Criterion Blu-rays with DNR

[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.