criterionforum.org

Coincidentally I also just finished watching The Pianist, and I also found it a nice presentation overall.

That doesn't mean there are no problems; some of the effects shots are really quite bad, with the Warsaw Uprising getting the worst of it in terms of blurryness and with some pretty bad mattes sprinkled elsewhere, but thankfully it really is only the effects shots as every shot surrounding them is properly restored, and I also thought the grain was pretty much a non-issue as I was watching.

I am not a home-video expert at all and I can't say it was a perfect presentation, but it's clearly the best presentation of the film so far and I'm happy with the money I spent on it, though if Eddie or tenia got their hands on it I would appreciate that.

Finch wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2023 10:22 pm Rosemary's Baby (Paramount) is safe to buy, says evolvist but hold on to the CC BD for the extras.

FWIW, it's missing a line of Dr. Sapirstein's dialogue - "We happen to be in labor here." All we hear is the word "here" from that line. It also affects the digital 4k.

ford wrote:I’m very much a layman — the extent of my “expertise” is noting how awful the T2 UHD looks and being perturbed by the frozen grain in the Empire Strikes Back disc — but I thought the new UHD of The Pianist looked amazing. I only noticed one or two kinda soft shots. And the new CGI doesn’t stand out anymore than the old FX did. In fact, they look quite good.

I think the hysterics went overboard here.

I’m glad you were able to enjoy The Pianist in 4K but I think it’s very disappointing. I’m not speaking from a layman’s perspective though.

If you’d like to learn why, read here: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php? ... tcount=100

The 4K is an improvement to the old BD just from the detail alone but the wasted potential is immense.

If anything, it shows what is likely to happen if the industry was to switch to this kind of trickstery "restorations" : pretty much nobody will realise/care the original texture of the film has been removed and replaced by an artificial emulating one.
I just hope this and Hanging Rock will remain exceptions from a few people thinking it's OK to use movies as sandboxes for trying the newest toy in town, rather than something that will spread.

FWIW my approval of the presentation of The Pianist is very much in relation to its previous blu-rays and the post-production process of 2002, whilst with Picnic at Hanging Rock, which had a fine HD-presentation for 2010, I can imagine a more standard 4K scan and restoration would've produced a much more accurate and widely approved image.

tenia wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2023 6:09 pm If anything, it shows what is likely to happen if the industry was to switch to this kind of trickstery "restorations" : pretty much nobody will realise/care the original texture of the film has been removed and replaced by an artificial emulating one.
I just hope this and Hanging Rock will remain exceptions from a few people thinking it's OK to use movies as sandboxes for trying the newest toy in town, rather than something that will spread.

I should point out I've seen the movie a dozen times. It's one of my favorites. But I never saw it theatrically, only DVD and blu-ray.

But even having seen it all these times, I never found this restoration intrusive or strange or distracting in the slightest. It's not like the Star Wars: Special Editions or something. What matters is if it works for the film. And, as a lover of the film, it worked for me.

ford wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2023 7:19 pmWhat matters is if it works for the film.

I believe that what works for pretty much every movie shot on film is : leave its texture alone, don't filter it electronically, and don't then try to hide the intrusive electronic work by more visible electronic work.

I mean : Nick Wrigley's "Crimes against the grain" article is more than 10 years old, we can't still be there more than 10 years later.

But as I wrote, how many people were bothered by Hanging Rock fake grain, or even just noticed it was fake ? But then, how many people would be OK with the industry saying "ok now, we're doing to routinely degrain the crap out of movies and replace it with fake digital grain" ? So why would it be unacceptable as a whole but acceptable for these specific cases ?

tenia wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2023 9:07 pm

ford wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2023 7:19 pmWhat matters is if it works for the film.

I believe that what works for pretty much every movie shot on film is : leave its texture alone, don't filter it electronically, and don't then try to hide the intrusive electronic work by more visible electronic work.

I mean : Nick Wrigley's "Crimes against the grain" article is more than 10 years old, we can't still be there more than 10 years later.

But as I wrote, how many people were bothered by Hanging Rock fake grain, or even just noticed it was fake ? But then, how many people would be OK with the industry saying "ok now, we're doing to routinely degrain the crap out of movies and replace it with fake digital grain" ? So why would it be unacceptable as a whole but acceptable for these specific cases ?

I don't mind it in this case simply because of the sheer weirdness of the whole early 00's D.I. process. But maybe I'm just thinking about how awful my two previous blu-rays of this wonderful film look. Correct me if I'm wrong but the other option was to just duplicate the 2k D.I. itself, right? Stamp that onto a UHD disc? I mean, I guess that works and is closer to what someone in a theater in 2002 would have seen. But don't we gain something -- something that was never achieved in that original D.I. -- by scanning in the original negative at 4k even if it means recreating some of the post-production process for the FX?

I have 4k scans of two different (restored) 1977 Star Wars prints -- one is from a 35mm Eastman print the other is from a relatively rare IB Technicolor print. The former is what probably 90-95% of audiences in 1977 saw. And what I remember the original VHS copies looking like: a very grainy and very washed out and very brown Star Wars that looks not altogether different from McCabe and Mrs. Miller. The latter though is what was used, I believe, as a reference for the Special Editions. Very bright, very rich colors. But only a few theaters in England ever screened those prints in the '70s. And yet today I basically never watch the former, I watch the latter.

So I agree with you overall. But at the same time, the whole idea of watching a "true representation" of a movie at home means you're already watching some kind of digital simulacrum of an analogue photochemical process.

One of the other options would have been to do the same but without the whole grain management shenanigans.

Which, as you can read, isn't a complex or theoretical thing "true representation" to ask.

They did the right thing when re-doing the post-production, since it's now possible, and it does indeed allow for a finer and more detailed look, over a previous BD that was rubbish. But this is something of its own, it doesn't automatically come with the whole degrain - fake regrain stuff (and IMO, they could have avoided redoing some of the effects, since they had to re-use as is some shots anyway).

All digital restorations are digital, and yet, some are more competent than others. This is what I'm discussing here : the exact same work on The Pianist minus the artificial filtering would have been a much better thing.



On a totally different note, what is the current consensus on Rosemary's Baby Paramount UHD ? I've just seen the caps-a-holic caps and flat uniform areas like skies look so poorly encoded the Criterion BD seems to offer better resolution despite its lower rez.

tenia wrote:One of the other options would have been to do the same but without the whole grain management shenanigans.

Which, as you can read, isn't a complex or theoretical thing "true representation" to ask.

They did the right thing when re-doing the post-production, since it's now possible, and it does indeed allow for a finer and more detailed look, over a previous BD that was rubbish. But this is something of its own, it doesn't automatically come with the whole degrain - fake regrain stuff (and IMO, they could have avoided redoing some of the effects, since they had to re-use as is some shots anyway).

All digital restorations are digital, and yet, some are more competent than others. This is what I'm discussing here : the exact same work on The Pianist minus the artificial filtering would have been a much better thing.



On a totally different note, what is the current consensus on Rosemary's Baby Paramount UHD ? I've just seen the caps-a-holic caps and flat uniform areas like skies look so poorly encoded the Criterion BD seems to offer better resolution despite its lower rez.

I’m surprised by the near-unanimously positive reactions to Rosemary’s Baby when seeing these DV FEL caps. As you said, the skies look terrible and other instances (cap 21) with a normal brightness have issues. I must say I didn’t exactly buy all the positive early reactions and took them with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, I have the 4K on the way - the film is too good to miss out on it - and will give it a good look. After these caps, I don’t expect a miracle. Paramount is still Paramount unless the franchise is called Scream when they miraculously deliver a great encode.

Also, on the other forum, there are reports about one line of Saperstein’s dialogue being only partially audible on the 4K.

Re: Rosemary's Baby - The caps show the compression much worse than in motion IMO, at least with Dolby Vision enabled. I'm guessing but to me this looks like the same exact restoration used for the 2012 Blu-ray. The grain is super chunky but considering the flashed cinematography and Paramount's track record I think this could have been much worse. The most glaring problem to me was during this part where the milky blacks & overlays add to the problem creating some ugly artifacts that are extremely noticeable. The line of dialogue was missing to my ears, as in completely not there. I would still argue its an upgrade and worth a pick up but definitely in the disappointing category considering the status of the film.

Disappointing even against Criterion's BD encode? Does it qualify as a solid upgrade compared to Criterion's disc?

I thought evolvist's reviews had been reliable so far, so it's deflating to hear that the disc is not as impressive after all.

That cover tho

Received my Carlotta UHD of Wings of Desire today.

The first nice surprise was that the size of the UHD was "upgraded" from a BD-66 to a BD-100. Their shop mentioned a BD-66 for a while, maybe it was a mistake but nonetheless a great suprise.
The other surprise is that David M / FiM did NOT handle the encoding on this one but LSP Medien in Germany according to the credit screen. (The included BD was done by David).

This is not a bad thing as the encoding is excellent. This is the best UHD version of Wings of Desire. Of course, I haven’t seen the disc in its entirety but the spots that annoyed me on the Curzon (virtually all highlights and some mushy blacks) resolve much better on the Carlotta with a small layer of grain visible in motion and while pausing. Other than that, the UHD master looks immaculate. Phenomenal detail and small, tight grain as on the Curzon in "normal" moments.

Sound is German 5.1 and 2.0 (and a French dub) as hinted at, the video master is obviously SDR like the other versions.

An easy recommendation if you understand the languages in the film or can add external subtitles.

P.S. Carlotta also released a BD of the 4K-restored The American Friend today. It’s equally the best version of that film. It’s my third BD after the Criterion and Studiocanal versions. This is a FiM encode and obviously looks & sounds superb.

Finch wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2023 12:09 am Disappointing even against Criterion's BD encode? Does it qualify as a solid upgrade compared to Criterion's disc?

I have both and its definitely an upgrade over the 2012 disc in many ways in motion with DV enabled, and the best way to watch the film going forward in comparison. However I think its disappointing (again considering the film's popularity/status) if you're expecting it to meet the mark of some of the absolute knockout 'classic' 4Ks released in the past couple years. I'm, again, guessing, but that's more than likely due to the way it was shot/flashed as well as the seemingly ancient scan being put through Paramount's strange digital workflow. I don't think its as bad as some are saying or even the caps suggest (the HDR is its strongest attribute IMO), but its not what I was expecting for such a notable release. For all the fuss over 'The Exorcist' the bulk of that disc looks so much better than this one. In regards to this thread I lean more toward putting it in the orange category but the blue one is fine with the caveats added in the comments. Thanks for keeping this thread going, amazing work

Reports on the other forum regarding Breaking the Waves (Curzon) are very positive although I’ll take everything with a grain of salt with this label. It seems that they either changed authoring houses or simply got lucky this time. Note that their UHDs have been good so far, just the BDs since their re-branding are atrocious.
The included BD in the UHD set is an old one with their former Artificial Eye branding.

What is the "other forum" you are talking about, Nicolas ? (you can PM me in français si tu tu veux bien)

I have checked at blu-ray.com forum and did not find a thread opening about the Curzon UHD combo of Breaking The Waves.
The Criterion blu-ray was (is probably still) a stunning transfer so I'm waiting for an UHD upgrade by Criterion but since apparently they can butchered their UHD (I bought Walkabout but I'm still not ready to put the UHD)
But if Criterion don't ruin the UHD, the packaging of the DVD+Blu-Ray release was really beautiful, so perhaps I can wait a little bit.

From what I understood from this thread Curzon UHD+Blu-Ray of La Double Vie de Véronique is one of the finest UHD transfer available ? (In comparison to the Criterion UHD box set or the French release). Stupid but existential question : what transfer did they use for the Blu-Ray ? A downscale of the 4K transfer or the same transfer than the Criterion, or the old transfer from their first blu-ray (Artificial Eye, which was if I remember well the first blu-ray to release this magnificent movie)

I would not expect a UHD of Breaking the Waves from Criterion as MUBI will be getting the North American rights sometime in the next 2 years.

dwk wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2023 2:53 am I would not expect a UHD of Breaking the Waves from Criterion as MUBI will be getting the North American rights sometime in the next 2 years.

oh, that I did not know. Is there a forum where I could find some vidcaps of the UHD Breaking The Waves by Curzon ?
there is nothing at http://caps-a-holic.com so far.

Rupert Pupkin wrote:

dwk wrote: Mon Oct 16, 2023 2:53 am I would not expect a UHD of Breaking the Waves from Criterion as MUBI will be getting the North American rights sometime in the next 2 years.

oh, that I did not know. Is there a forum where I could find some vidcaps of the UHD Breaking The Waves by Curzon ?
there is nothing at http://caps-a-holic.com so far.

The other forum is blu-ray.com.

My post was specifically about the one positive post on that forum in the international section, which sounds solid to me. Of course, I’ll give the disc a look myself as well and maybe add a few more thoughts if necessary. If the grain resolves perfectly, I’m totally happy.
Hope it arrives soon, although you never know with Rarewaves.

De Niro’s A Bronx Tale has received a new MOD-4K by his own Tribeca.

The transfer comes with grain management. I wonder whether Tribeca & De Niro outsourced the restoration to Paramount as the look of the film is remarkably close to what they’d do, meaning the grain bends and shapes around moving objects and faces for example. Also, on the other forum, a member occasionally detected a subtle use of the smearing (DigiSmear) that plagues the Paramount UHDs.

The difference is though that the encoding isn’t as horrendous as Paramount’s. Encoding looks similar to Kino’s Staying Alive for what it’s worth. So, all in all, a clear and solid upgrade and while not perfect, it could have been worse.

I’ve also tested the Rosemary’s Baby UHD which was unfortunately already on its way to me when the audio issue became public.

I don’t like the look of the 4K in how dull and dreary it is compared to the included BD, which has a more vibrant look which fits nicely. I assume that’s what Polanski approved at the time compared to the new DV grade. The BD also looks “sharper” and more pleasingly organic to my eyes when comparing the same moments straight away. The aggressive chroma removal on the UHD probably left its mark in addition to the mediocre Paramount encode.

Yes, the 4K bitrate is higher than other Paramount discs are graced with but there are definitely issues in brighter spots which caps already showed nicely but also in other normal areas if you look very closely. I assume that most viewers didn’t notice anything due to the hazy and filtered-looking grain structure.

While all that was already enough for me to take the included BD, the audio is the cherry on top. I’m no audio expert but the bitrate on the UHD track is suspiciously low and set in the mid-0.5 Mbps range, which is what I know from DVD’s. Could it be that they took a DVD track and simply re-encoded it in TrueHD to get away with it?

The BD included in the set is the 2021 BD, released after the Criterion version went OOP. I don’t know about any changes to their 2012 (?) international versions but on that disc, the film is 1.78 framed and beautifully encoded. I’m not aware that the missing lines on the 4K extend to that disc but notwithstanding that, I’m happy about its inclusion as this surely will be my version unless one day Paramount miraculously changes their home video leadership and make up for all their botch jobs.

(On a personal note, it’s been a while since I’ve received a slip cover free of even a single blemish after having the edition shipped across the pond. The irony is that it’s the ugliest one in a long, long time. )

nicholas, is the Paramount BD enclosed with the 4k better encoded than the CC BD?

Finch wrote:nicholas, is the Paramount BD enclosed with the 4k better encoded than the CC BD?

By a huge margin. I just checked the CC BD again as I’ve last seen it in 2021 on inadequate equipment, so my memory was quite positive. Seeing it now on an OLED makes a huge difference. The CC has near-constant macroblocking. Grain is just fuzzy and not pleasant to look at. It’s problematic in a different way than the UHD which definitely looks scrubbed in comparison. The Paramount BD is the clear winner and honestly comes close to looking like a true 4K version.

Appreciate it! Have added the 2021 BD to my Amazon shopping list but hanging on to the CC for the extras.