Scanners (1981)

[Mr Kite]

I will try and simplify this. There is little or no DNR applied to the Criterion, grain is consistent throughout.
Point two I would say it's impossible to remember a colour from a film of nearly 40 years ago and I stand by it.
Point three read up on the restoration performed by Criterion, then read a couple of the better reviews for justification of what I am saying.
Lastly with the experience that Criterion have in their restoration why would they scrub grain away.

A more apparent grain structure does not mean it was ever supposed to look like that and maybe enhanced through over zealous sharpening and or poorly performed encoding of the image.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

The grain is definitely there, it's just that it's not as pronounced due to Cronenberg's updated and preferred duller color scheme that makes the grain look less apparent. Despite the fact that the grain isn't as obvious, the Criterion disc actually has more visible detail than any other disc out there.

It's known that the color timing has been significantly changed from how it looked originally so I don't think anyone should argue with that, but if you want to see Scanners more akin to how it originally looked then I believe there's a German Blu-ray out there from a company that used original prints as reference to make it more faithfully accurate to the original source. That release unfortunately has some issues with edge enhancement and blocky grain so I couldn't recommend it.

I don't have an issue with Cronenberg's updated color preference, in fact I actually love it because I have sensitivity issues with my eyes and nothing at all manages to take away from my viewing experience. I also see no problem with the grain and appreciate the extra detail not found in other releases. The Criterion is the way to go for me and hopefully Criterion's The Brood is reminiscent of their Scanners release.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The grain is definitely there, it's just that it's not as pronounced due to Cronenberg's updated and preferred duller color scheme that makes the grain look less apparent. Despite the fact that the grain isn't as obvious, the Criterion disc actually has more visible detail than any other disc out there.

It's known that the color timing has been significantly changed from how it looked originally so I don't think anyone should argue with that, but if you want to see Scanners more akin to how it originally looked then I believe there's a German Blu-ray out there from a company that used original prints as reference to make it more faithfully accurate to the original source. That release unfortunately has some issues with edge enhancement and blocky grain so I couldn't recommend it.

I don't have an issue with Cronenberg's updated color preference, in fact I actually love it because I have sensitivity issues with my eyes and nothing at all manages to take away from my viewing experience. I also see no problem with the grain and appreciate the extra detail not found in other releases. The Criterion is the way to go for me and hopefully Criterion's The Brood is reminiscent of their Scanners release.

That is absolutely not true. I posted several comparisons in this thread showing where the DE disc has more detail and better colors for that matter.

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by tele1962

I will try and simplify this. There is little or no DNR applied to the Criterion, grain is consistent throughout.
Point two I would say it's impossible to remember a colour from a film of nearly 40 years ago and I stand by it.
Point three read up on the restoration performed by Criterion, then read a couple of the better reviews for justification of what I am saying.
Lastly with the experience that Criterion have in their restoration why would they scrub grain away.

A more apparent grain structure does not mean it was ever supposed to look like that and maybe enhanced through over zealous sharpening and or poorly performed encoding of the image.

Oh. I get it. So you mean the grain in the film is consistent with itself, a constant through the film and visible enough that you feel not too much was lost. I see what you're getting at and if you haven't seen an original print then I agree that not too much was lost as compared to my old vhs, though the loss is still noticeable. I meant that it is lessened as compared to the original film, that some of the grain and some of the fine detail has been lost in the restoration process. Also, I was told that Criterion ran it through noise reduction of more than one type but I didn't read that in reviews. I just asked a friend. (For me it is more a matter of why bother reading a review to learn about it when I can ask someone who can ask someone who knows what they are doing.) But I understand where you would have a different idea of how much grain and detail were present. The German release was sharpened slightly but not over sharpened (except in a couple of scenes) but that was in an attempt to maintain the detail that was being stripped through their DNR. Again, it wasn't overdone in the Subkultur edition but was apparent enough that some sharpening needed to be done in order to maintain reading of signs. That having been said, originally, I could read the signage better.

As an aside, not in any way intending to offend here but I'm wondering why it is so important to you to denounce eidetic memory. It is fairly common, though not as portrayed in films, for people to experience eidetic memory in specific contexts with highly visual people remembering visual information and highly auditory people remembering entire conversations, verbatim, while some people retain near perfect recall of entire days. Did you know someone who claimed to have this and you ended up feeling burned by them in some way? I've never come across someone who says such a thing is impossible and I'm just wondering why you feel that way. I'm not saying you don't have a right to feel that way and don't wish to make you feel like I'm criticizing you for not having a medical background. Most people don't, after all.

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The grain is definitely there, it's just that it's not as pronounced due to Cronenberg's updated and preferred duller color scheme that makes the grain look less apparent. Despite the fact that the grain isn't as obvious, the Criterion disc actually has more visible detail than any other disc out there.

It's known that the color timing has been significantly changed from how it looked originally so I don't think anyone should argue with that, but if you want to see Scanners more akin to how it originally looked then I believe there's a German Blu-ray out there from a company that used original prints as reference to make it more faithfully accurate to the original source. That release unfortunately has some issues with edge enhancement and blocky grain so I couldn't recommend it.

I don't have an issue with Cronenberg's updated color preference, in fact I actually love it because I have sensitivity issues with my eyes and nothing at all manages to take away from my viewing experience. I also see no problem with the grain and appreciate the extra detail not found in other releases. The Criterion is the way to go for me and hopefully Criterion's The Brood is reminiscent of their Scanners release.

That's a good way of putting it. The grain is there but lessened. On the German edition, however, the grain is more evident as is the fine detail. But that is only the second reason I prefer it. What you said about the color is the primary reason. I just couldn't stand the dullness of the Criterion edition, the feeling of viewing it through sunglasses from lack of contrast and brightness but also the lack of reds and oranges and the dialing up of green. But it is such a matter of preference as I imagine there are a lot of people who would rather see it looking exactly as I wish to never see it again.

I didn't experience the grain difficulty or edge issues you described and found the film to be so bright and lifelike, especially for 80s source material, that it seemed to me a remarkable transfer. It was so impressive in every regard that I don't imagine we'll ever see a better version out there for color and detail and I'm wondering if you saw the German release from Subkultur or Koch as the Koch edition had the issues you described and was an upscale to boot, a complete disaster in comparison to the Subkultur edition. But the Subkultur version is spectacular.

Still, I respect your appreciation of the Criterion release. It is far superior to the UK release I saw and does preserve much of the detail. I could make out signs even when they weren't as crisp as on the Subkultur from Germany whereas on the UK I couldn't read them at all. It makes sense that, given how much variation there is in the way we all process visual information, many of us would have strong preferences for one over the other. I'm just glad this is one of those films that got several transfers. I wish they all did, so we could all pick the best one for us. Our family ended up with five different copies of Snowpiercer from around the world because everyone had their own preference for what they thought it should look like. Mine was the best for color, Chris for sound and so on down the line. It's ridiculous but also amazing when you consider that, just a couple of decades ago, we were all stuck with just one version on vhs that, in comparison, looked like crap.

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

That is absolutely not true. I posted several comparisons in this thread showing where the DE disc has more detail and better colors for that matter.

I think he may be referring to the other German version. The best edition in the world is the Subkultur transfer which, for some reason, I can't help spelling with an "e" at the end at least half of the time. But, remember, Koch Media put out their version as well which had grain and edge issues similar to what he's describing. A lot of people have never seen the incredible achievement that is the Subkultur restoration.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by miribeau

I think he may be referring to the other German version. The best edition in the world is the Subkultur transfer which, for some reason, I can't help spelling with an "e" at the end at least half of the time. But, remember, Koch Media put out their version as well which had grain and edge issues similar to what he's describing. A lot of people have never seen the incredible achievement that is the Subkultur restoration.

Oh, yeah that Koch disc was a joke. I have the Subkultur disc right next to my Criterion set. I watch the Subkultur disc for the film and have the Criterion disc for the extras.

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by miribeau

I think he may be referring to the other German version. The best edition in the world is the Subkultur transfer which, for some reason, I can't help spelling with an "e" at the end at least half of the time. But, remember, Koch Media put out their version as well which had grain and edge issues similar to what he's describing. A lot of people have never seen the incredible achievement that is the Subkultur restoration.

I prefer the directors approved version on this one. The Subkultr has problems that looking at the grabs are quite obvious.

Maybe we will get an Arrow release one day, and if they are going to choose a master to work from I think I know where they will source it.

[GasmaskAvenger]

Even with the altered color timing, i'm pretty happy with my Criterion blu-ray from last year.

November cannot come soon enough so I can get The Brood for the same price.

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Oh, yeah that Koch disc was a joke. I have the Subkultur disc right next to my Criterion set. I watch the Subkultur disc for the film and have the Criterion disc for the extras.

A joke and an insult. The disappointment when I played the Koch disc was something I had been unprepared for. But, thanks to Koch Media, I was all the more ecstatic when I slid Subkultur's masterpiece into the player and sat back for what is one of my favorite transfers of an older film. It isn't perfect but it is so much better than I thought anyone could make it, given what I'd seen over the years.

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by tele1962

I prefer the directors approved version on this one. The Subkultr has problems that looking at the grabs are quite obvious.

Maybe we will get an Arrow release one day, and if they are going to choose a master to work from I think I know where they will source it.

I'm just not sure what screenshots you are looking at. All the shots I've seen show a clear improvement in image clarity, not just color, in the Subkultur edition over Criterion and the direct comparison (flipping between the region A and region B player to look at the picture in freeze frame) is much better on Subkultur. Then again, there's no way around subjective visual interpretation. I have no doubt that for your eyes, the Criterion is as superior as the Subkultur is for mine.

[GasmaskAvenger]

Originally Posted by miribeau

I hope so. Black Friday deals are usually pretty great but after the debacle that was Prime Day, I'm wondering if they'll be any good. Amazon usually sets the bar for low prices and everyone else drops down to meet them. If Prime Day is any indication of their price point and they end up staying higher, will the other stores go lower or just drop to meet them like always? It would really blow to miss out on the biggest sale of the year just because Amazon changed their sale model.

I had Barnes & Noble in mind, who usually also do a November Criterion half off sale in addition to the July sale.

If there is one in November, that's the time i'll get The Brood, Mulholland Drive and Kwaidan.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

No, I'm talking about the Subkultur disc.

EE

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ess=#vergleich

Contrast boosting

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ess=#vergleich

As for Criterion having more real detail

Pepsi Cola is readable, it looks more like MRA CAU on Subkultur

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ess=#vergleich

More details on car visible

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ess=#vergleich

While the edge enhancement isn't that noticeable it's still there and that and the overly pronounced grain is tricking people into thinking it has more real detail when it doesn't. Criterion is unquestionably better when it comes to detail. The only thing that could possibly turn people away from it is the altered colors.

Sharper and brighter doesn't automatically mean better.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

While the edge enhancement isn't that noticeable it's still there and that and the overly pronounced grain is tricking people into thinking it has more real detail when it doesn't. Criterion is unquestionably better when it comes to detail. The only thing that could possibly turn people away from it is the altered colors.

Sharper and brighter doesn't automatically mean better.

Yep, this sums it up.

I totally get why some dislike the Criterion disc, the color palette is very different, but as far as a film-like transfer with a lot of detail it is easily the best version judging by caps. So it depends on your priorities. Reminds me of Escape From New York, where the Shout disc brightens and sharpens the image and the old MGM disc looks more like film, but darker and faded. Pick your poison in both cases.

I am tempted to import the German or UK version just to have the brighter option, and put them in the Criterion case, but I doubt I'll ever get around to it.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

No, I'm talking about the Subkultur disc.

EE

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ess=#vergleich

Contrast boosting

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ess=#vergleich

As for Criterion having more real detail

Pepsi Cola is readable, it looks more like MRA CAU on Subkultur

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ess=#vergleich

More details on car visible

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ess=#vergleich

While the edge enhancement isn't that noticeable it's still there and that and the overly pronounced grain is tricking people into thinking it has more real detail when it doesn't. Criterion is unquestionably better when it comes to detail. The only thing that could possibly turn people away from it is the altered colors.

Sharper and brighter doesn't automatically mean better.

That first cap is not EE. It is the light behind the building shining around it. It's present on the Criterion disc as well.

I agree on the contrast boosting. However, at least the colors are correct unlike the Criterion disc. That green blanket of drab really ruins the transfer.

That may be true on Pepsi, but the colors are more accurate and the ratio is also correct on the DE disc.

I absolutely disagree on the car detail. It's really about the same.

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by GasmaskAvenger

I had Barnes & Noble in mind, who usually also do a November Criterion half off sale in addition to the July sale.

If there is one in November, that's the time i'll get The Brood, Mulholland Drive and Kwaidan.

I almost never shop from there but that's good to know. Thanks.

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

No, I'm talking about the Subkultur disc.

EE

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ess=#vergleich

Contrast boosting

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ess=#vergleich

As for Criterion having more real detail

Pepsi Cola is readable, it looks more like MRA CAU on Subkultur

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ess=#vergleich

More details on car visible

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ess=#vergleich

While the edge enhancement isn't that noticeable it's still there and that and the overly pronounced grain is tricking people into thinking it has more real detail when it doesn't. Criterion is unquestionably better when it comes to detail. The only thing that could possibly turn people away from it is the altered colors.

Sharper and brighter doesn't automatically mean better.

Its funny, I see those totally differently from you. I view the Pepsi logo as more readable but that's because the brightness is what is altering how it is read. On my television, it is more readable than on Criterion because the white isn't so blinding (because I keep my brightness down as compared to the photo from caps-a-holic). Same with the Coca Cola sign. The brightness being dialed up is what makes it less readable in the picture but the detail is there on the disc, if you have it you should check it out. For me, where you really see it is with the grain, which is less than it was on original release and certainly less than my vhs and dvd copies but is so much more evident in the Subkultur but also it is in the fine textures like in the meat patties on the burgers in the poster. They are more detailed, to my eye, in the Subkultur and look flat on Criterion from what I see as overly liberal use of DNR. Our visual processing is so very different that what you see as examples of Criterion being better, I see as proof that it is worse. Also, television size probably has something to do with it. I've seen the Subkultur on a 43 inch plasma, a 60 inch plasma, one of those ridiculous 70+ (I don't know his measurements exactly), a 4K (also huge and too large for me to reasonably see everything all at once but great for testing detail) and the 4K was the one I also watched the Criterion on. The grain, when enlarged to that level, with the fine shifting of color that marks that kind of visual snow as being grain and not digital noise, was very clear and pleasing to the eye. the removal of grain was noticeable on the Criterion and the lack of those fine details I could see on Subkultur was also noticeable. Basically, for me, the bigger the screen, the worse the Criterion edition and the brighter the settings on the screen, the more bleed you get with whites (and also some of the brightest colors) on the Subkultur but where the issue of missing grain and detail can't be dealt with, as you can't add it back in, the bleeding of color can be dealt with. But, again, if you love the Criterion, I don't disagree with your choice. It just doesn't work for me.

That having been said, I agree with the general statement that sharper and brighter isn't always better. You know, I had the same disagreement with a friend over Criterion's edition of Fish Tank. The color and what I perceived as overly liberal DNR was what he loved about it and I couldn't stand their edition, opting instead for the UK print.

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

That first cap is not EE. It is the light behind the building shining around it. It's present on the Criterion disc as well.

I agree on the contrast boosting. However, at least the colors are correct unlike the Criterion disc. That green blanket of drab really ruins the transfer.

That may be true on Pepsi, but the colors are more accurate and the ratio is also correct on the DE disc.

I absolutely disagree on the car detail. It's really about the same.

Its odd, but it didn't occur to me until reading your post, probably because of your wording "green blanket of drab", that, as a tetrachromat (possessing a fourth cone) who also views all films in low light to activate rods acting as cones (which I think everyone should do, to maximize color viewing), I see color differently from around 90% of the population and I'm pretty sure a bunch of you are male (males can't have a fourth cone as the alteration only occurs due to females having two X chromosomes where men have only one). Also, owing to the exact same chromosomal difference, men suffer some form of color blindness at a rate of approximately one in twelve while only one in two hundred women experience color incorrectly. If there is any alteration in color processing, the detail would appear better or worse depending on how you perceive it. Just because a television is capable of producing all that extra color, it doesn't mean we can all see it. This is why I'm so afraid of inheriting my father's visual loss. I love the way I see and live in fear of losing that richness that comes from color. It is strange to think that we all see differently but, sadly, we really do all see differently.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by miribeau

Its odd, but it didn't occur to me until reading your post, probably because of your wording "green blanket of drab", that, as a tetrachromat (possessing a fourth cone) who also views all films in low light to activate rods acting as cones (which I think everyone should do, to maximize color viewing), I see color differently from around 90% of the population and I'm pretty sure a bunch of you are male (males can't have a fourth cone as the alteration only occurs due to females having two X chromosomes where men have only one). Also, owing to the exact same chromosomal difference, men suffer some form of color blindness at a rate of approximately one in twelve while only one in two hundred women experience color incorrectly. If there is any alteration in color processing, the detail would appear better or worse depending on how you perceive it. Just because a television is capable of producing all that extra color, it doesn't mean we can all see it. This is why I'm so afraid of inheriting my father's visual loss. I love the way I see and live in fear of losing that richness that comes from color. It is strange to think that we all see differently but, sadly, we really do all see differently.

Wow, that had to be the most sexist comment I have read in months. Moving on.

[mar3o]

People always claim that moviegoers can't possibly remember the colors of a film from decades ago.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree to some degree here. While it's true that it's unlikely that viewers remember exact color tones for every scene (that would be hard to believe), it's perfectly reasonable to believe that some viewers at least remember the general tone of the film (for instance, the way Fellowship of the Rings was tinted green for the blu-ray extended edition). I'm pretty sure that even without screencaps for comparison, many people would have remembered that Gandlaf's beard and the sky itself wasn't green in the theatre. Some films make an impression on people, and that can certainly be visual - for instance, remembering how bright a film is, or how vivid the colors were or weren't. For instance, I remember seeing the new Oz film and thinking how intensely vivid the colors were in that film. I couldn't tell you exactly what tint the colors were, but I can tell you it was very, very vivid in color. If I suddenly saw a re-release and the colors were dingy and dark and it looked like the new Halloween remaster, I would certainly know that they changed something because I can remember the impression I got in the theatre when I saw it.