The Criterion Collection

[Juan de Internet]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Here are some behind the scenes for the excellent cover art for I Know Where I'm Going! by Vietnamese artist Thinh Dinh. This is his first Criterion commission, and he knocked it out of the park. I actually thought it was from Greg Ruth when it was first announced, as it's reminiscent of his illustration work.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DOqmwfikub4/?img_index=1

Aesthetically, I was immediately drawn to the cover. But what I really like about it is it contains only the two most lasting images - and central metaphor - of the movie. Reading the artist's impressions of the movie only further convinces me that they got what it was about, and translated the spirit of the movie, not just made a striking image.

Having said that, I'm only ever going to see the spine.

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by darrellmaclaine

These are the screenshots from the review on CriterionForum which also look like the version on Amazon digital which also look like all the official trailers and promo footage of this remaster. If there's a mapping issue it's a widespread one.

Then there's clearly an issue with their gallery app. I think it's applying the filter that would go over images if they were background in a carousel layout. This is not accurate to how the disc displays.

"The filtered stage lighting is where the presentation really shines: reds, violets, oranges, and greens pop wonderfully with Dolby Vision aiding there, and the contrast work ensures those blacks run deep without crushing detail. Highlights also look terrific, beautifully reflecting off of chrome surfaces without clipping out details."

This is impossible to reconcile with the gallery, where nothing has any highlights or details whatsoever. It certainly don't look anything like this stills gallery on Criterion's site either. (Top: Criterion. Bottom: CF]





The problem is NOT with the disc. No one is reporting any actual problems with the disc, just glowing reports about the well-balanced visuals. If your evidence is a crappy Amazon stream and a botched gallery setting, and everyone with the disc is telling you it looks great, well, I don't know what to tell you.

[Juan de Internet]

Originally Posted by Egbert Souse

Don't screenshots from 4K HDR require some adjustment to look normal in SDR? I obviously keep HDR enabled on my setup, but I did try out settings once and found that Arrow's Deep Red 4K had very dark and desaturated reds with HDR disabled while they were vibrant with it turned back on. I was surprised how much difference it made.

There's a lot more complexity here than I feel like typing right now but, to put it simply, since HDR has a bigger space than SDR, you always have to convert. If the HDR video does not contain anything that won't fit in SDR, that should be a straightforward conversion (if you know what you're doing). Usually it doesn't fit, though - there's not much point in using HDR if you're not actually using it. If it doesn't fit, there's a near-infinite number of ways you can map the HDR to SDR.

My impression is most people wing it. Which personally I think is the best choice from an artistic or aesthetic standpoint (if you know what you're doing), but makes for lousy screencap comparisons. If you stick with a fixed conversion, then it makes objective evaluations possible - except for the parts that you throw away because they don't fit.

That's just talking about converting to a digital image format. A separate issue is, even if you choose a fixed conversion algorithm, the likelihood is nil that the appearance of the rendered screencap on everyone's TVs and monitors will match, because there are a wide variety of conversion algorithms out there (and AFAIK a lot of them aren't published) as well as a wide range of hardware ability to display HDR correctly. (AFAIK, there isn't a single, commercially-available display that can display the entire UHD Blu-ray space.) So even if your comparison is objective, what you actually see on your monitor vs. how it will be rendered by your BD player, TV, streaming box, DVR, or anything else in the chain is even more in question.

In short, unless the conversion (sometimes called tonemapping) algorithm is known, I don't think there's anything objective you can say comparing an SDR screencap with a converted HDR one on an SDR monitor. And unless you are using the same software and hardware you use to watch Blu-rays, HDR screencaps (converted or not) are unlikely to match what you'll actually see in the final product.

[DimitriL]

Also, since you said the promos looked the same as the artificially darkened gallery images, here's a capture from one of the promo videos on the Criterion site compared with the one from the gallery.





I'm honestly not trying to pick an argument because I think you're a sharp individual. I'm just trying to troubleshoot why you're seeing stuff that is NOT being replicated or reported anywhere else.

[stonecoldjedi]

Amazing Larry in UHD.

That's it. That is the post.

[queen_kitty]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Here are some behind the scenes for the excellent cover art for I Know Where I'm Going! by Vietnamese artist Thinh Dinh. This is his first Criterion commission, and he knocked it out of the park. I actually thought it was from Greg Ruth when it was first announced, as it's reminiscent of his illustration work.

Incredible talent, I hope we get more work from this artist! I looked through his instagram and he's done illustration work for several movie covers, definitely need more of them!

[jcs913]

I'm all for creativity, but honestly, I wish these companies would just use the original poster art for their releases. It's not just Criterion, as VS and others are guilty too. I just find it deflating at times that the poster art is not used. Just seems like a no-brainer, but what do I know. Maybe the cost of using it is just too high? Likeness, etc?? Kino seems to use the poster art most of the time, I just wish others would too.

[Juan de Internet]

Originally Posted by jcs913

I'm all for creativity, but honestly, I wish these companies would just use the original poster art for their releases. It's not just Criterion, as VS and others are guilty too. I just find it deflating at times that the poster art is not used. Just seems like a no-brainer, but what do I know. Maybe the cost of using it is just too high? Likeness, etc?? Kino seems to use the poster art most of the time, I just wish others would too.

One reason not to use original poster art all the time is that when you release a movie multiple times (as Criterion regularly does) consumers cannot tell it’s new. Have you ever noticed how apps change their icons regularly? It’s not because they’re indecisive. It’s because changing your look when you have something new to offer makes you more money.

As a consumer of many discs, I like it if I can tell at a glance what version of a movie I’m browsing. With Criterion I can’t even tell what format it is without reading the fine print. Even prefer if labels have consistent branding. I can’t tell at a glance which of my discs are Kinos, which would come in handy on occasion.

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by jcs913

I'm all for creativity, but honestly, I wish these companies would just use the original poster art for their releases. It's not just Criterion, as VS and others are guilty too. I just find it deflating at times that the poster art is not used. Just seems like a no-brainer, but what do I know. Maybe the cost of using it is just too high? Likeness, etc?? Kino seems to use the poster art most of the time, I just wish others would too.

I think it’s because it’s part of what defines Criterion. I mean, they literally put out a book celebrating their cover images. They do it because they love it, and they love interpreting their films with original art. Honestly, if I’m ever lucky enough to have one of my films in the collection, seeing their take on my film is one of the things I look forward to the most.

They’ve been doing it for 40 years. It is what it is.

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by darrellmaclaine

These are the screenshots from the review on CriterionForum which also look like the version on Amazon digital which also look like all the official trailers and promo footage of this remaster. If there's a mapping issue it's a widespread one.

BTW, the guy who runs the site posted he knows the images are artificially too dark on the site and it’s an issue with their software’s HDR to SDR conversion and tone mapping. There used to be a note about that in the gallery. So again, the problem isn’t the source.

[darrellmaclaine]

Originally Posted by DimitriL

I'm honestly not trying to pick an argument because I think you're a sharp individual. I'm just trying to troubleshoot why you're seeing stuff that is NOT being replicated or reported anywhere else.

Thanks for clarification and partial reassurance! I *still* don't like what the grade looks like on other sources, where it is still darker than it should be (though as you've pointed out not as dark as the faulty review screengrabs) and the colour problems are very much evident, and I really hope someone will do some screengrabs from the 2K Blu-ray to add to comparisons.

FWIW, there hasn't been an announcement of Tap from UK Criterion yet (it's possible as there hasn't been any news of a Sony version here, and although it would be a separate licence it's not impossible especially with a title so popular over here), so that's why I rented the Amazon stream - to see what the new grade looks like. Annoyingly the option to screengrab was disabled.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by DimitriL

BTW, the guy who runs the site posted he knows the images are artificially too dark on the site and it’s an issue with their software’s HDR to SDR conversion and tone mapping. There used to be a note about that in the gallery. So again, the problem isn’t the source.

Same thing with this site. I remember posting that the Blue Velvet screenshots here looked overly dark, and was told it was due to the HDR to SDR conversion, so no real issues with any of these releases.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Blue-...2/#Screenshots

[JasonMichael]

If sites can't post screen grabs that reflect the actual quality of the image, isn't it pointless (and even misleading) to continue doing so?

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by JasonMichael

If sites can't post screen grabs that reflect the actual quality of the image, isn't it pointless (and even misleading) to continue doing so?

This site at least puts up disclaimers:

Please note that all screencaptures that appear with this article are taken from the 4K Blu-ray disc and downscaled to 1080p. Therefore, they do not accurately reflect the quality of the 4K content on the 4K Blu-ray disc, including the actual color values of this content.

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

This site at least puts up disclaimers:

To his credit, the guy at CF said that it used to automatically generate a disclaimer and he sounded perplexed that it doesn’t do it anymore.

But yes, I tend to agree if you’re not getting an accurate representation on screencaps, you need to assess how you’re presenting them. I get there are monumental technical issues with capturing them, but it’s worse having them at all than having them be misleading. (As weird as DVDBeaver can be, at least they’re explicitly not trying to capture and convert HDR sources and disclaimer the heck out it.)

[Juan de Internet]

Originally Posted by JasonMichael

If sites can't post screen grabs that reflect the actual quality of the image, isn't it pointless (and even misleading) to continue doing so?

I don’t think it’s pointless, but you have to know how to interpret them or you might be misled. Also it seems clear to me that some sites (including probably this one) post them not to allow enthusiasts to compare editions or evaluate image quality objectively, but merely as illustrations to draw more readers. So I think screenshots are highly valuable in context, but not nearly enough context is provided on the vast majority of sites.