criterionforum.org

Why do you post on this forum if you have so much contempt for Criterion (which you've exhibited time and time again)?

It means nothing (and should mean nothing) to Criterion if there's a great international release of something. They're two different markets, and always will be until you can walk into a Barnes and Noble in the United States and pluck a BFI title off the shelf.

I'll never really understand the placing of Criterion on their own high pedestal.

Criterion deserve a pedestal for what they've done for home video, IMHO.

I quite agree with you; objectivity is always important (I've read some overly glowing reviews for discs that would have probably received poorer scores had they not been from Criterion). But the fact is this: they can and often do new video transfers.

BFI's Salo got good reviews across the board and looks great.

You're entitled to that opinion, but from a professional video point of view, the current HD scan of Salo is sadly not great - far from it. If it was handed to me I would have a few questions for the facility responsible. It would really benefit from a re-scan.

As for reviews, it's important to keep the context in mind. Many appear to be written from an "Is it worth upgrading over the DVD?" point of view (which could qualify just about anything but is also an a viewpoint I can understand). I'm talking about a "does it look representative of film and does it look as good as the material reasonably could" point of view.

I haven't seen the BFI blu in motion, but every full-Rez screengrab I've seen makes it look like absolute shit. Blocky, smeary, de-grained, plasticy, sd-upconvert shit.

I posted this over in the thread for the BFI release. To sum up, the telecine operators (not the BFI, who weren't involved with that stage) didn't know what they were doing. Criterion doesn't have a 100% track record but I can't imagine they'll use that master.

CSM126 wrote:I haven't seen the BFI blu in motion, but every full-Rez screengrab I've seen makes it look like absolute shit. Blocky, smeary, de-grained, plasticy, sd-upconvert shit.

It looks much better in motion (feel free to check reviews by people who've actually seen it, such as AV Maniacs, Blu-ray.com, The Digital Fix and DVD Beaver), and is categorically not an SD upconvert.

In fact, it was this specific title that taught me a valuable lesson: that screengrabs are often worse than useless when it comes to assessing what a Blu-ray disc looks like in motion under normal viewing conditions. Which is why I always read the accompanying review and take particular note of the comments when they appear to contradict what the screengrabs seem to be revealing.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:I posted this over in the thread for the BFI release. To sum up, the telecine operators (not the BFI, who weren't involved with that stage) didn't know what they were doing. Criterion doesn't have a 100% track record but I can't imagine they'll use that master.

The main problem seems to have been that they did know what they were doing, but Italian telecine houses are inordinately fond of DNR - and if it's added at the actual telecine stage, it's impossible to remove completely, though the BFI made every effort to do so. This is a problem Arrow keeps running up against with their Italian releases - and a good sign that it's not the company that's primarily to blame comes with some of their non-Italian DVDs: Rififi has one of the best black-and-white HD pictures I've seen to date.

But, I repeat: in motion the BFI Blu-ray looks far better than the screengrabs suggest, as supported by the reviews I linked to.

mfunk9786 wrote:Why do you post on this forum if you have so much contempt for Criterion (which you've exhibited time and time again)?

It means nothing (and should mean nothing) to Criterion if there's a great international release of something. They're two different markets, and always will be until you can walk into a Barnes and Noble in the United States and pluck a BFI title off the shelf.

Where is there any contempt in my post? I said Criterion are one of a select few in the group of the best Blu-ray companies in the world. I'm sorry if not worshipping them and viewing their releases as better than anything else, regardless of actual quality, is contempt. Furthermore, I've not even shown any disappointment or dismissed the worth of this release, due to there being an international release, in anyway whatsoever. I just responded to a comment where someone was hoping for a big, newly created, improvement on the BFI. I merely said that I didn't say it coming as there's no particular reason to see it coming.

I post here as this is one of the best forums on the Internet for discussion of international Blu-ray and DVD releases, unlike the Criterion Facebook page. I think your "contempt" comment will be much more at home there. Sorry for daring to suggest that there could be other great Blu-ray companies out there.

Just for you mfunk9786, I'll say this very clearly: IF CRITERION PROVE ME WRONG AND RELEASE THEIR SALO BLU-RAY WITH A MUCH IMPORVED VISUAL TRANSFER THEN I'LL BE DELIGHTED, I'LL SELL MY BFI AND BUY THE CRITERION.

MichaelB wrote:

CSM126 wrote:I haven't seen the BFI blu in motion, but every full-Rez screengrab I've seen makes it look like absolute shit. Blocky, smeary, de-grained, plasticy, sd-upconvert shit.

It looks much better in motion (feel free to check reviews by people who've actually seen it, such as AV Maniacs, Blu-ray.com, The Digital Fix and DVD Beaver), and is categorically not an SD upconvert.

In fact, it was this specific title that taught me a valuable lesson: that screengrabs are often worse than useless when it comes to assessing what a Blu-ray disc looks like in motion under normal viewing conditions. Which is why I always read the accompanying review and take particular note of the comments when they appear to contradict what the screengrabs seem to be revealing.

Indeed. Screenshots are useful for seeing whether a particular disc is horrendous or not but I have no idea how you got "blocky, smeary, de-grained, plasticy, sd-upconvert shit" from them. Criterion have done transfers that are "merely" as good as this (and this is actually a compliment as the disc is very good). If you're idea of judging a disc is to magnify screencaps to high levels in order to detect any flaws, then so be it, but you'll be disappointed with virtually everything out there. The BFI Salo is very, very good and I am sure it could be bettered, but short of a new The Leopard style scan being done then I don't see it happening.

David M. wrote:

I'll never really understand the placing of Criterion on their own high pedestal.

Criterion deserve a pedestal for what they've done for home video, IMHO.

I quite agree with you; objectivity is always important (I've read some overly glowing reviews for discs that would have probably received poorer scores had they not been from Criterion). But the fact is this: they can and often do new video transfers.

Sure, but I don't really see why they'll have done one here when you consider the extra time and expense needed to produce only a minor but still, nonetheless, very noticable upgrade.

TMDaines wrote:Indeed. Screenshots are useful for seeing whether a particular disc is horrendous or not but I have no idea how you got "blocky, smeary, de-grained, plasticy, sd-upconvert shit" from them. Criterion have done transfers that are "merely" as good as this (and this is actually a compliment as the disc is very good). If you're idea of judging a disc is to magnify screencaps to high levels in order to detect any flaws, then so be it, but you'll be disappointed with virtually everything out there.

The recent row over Optimum's Don't Look Now has thrown up another issue: people with projectors are much fussier than people with televisions under 50" or thereabouts. Which is obviously what you'd expect (well, duh), but this leads to people insisting that a disc is "unwatchable" on the grounds of issues that are close to invisible (if not actually invisible) on the overwhelming majority of Blu-ray setups.

Which is why I tend to take websites like Michael Mackenzie's ultra-picky one with a pinch of salt - I don't have a 120" screen and a state-of-the-art professionally-calibrated setup, and have neither the money nor the space (nor the understanding spouse) to install one. I've no doubt his comments are perfectly accurate and highly relevant for people with equivalent systems, but my own viewing experience is likely to be much closer to that of the people who gave the disc rave reviews.

The BFI Salo is very, very good and I am sure it could be bettered, but short of a new The Leopard style scan being done then I don't see it happening.

It can certainly be bettered, but whether they can gain access to the original neg again is a moot point. The problem is, if an HD master already exists, then rightsholders are very reluctant to allow their rare, sometimes unique, original celluloid materials to undergo the physical strain of yet another transfer. Criterion is presumably using the HD master that they created in 2008 from a 35mm print, so they'll be at least a generation removed from the neg, but the (again, presumably) superior telecine should be ample compensation. But I doubt the differences will be especially dramatic - I certainly have no plans to upgrade.

MichaelB wrote:

The BFI Salo is very, very good and I am sure it could be bettered, but short of a new The Leopard style scan being done then I don't see it happening.

It can certainly be bettered, but whether they can gain access to the original neg again is a moot point. The problem is, if an HD master already exists, then rightsholders are very reluctant to allow their rare, sometimes unique, original celluloid materials to undergo the physical strain of yet another transfer. Criterion is presumably using the HD master that they created in 2008 from a 35mm print, so they'll be at least a generation removed from the neg, but the (again, presumably) superior telecine should be ample compensation. But I doubt the differences will be especially dramatic - I certainly have no plans to upgrade.

If we see a The Leopard level of improvement then I'll probably be tempted (the BFI has stronger extras in my opinion though) but I'll be surprised if it occurs.

Five to ten years ago there was probably a situation where Criterion was on the top tier alone but now even companies, who have released utter shite in the past, are now getting their act together and doing some very good releases. When Criterion release Bicycle Thieves will it be better than the Arrow release and the Italian one? Perhaps marginally yes, but I imagine a big part of it will come down to subjectivity like the M releases. Getting the Arrow for a few pounds cheaper (ignoring shipping and customs) and several months earlier is preferable for me.

What's this suggestion that the BFI Leopard Blu is better than the Criterion. I thought they were nearly identical.

I haven't seen the Criterion, but both Blu-rays of The Leopard came from the same master. So I'd be very, very surprised indeed if one transfer was significantly better than the other - and Gary at The Beaver says that:

Aside from some subtle color shifts I don't see a heck of a lot of differences in the BFI (Re-issue) and Criterion Blu-rays. Technically speaking the Criterion stats are more substantial - more disc space for the film and a higher bitrate - but if I was forced to choose I might lean slightly to the BFI.

But the Criterion does have more extensive extras, so on that score it's certainly "better" (though the BFI commentary is superior to the Criterion one by most reckonings).

I'll be the contrarian who says the BFI Salò looked worse in motion, since the bizarre and very un-filmic clumped grain is more apparent when you can see it moving (or not) across frames than sitting still in a picture. It's "better than the DVD" (speaking of the Criterion DVD), but that's a low bar for Blu-ray generally and the Criterion Salò was problematic by SD standards (including its own EE).

As for whether Technicolor Rome knew what they were doing, everything I know about the process says that pouring on DNR at the telecine phase is the exact opposite of best practices. I don't think anything has screwed up more Blu-ray transfers than someone thinking "let's get out some of that grain and damage," then cranking the noise reduction to 11 and letting "the machine" do its thing. DNR can benefit some sources (scratch removal is DNR too), but applying it in such quantities from step one removes the decision from those actually releasing the disc and locks them into whatever tools the telecine operators had to work with at the time -- pretty awful ones from the looks of it, or maybe they just didn't know how to use them. And since (as noted) rights-holders often insist licensees use an existing master, and licensees can't often afford their own telecine anyway, this means you can get multiple screwed-up releases. (I've heard the Australian Salò has the same problems, although I haven't seen it personally.) DNR can always be added later, but taking it out is something else. "Incompetence" seems like a fair enough word here.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:As for whether Technicolor Rome knew what they were doing, everything I know about the process says that pouring on DNR at the telecine phase is the exact opposite of best practices.

I can't imagine anyone would disagree with you here (I certainly don't), but this does appear to be common practice in Italy - and done entirely intentionally as a matter of policy. Salò is far from the only example.

denti alligator wrote:What's this suggestion that the BFI Leopard Blu is better than the Criterion. I thought they were nearly identical.

I wasn't referring to the BFI's The Leopard being better. It was the new scan and restoration, that featured on the French Blu-ray (and perhaps will on the Australian), which was discussed here previously, that I was comparing to. Criterion's and BFI's The Leopard were virtually the same, which was the point I was kind of making here and was one of the reasons I don't see a mega improvement on the BFI's Salo coming.

http://criterioncast.com/2010/12/05/scr ... storation/

TMDaines wrote:Criterion's and BFI's The Leopard were virtually the same, which was the point I was kind of making here and was one of the reasons I don't see a mega improvement on the BFI coming.

It's not quite the same situation - the Criterion and BFI discs of The Leopard and Red Desert do indeed look almost identical (colour grading issues aside) because they were sourced from exactly the same telecines.

But I imagine Criterion's Salò will come from their own HD transfer, which they created from a 35mm print - as opposed to the DNRed master created by Technicolor in Rome was sourced from the negative. So it might well look superior, but "mega improvement" is still probably hyperbole.

MichaelB wrote:But I imagine Criterion's Salò will come from their own HD transfer, which they created from a 35mm print - as opposed to the DNRed master created by Technicolor in Rome was sourced from the negative. So it might well look superior, but "mega improvement" is still probably hyperbole.

Oh, OK. Thanks for that piece of information.

I think everyone's missing the point: Even if the releases are identical, it doesn't have any impact on Criterion what MoC or BFI do with their releases. They're responsible for putting out a definitive North American release of film X Y or Z. Comparing the two releases is irrelevant.

mfunk9786 wrote:I think everyone's missing the point: Even if the releases are identical, it doesn't have any impact on Criterion what MoC or BFI do with their releases. They're responsible for putting out a definitive North American release of film X Y or Z. Comparing the two releases is irrelevant.

That's not really true here as there are plenty of people on here who have the freedom to purchase and play either or both releases.

To the vast majority of their customers, is it largely irrelevant? Provided the release is of a reasonable standard, then sure.

No offense to anyone, but the "screengrabs are inaccurate" argument will only get you so far. I defy anyone to look at the caps on blu-ray.com, or anywhere else for that matter, and tell me they look the least bit good. I can believe that caps don't tell one hundred percent of the tale, but they are usually a good indicator. A good transfer will look good in caps, and a bad transfer will look like, well, thispixelated, washed-out, smeary, blurry garbage. I don't need to spend thirty bucks or more to import that disc to see it on my TV. That's what reviews are for: they save you the trouble of losing money on a crummy disc. The text is positive, but good God, man. Either A) the critics computer totally chewed the pic files up (which has never been evident in any other review they've posted), or B) they're lying to themselves trying to make this sound better than it is. Why? I don't know. But my eyes say that looks like crap. And every capture they posted looks bad, not just the one.

Let me be clear: I respect the BFI, and I've bought some of their discs (the Jane Arden trio, which are all lovely editions). I just can't help but notice how awful this looks. If it's the fault of someone in Rome, so be it, but the disc still looks bad enough to make me say "no thanks".

But it's good enough for TMDaines though!!

mfunk9786 wrote:But it's good enough for TMDaines though!!

And all the reviewers Michael added above...

MichaelB wrote:Criterion is presumably using the HD master that they created in 2008 from a 35mm print, so they'll be at least a generation removed from the neg, but the (again, presumably) superior telecine should be ample compensation.

Criterion's transfer "was made from an interpositive (IP) off of the original camera negative, which exists at Technicolor in Rome."

Still, as you said, a generation removed. Did BFI actually scan the cut negative? Is that done frequently?

TMDaines wrote:That's not really true here as there are plenty of people on here who have the freedom to purchase and play either or both releases.

To the vast majority of their customers, is it largely irrelevant? Provided the release is of a reasonable standard, then sure.

I'd have to agree with mfunk that it is largely irrelevant to the vast majority of Criterion's customers. I think the key is "on here." This forum is a gathering of informed film lovers and home theater enthusiasts who are aware of the possibility of ordering films from other countries and who frequently have the equipment and means to order these discs. Most dvd consumers, even Criterion buyers, aren't aware that such a thing is even possible. I doubt Criterion spends much time thinking about what MoC, the BFI, and other international distributors are doing because it only slightly affects the portion of their customer base (5-10% at most?) that posts on this and similar forums. I would imagine that Criterion still sells most of its non-institutional product at Best Buy, Barnes and Noble, and other chain and local video outlets. For most people, that's just how you buy movies. I'm pretty sure that 90% of Best Buy customers (and employees) aren't even aware of the existence of the United Kingdom.

^^^ That's where James Bond works, right? :-)

But Jeff, I'd say a large section of the customers likely to buy a Pasolini bluray would be aware of the possibilities of buying discs from other regions. These are not your average Joe Bloggs consumers.

You don't know how Salo has penetrated (pardon the pun) the public conscious than. I know people who have never seen a subtitled movie before that have watched it.

Salo routinely shows up on lists of the "most shocking films evrrrrrrrrr" along with I Spit on Your Grave, Cannibal Holocaust, and the like. I heard of it years before I knew Pasolini by name, or had even really gotten into film.