criterionforum.org

Maybe it was Gaumont's say: "Hey, either release it with the masters we gave you, or lose the rights to it completely!"

Thank you very much David for taking the time and posting your review. While it's probably a moot point to speculate why CC let this one go through, I can not imagine that someone didn't see the flaws in the transfer and simply said this is good enough considering that at other times CC has rejected a master and done their own.
What puzzles me is that Jerome Soulet apparently said on another forum they handed over a non-degrained master to CC, thereby implying that it was CC's doing what ended up on the disc, but from your review grain appears to be the least of the issue, and the removal of print damages may at least partially be responsible for someone fiddling with the dials.
Have there been any other statements by Mr. Soulet and team as to what really happened.
I'm just curious if there is a chance of rectifying all of this on another release (maybe even the upcoming Gaumont - although not holding my breath) as seemingly was done with Le Samourai's last edition.

doc mccoy wrote:So now, what is the best or least worst version of Madame de on dvd/blu?

I suppose the version to get is still the standard Criterion DVD. I looked at it again and it seems solid, though not perfect. The prominent windowboxing inevitably reduces the resolution and the image has some mild compression/filtering issues. This time around I noticed some fairly prominent haloing in places due either to low-pass filtering or edge enhancement. On the plus side, it has sharp detail. It holds up well on my 46" TV.

As Gary Tooze suggests on DVD Beaver, the British DVD is on the dark side, and I think it also looks overly digital.

vsski wrote:What puzzles me is that Jerome Soulet apparently said on another forum they handed over a non-degrained master to CC, thereby implying that it was CC's doing what ended up on the disc, but from your review grain appears to be the least of the issue, and the removal of print damages may at least partially be responsible for someone fiddling with the dials.

I'm wondering if it was not de-graining that is the problem here, but automated scratch and dust removal. I recall an anecdote where a top-notch digital restoration team (who shall remain nameless) was running a new digital telecine of a classic film (which shall also remain nameless) through an automated scratch and dust removal program. It was humming along until, all of a sudden, the program's progress slowed to a crawl. When the team looked to see why, they discovered that the scene the program was working on was set in a rain shower and that the program was digitally removing the raindrops from the picture frame by frame. So if there's grain but this sort of "watercolor" effect appears in entire shots or areas of the picture with a lot of variant detail and shading (leaves, grass, intricate patterns in costumes and decor), all complicated by Ophuls' constantly-moving camera, I wonder if it isn't that someone who didn't know what they were doing was at the dials, it's that no one was at the dials and they let the dumb computer decide that every piece of picture detail was a speck of dust. This process would have been done before any grain or noise management, so it seems plausible given what we know about the restoration process for this title.

The DVD has the typical blocky SD noise, edge enhancement and poorer constrast/greyscale. But it still appears to show more detail:

Urgh

vsski wrote:Have there been any other statements by Mr. Soulet and team as to what really happened ?

There should be a feedback on DVD Classik either sunday or monday. One of their forumer / admin went to Gaumont to check the BD-R. Gaumont even lent it to him, so he can check it again at home, and most likely do screen caps.

Matt wrote:I recall an anecdote where a top-notch digital restoration team (who shall remain nameless) was running a new digital telecine of a classic film (which shall also remain nameless) through an automated scratch and dust removal program. It was humming along until, all of a sudden, the program's progress slowed to a crawl. When the team looked to see why, they discovered that the scene the program was working on was set in a rain shower and that the program was digitally removing the raindrops from the picture frame by frame.

That reminds me of a lot of Universal restorations...

manicsounds wrote:Maybe it was Gaumont's say: "Hey, either release it with the masters we gave you, or lose the rights to it completely!"

That would be awfully bad practice. I understood there has already been some tensions between them and Criterion, that would obviously not help.

Tommaso wrote:And don't forget that even today they almost always boost the blackness levels on their black and white films, which of course is particularly annoying with Japanese films.

I do remember The Burmese Harp looking awfully different from Criterion contrast-boosted DVD VS MoC BR using the new Toho restoration. However, the first impression you get is "oomph, the MoC BR has no contrast ! What happenned ?!"

I've mentioned this before, but when the BFI was mastering the Quay Brothers' Institute Benjamenta to HD, the grading was originally set for standard black and white - i.e. deep, rich blacks and brilliant whites, with a comparatively limited greyscale in the middle. Fortunately, the directors and their cinematographer were all on hand to explain that they were actually after a visual symphony in greyscale, with hardly any pure blacks or whites - so that's what they got.

This graphically illustrates how easy it is to get it wrong if the filmmakers themselves are no longer around - because I have no doubt that the original grading probably looked perfectly acceptable to the untrained eye. Indeed, fans of the Criterion approach to black and white might well have preferred it!

EddieLarkin wrote:The DVD has the typical blocky SD noise, edge enhancement and poorer constrast/greyscale. But it still appears to show more detail:

Urgh

Look at the way the detail in the woodwork and chandelier just disappears - that's a rather tangible example of what can be observed in the fabric textures, hair, etc through the rest of the film (and is a severely exaggerated version of the phenomenon some of us were complaining about in the Paramount Blu-Ray of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance).

It'll never happen, but Criterion should recall this disc.

Would be great to hear from the producer of the BD, presumably Joanna Schiller (she produced the DVD). The only thing that this BD seems to have going for it is the superior contrast to the DVD. This is one of my all-time favourites so this "upgrade", to me, is a serious stain on what has been a very good year for Criterion so far. Apparently they do read the forum so can I urge them, going forward, to do their own restos on any major titles where Gaumont seem to be incapable of delivering a master that the title in question deserves? If Gaumont releases an impeccable-looking or at least superior domestic BD in the autumn, then I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the next meeting between Criterion and the French!

Fuck it, the disc is now off my buy list completely. I'll wait to see if Second Sight upgrade their DVD of it in the U.K., and hopefully due to the response to the Criterion disc, they'll manage to get a pre-fucked version from Gaumont.

I wouldn't hold my breath, Eddie, because their Children of Paradise BD was based on the same appalling master from Pathe like the Criterion. If Second Sight release a BD of Madame de, chances are it'll look as bad, though we won't know for sure till Gaumont releases it in France in October (?).

I have very little hope, though it seems to me that the destruction of Children of Paradise was more at the restoration stage, whereas this is hopefully just some idiotic filter applied towards the end of the entire process, and thus can be more easily rectified.

Thanks a lot David. Glad I hung onto the DVD. I was planning on viewing this tonight but will instead be sending it back to Amazon.

This is all so very sad to read about.

I haven't seen the Blu yet, but when the upgrade was announced my first thought was "Wow! They must have found some great materials" because the DVDs were released on the cusp of Blu-ray, but it was clear from the DVDs that the masters probably wouldn't have looked stellar on Blu.

The HTF review of 4.5/5 for image, and RAH defending it, is unfathomable based on comments here. What's going on?

RAH's comments are often at odds with the majority, because he seems to approach discs with a different set of criteria.

Usually he'll criticise a great transfer if he believes it could have looked a lot better when taking into account the elements that are available, and so stuff like High Noon, The Quiet Man and The Enforcer will get ripped by him despite ecstatic reviews elsewhere, whilst The Devil and Miss Jones, by far his most well reviewed Olive disc, gets middling reviews elsewhere for being soft.

He seems to put greatest stock into how well a disc replicates the presentation of an original pristine print, so I guess things like contrast, grayscale and damage clean up are more important to him than digital tinkering which might be removing detail. You may remember he similarly gave a pass to The Birds and Frenzy, despite their digital tinkering, whilst predictably tearing apart The Man Who Knew Too Much for colour issues.

Though despite taking this into account, his praise for Madame de... still seems like a big anomaly.

To add to what Eddie said, what I believe RAH does is grade the film against how good it is possible for it to look - so going off Nick's comments that what was there might be just passable for DVD, that's a factor in his high score.

When I asked about this on HTF last week, he did say that the CoP "work" was done consistently through the film as if the knob was turned and left. The "work" on this one was done more selectively and for him that was less problematic, as CoP was called by him "a coaster".

I bought the UK DVD. I sold the UK DVD. I bought the Criterion DVD. I sold the Criterion DVD. I was amazed to find out that what was supposed to be a good thing turned into something ugly. I bought the UK DVD, again.

This doesn't bode well for Eyes Without A Face (another Gaumont transfer?)

The reason the eyes are without a face is that the face looks like a waterpainting.

What is the bottom line on this debate? Is the Criterion DVD of Madame de... on balance preferable to their Blu Ray, or is the Blu Ray better despite all the issues described here? Yes, we could have had a marvelous Blu Ray if people had done their job; but we don't. So what should be the choice of people who are undecided?

David, I believe those logo-marked captures are from a circulating TV broadcast rip--the iTunes version is even better!

Hopefully these can persuade anyone still undecided to not buy this disc!

I tried to get these close to the caps-a-holic comparisons (http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleic ... 44#auswahl):





https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/181 ... olic/5.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/181 ... olic/6.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/181 ... olic/7.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/181 ... olic/8.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Compared to the HDTV broadcast captures above:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/181 ... dtv/22.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/181 ... dtv/33.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/181 ... dtv/44.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/181 ... dtv/55.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/181 ... dtv/66.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More:


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/181 ... er/300.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/181 ... er/400.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/181 ... er/500.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/181 ... er/600.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obviously this iTunes download is somewhat bitrate-starved and has some apparent blocking here and there, but it is a significant improvement over the letterboxed DVD. A BD sourced from whatever old master this comes from would have been perfectly acceptable!

David, Thank you for your reassurance regarding Les yeux sans visage; I've been extremely worried about that one since this whole Madame de... travesty began to unravel.

Could it be that Criterion encoded the wrong feature master and haven't realised? The iTunes grabs look far better!

Silver lining to this fiasco? When I view those caps on my two inch wide phone screen, they don't look that bad! So if you have the blu ray and can stand the transfer, just rip it to your phone and it'll ease the pain!