Criterion Blu-rays with DNR

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by SilverScreen96

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).

Gold.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by SilverScreen96

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.

I don't get jumpy around that term at all, because DNR is used in virtually every release of something shot on film. I've regularly worked with film in the past and can say that a scan of a negative with imperceptible DNR won't resemble a film print and the goal of the remaster/restoration in most of these cases isn't "Let's make this look like an original theatrical print."

Also, how does me stating that virtually all of these releases will have DNR to some degree equate to me wanting every film to have heavy grain? I have no issue with DNR, just poorly done DNR. I can't remember having an issue with the Sweet Smell of Success and it mentions having DVNR and grain reduction in the booklet. Same with Ace in the Hole, so I guess they should be included in this thread too.

As someone else stated, Criterion used to regularly mention DVNR and grain reduction in the booklets for a significant amount of their releases. I assume they stopped mentioning this due to the hyperbole, misinformation and meltdowns on forums and social media over DNR. Nowadays, you're not likely to hear any of the people who work on remastering/restoring films mention DNR because it's likely to incite outrage online. Instead, they'll use euphemisms such as "grain management", which although it means the same thing, mostly keeps the uninformed from screaming bloody DNR and overreacting.

It's the same thing with "teal". If I were to get hold of an upcoming release early and post in its thread that I observed teal in its presentation, then that would probably turn the thread into a conversation about "blanket tints", revisionism, etc. However, if I were to mention observing cyan or aqua (which are very similar to teal) hues instead of "teal" then the conversation would probably be a lot less dramatic.

Originally Posted by SilverScreen96

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?

You seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions and believing that people are thinking things that they don't actually believe.

[Harvey Dent]

I think Svet should not be allowed to review ANY release particularly 4K ones . He has become a color timing evangelist Till he is able to get over this obsession of his, he needs to cool his heels

Even something like High Plains Drifter 4Kwhich has received a fair amount of praise from other sites , he has trashed because the color seems to be tweaked in some scenes

Originally Posted by koberulz

Gold.

[Kyle15]

[Rayjg]

It seems to affect their French titles the most. Didn't they reject the newer restoration of Le Samourai and go with an older one because of DNR? Or was it the color grading?

[Blu-ray monster]

Originally Posted by Harvey Dent

I think Svet should not be allowed to review ANY release particularly 4K ones . He has become a color timing evangelist Till he is able to get over this obsession of his, he needs to cool his heels

Even something like High Plains Drifter 4Kwhich has received a fair amount of praise from other sites , he has trashed because the color seems to be tweaked in some scenes

If your rating on a scale of 5 a maximum of 2 points should be taken off for color grading, and only if it isn’t director approved.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by Rayjg

It seems to affect their French titles the most. Didn't they reject the newer restoration of Le Samourai and go with an older one because of DNR? Or was it the color grading?

I believe it was the pissy color-timing first and foremost.

[Blu-ray monster]

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.

You shouldn’t trust all of the reviewers on this site, the ones that reviewed Bambi, secret of nhim, and the world at war are awful.

[balthazar_bee]

I remember screencaps of The Ice Storm were bad enough to keep me from buying it, and that was ten years ago, so I can only imagine it's a pretty egregious example.

[Brad1963]

It seems like the Studio Canal titles are always considered problematic.

[SilverScreen96]

Originally Posted by Blu-ray monster

You shouldn’t trust all of the reviewers on this site, the ones that reviewed Bambi, secret of nhim, and the world at war are awful.

The Secret of NIHM and The Ice Storm by poor ratings for their video quality.

Do you all think these reviewers are in the pockets of labels? LOL

Do you all only trust ones who give shitty scores like Svet, a guy shouldn't even be allowed to review Criterion releases at this point.

[SilverScreen96]

Originally Posted by 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."

I have and it doesn't seem like it's usually bad at all. Sweet Smell of Success did use to remove a little dirt, big deal. It looks great and filmic. Detail is stunning, the movie looks new, like I'm seeing a print taken straight from the negative.

Do you all oppose any use of DNR? If it really is just a restoration tool that can really help a film look new if used properly and sparingly so as to still preserve the filmic look of a movie, then why oppose it?

[JupiterMission]

"Member since: Jan 2023."

And he's already flying off the handle and picking bizarre fights about things people haven't said. The kid's a natural!

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by SilverScreen96

Do you all oppose any use of DNR? If it really is just a restoration tool that can really help a film look new if used properly and sparingly so as to still preserve the filmic look of a movie, then why oppose it?

Because it's not always used properly and sparingly. Even on Criterion releases.

[SilverScreen96]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Because it's not always used properly and sparingly. Even on Criterion releases.

I have noticed that, that's actually why I plan to get the BFI edition of Madame De... because the Criterion has too much DNR from the screenshots I've seen, to the point of altering the appearance of the film in some scenes, making it look like a black and white pointillist painting, LOL

I'm just saying, no need to be purists about it's usage when it's used sparingly, which on most criterion releases (at least the ones I've encountered) it is.

Perhaps we should just limit it to extensive, damaging or egregious use of DNR

[Matt89]

I often disagree with Svet's reviews as well, but lol I don't think he shouldn't be allowed to review films because of it. That's ridiculous. Sure there are films that are generally held in high regard and have earned that reputation, but ultimately art is subjective and you're always going to have people with differing opinions. That's part of the beauty of film criticism.

[Blu-ray monster]

Originally Posted by SilverScreen96

The Secret of NIHM and The Ice Storm by poor ratings for their video quality.

Do you all think these reviewers are in the pockets of labels? LOL

Do you all only trust ones who give shitty scores like Svet, a guy shouldn't even be allowed to review Criterion releases at this point.

On the secret of nhim review they complain about the lack of dnr.

[MichaelR]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

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.

No dog in this fight, just curious: How is it that you "actually know"?

[Cecil B. DeMille]

DNR is one issue, but bad compression is another. I recently watched the Criterion 4K disc for "Double Indemnity" (which is badly scratched, a whole other issue...), and it was great. just for fun, I also checked out the regular blu and I couldn't believe my eyes. The compression was really bad. The grain was all over the place. Instead of the beautiful, organic, filmic grain of the 4K disc, buyers of the regular blu were presented with a mediocre mess of a presentation. This especially not understandable in 2022, when we are more than a decade in the format, and there have been so many blus with transfers with great compression and grain (Arrow's "Terror in a Texas Town" springs to my mind). In general, after having seen so many well encoded blu-rays off recent restorations in recent years, it's really tough to go back to discs which are a decade old. A lot of them look really rough or just meh (in general, not just Criterion).
For a company of Criterion's caliber, this is unprofessional. I don't think it would cost them all that much to A) get another, better company doing this for them or B) someone coming in and showing their team how it's done right once. I suspect they have someone inhouse or with another company who they've been working with for a very long time, and know well so it's hard to being up. Or they are getting so many rave reviews from the likes of "film Twitter" that the criticism of their encodes are lost in the sea of great reviews.

[35remaster]

Originally Posted by 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.

Nonsense. DNR is a terrible thing and I will never buy a disc in which the company has used it. It's pathetic and I don't want it. If there are problems they can be solved another way other than waxing over the image like some have.