked 1,000 times better than the "restored" version.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by SilverScreen96

All of their releases have DNR? I hope this is a joke because I know it's not true.

Also, I want to add that a light grain level isn't necessarily indicative of DNR.

Not a joke at all, look at what Egbert Souse said. It's true.

[SilverScreen96]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Not a joke at all, look at what Egbert Souse said. It's true.

Even so, I don't think it's a problem, I think we all get a little jumpy around that term.

But then again, how many of you regularly work with film? How many of you know that some title is supposed to have all this more grain in it? Or that grain levels with naturally vary from print to print anyway.

Is it possible that many of these releases that supposedly have "almost imperceptible DNR" would naturally look that way from a high quality print or straight from the original negative?

I've seen many a stunning looking transfers that have a light grain level like that of Sweet Smell of Success or Baraka (which a lot of people think the stunning 2008 Blu-ray of it looks like crap now and supposedly has DNR and sharpening, because apparently they now know what a 70 MM film with very fine grain is supposed to look like when printed). These transfers look amazing, have incredible detail, they don't look smeary. I'm pretty sure a good quality print would look this way or it look like this if you looked at the highest quality film elements. If DNR is used, it didn't hurt it or compromise it. But doubt for most releases how much if any was used.

It seems you want a film with a heavy grain if you all mean "absolutely no DNR"

I also want to add, Stan Brakhage made most of his films on 16MM instead of 35MM so his works will already have a heavier amount of grain by default.

[Blu-ray monster]

I made the mistake of forgetting to subscribe to this thread, just updated the list.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by SilverScreen96

All of their releases have DNR? I hope this is a joke because I know it's not true.

How do you know? Do you work on every single title?

And yes, almost every disc out there has some sort of DNR filter applied. People have known that for years.

[SilverScreen96]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

How do you know? Do you work on every single title?

And yes, almost every disc out there has some sort of DNR filter applied. People have known that for years.

Yeah I believe the reviewers on this site more than people in the forums, they typically know what they're talking about, and if they say "doesn't appear to be DNR" I believe them. Except Svet Atanosov and his recent obsession with color grading and "color temperature" (frankly he's a shitty reviewer at this point and he shouldn't be allowed to review Criterion releases anymore since he basically appears to have a vendetta against them now).

Even then, would you prefer "absolutely no DNR"? If that's the case, it might not fit your standards.

I love how you all act like "concerned consumers" but are really just nitpicky and want to find reasons to dump on on good labels. And you do this all time on this site, especially with Criterion. If it's not this, then it's "I hate their codec" even though literally all Blu-rays use the same codec or "I hate this color grading from L'Immagine Ritrovata, Eclair or Hiventy" (because yes, people who only ever seen most of these movies on video and television sure know how a film is supposed to look compared to professional film restorationists) or "Criterion's gone woke now, they're releasing films no one wants or cares about (?)." Give me a break.

Like if DNR is a problem, it's really only when it compromises the image, so then it's fine to complain. But other than that, I always see and hear people whining about Criterion not doing whatever it is you want like you know better some how and just don't appreciate all the work that goes into these releases and restorations and getting works of cinema to look new again.

If a touch of DNR helps a film look like it was just printed, and that's even assuming it's actually been used since you base your assumptions of it's use on a light grain structure (Walkabout does not even have a light grain structure!), then I don't care.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by SilverScreen96

Yeah I believe the reviewers on this site more than people in the forums, they typically know what they're talking about, and if they say "doesn't appear to be DNR" I believe them. Except Svet Atanosov and his recent obsession with color grading and "color temperature" (frankly he's a shitty reviewer at this point and he shouldn't be allowed to review Criterion releases anymore since he basically appears to have a vendetta against them now).

Even then, would you prefer "absolutely no DNR"? If that's the case, it might not fit your standards.

I love how you all act like "concerned consumers" but are really just nitpicky and want to find reasons to dump on on good labels. And you do this all time on this site, especially with Criterion. If it's not this, then it's "I hate their codec" even though literally all Blu-rays use the same codec or "I hate this color grading from L'Immagine Ritrovata, Eclair or Hiventy" (because yes, people who only ever seen most of these movies on video and television sure know how a film is supposed to look compared to professional film restorationists) or "Criterion's gone woke now, they're releasing films no one wants or cares about (?)." Give me a break.

Like if DNR is a problem, it's really only when it compromises the image, so then it's fine to complain. But other than that, I always see and hear people whining about Criterion not doing whatever it is you want like you know better some how and just don't appreciate all the work that goes into these releases and restorations and getting works of cinema to look new again.

If a touch of DNR helps a film look like it was just printed, and that's even assuming it's actually been used since you base your assumptions of it's use on a light grain structure (Walkabout does not even have a light grain structure!), then I don't care.

Not sure why the longwinded post. I was just replying to what YOU said:

I hope this is a joke because I know it's not true.

It IS true. You're wrong. First you say it's not true, now you say you don't care. Make up your mind and get the facts right, at least. But no need to mansplain to me, because I actually know.

[SilverScreen96]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Not sure why the longwinded post. I was just replying to what YOU said:



It IS true. You're wrong. First you say it's not true, now you say you don't care. Make up your mind and get the facts right, at least. But no need to mansplain to me, because I actually know.

I have no clue if it is true, for the films that supposedly have nearly imperceptible DNR, you all are making assertions based on what you think is evidence of it and if it is true, I don't care anyway if it doesn't compromise the look of a film. DNR is just a film restoration tool, that's all it is and you all make it seem like "these releases are crap, are compromised because I think they use even a little DNR was used and even thought of that disgusts me." And I say it's largely not true because most reviewers on this site and others say so.

Does their Blu-ray of Sweet Smell of Success or The Night of the Hunter or most Bergman films look wrong to you all because the grain isn't thick?

[ravenus]

All blu-ray releases from ALL labels would have some degree of DNR/filtering, otherwise you would not be able to get them under feasible bit-rates for the BD format. DNR is not inherently a bad thing, it can be used judiciously and it's purpose is not solely to remove the filmic look. Even celluloid sources degrade with generations from the OCN and DNR as a tool can help to ameliorate those effects.

[murphywmm]

If you look at the "about the transfer" section in the included booklet, Criterion almost always mentions the use of "DVNR" as part of the digital restoration.

One notable exception is their release of Mikey and Nicky, which states:
"At the request of director Elaine May, the grain in the picture has been left completely intact, with no grain management applied."