Criterion Press Release: Red River (Dual Format) (1 Viewer)

[Persianimmortal]

I prefer to make that determination actually watching the discs.

Which is a bit pointless if the aim is to determine whether to buy a disc or not.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Which is a bit pointless if the aim is to determine whether to buy a disc or not.

I can't argue with that as people have to make the determination on how they spend their monies in their own way. From my personal perspective, I never thought much of screen caps.

 

[JoHud]

Not seeing the DVD Beaver throw its hat in one ring or another

The UK disc is darker (richer black levels), more visible damage, less information in the frame and significantly more textured grain. I appreciate the grain. So the Criterion(s) are 'lighter', smoother and likewise gives a very strong video presentation - but a different, crisper, one. It would probably come down to personal preference.

Sounds more of an apples and oranges comparison. Am I missing something?

 

[Persianimmortal]

I can't argue with that as people have to make the determination on how they spend their monies in their own way. From my personal perspective, I never thought much of screen caps.

Which is of course your prerogative

But from a purely objective point of view, as has been pointed out many times, a screencap, or more accurately a disc frame grab, provides a sample of the actual data on a Blu-ray disc. No more, no less. As most of us know, movies are simply 24 of these individual static frames strung together every second to form the illusion of animated video. Having a range of those single frames to view in the form of screencaps therefore provides a reasonably accurate reflection of the image quality of a movie.

What screencaps can't readily demonstrate is frame-to-frame fluctuations, such as constant changes in color and brightness, frequency of damage marks, and grain movement. They also can't tell you if the image quality is faithful to the original source film. Everything else about the image quality is captured perfectly by a screencap. What you see is what you get, with the exception of the caveats noted above. As long as you are not viewing only one or two screencaps in isolation, which can be misleading, but rather viewing a wide sample of them, as provided in the recent review links in this thread, then you have a very solid foundation for making a judgment on the image quality for yourself, without having to buy the disc. If necessary, save the screencaps to a USB flash drive or SD card, and insert them into your Blu-ray player or TV to determine how the disc will look on your primary viewing device.

Otherwise, I think we can simply dispel some of this irrational mistrust of screencaps that seems to have pervaded this forum. Unlike a review which is largely subjective, a screencap is entirely objective. A review can tell you a reviewer's impressions about image quality, as viewed through their eyes and on their equipment, and conveyed to the best of their descriptive powers. A screencap provides you with first-hand material to make the judgment for yourself. That's not to say reviews aren't useful, but that screencaps and reviews are complementary: a screencap lets you see for yourself what you're getting if you buy the disc, and the review provides expert commentary on whether the image on disc is faithful to the original source, and notes things that screencaps may not capture, such as fluctuations.

If anyone wants to discuss this issue further, rather than sidetracking this thread, I suggest we take it up in the screencap thread I created a while ago. I'm always open to any logical reasons why a screencap "cannot be trusted".

Not seeing the DVD Beaver throw its hat in one ring or another

Sounds more of an apples and oranges comparison. Am I missing something?

I don't think anyone here has cited DVD Beaver's review as being either for or against the Criterion release. Those of us who have referenced it have talked about how the screencaps provided by the Beaver, combined with the screencap gallery at Blu-ray.com tend to indicate that the Criterion release (both versions) seem to have less contrast (my term was "washed out"), less grain and less detail compared to the UK MoC release, due to what looks like DNR/digital cleanup by Criterion.

Now it may well be that this is the way the film is supposed to look. I somehow doubt it, but only an expert such as Robert Harris can know that. What I do know is that comparing the MoC version to the Criterion version, I prefer by far the MoC version, if only for its solid contrast.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Which is of course your prerogative

But from a purely objective point of view, as has been pointed out many times, a screencap, or more accurately a disc frame grab, provides a sample of the actual data on a Blu-ray disc. No more, no less. As most of us know, movies are simply 24 of these individual static frames strung together every second to form the illusion of animated video. Having a range of those single frames to view in the form of screencaps therefore provides a reasonably accurate reflection of the image quality of a movie.

What screencaps can't readily demonstrate is frame-to-frame fluctuations, such as constant changes in color and brightness, frequency of damage marks, and grain movement. They also can't tell you if the image quality is faithful to the original source film. Everything else about the image quality is captured perfectly by a screencap. What you see is what you get, with the exception of the caveats noted above. As long as you are not viewing only one or two screencaps in isolation, which can be misleading, but rather viewing a wide sample of them, as provided in the recent review links in this thread, then you have a very solid foundation for making a judgment on the image quality for yourself, without having to buy the disc. If necessary, save the screencaps to a USB flash drive or SD card, and insert them into your Blu-ray player or TV to determine how the disc will look on your primary viewing device.

Otherwise, I think we can simply dispel some of this irrational mistrust of screencaps that seems to have pervaded this forum. Unlike a review which is largely subjective, a screencap is entirely objective. A review can tell you a reviewer's impressions about image quality, as viewed through their eyes and on their equipment, and conveyed to the best of their descriptive powers. A screencap provides you with first-hand material to make the judgment for yourself. That's not to say reviews aren't useful, but that screencaps and reviews are complementary: a screencap lets you see for yourself what you're getting if you buy the disc, and the review provides expert commentary on whether the image on disc is faithful to the original source, and notes things that screencaps may not capture, such as fluctuations.

If anyone wants to discuss this issue further, rather than sidetracking this thread, I suggest we take it up in the screencap thread I created a while ago. I'm always open to any logical reasons why a screencap "cannot be trusted".



I don't think anyone here has cited DVD Beaver's review as being either for or against the Criterion release. Those of us who have referenced it have talked about how the screencaps provided by the Beaver, combined with the screencap gallery at Blu-ray.com tend to indicate that the Criterion release (both versions) seem to have less contrast (my term was "washed out"), less grain and less detail compared to the UK MoC release, due to what looks like DNR/digital cleanup by Criterion.

Now it may well be that this is the way the film is supposed to look. I somehow doubt it, but only an expert such as Robert Harris can know that. What I do know is that comparing the MoC version to the Criterion version, I prefer by far the MoC version, if only for its solid contrast.

I don't think any of us are objective in this screen cap argument. You believe in them, I don't, that's it.

 

[haineshisway]

I'm with Robert Crawford, obviously. I have been led down the garden path endlessly by screen caps, either yay or nay. Everyone says the screen cap is exactly what's on the Blu-ray, but that has never, not in one instance, been the case. Now, maybe that's how I'm viewing the caps but since there can be that variable then they are pointless to me and that is that. People have posted caps and told me how terrible the color is, for me to only find out the color is actually perfect and not representative of what I'm seeing in the caps on my iMac.

 

[Persianimmortal]

I don't think any of us are objective in this screen cap argument. You believe in them, I don't, that's it.

I don't see any "belief" element at all, this is an entirely objective right-or-wrong issue based on facts. A screen cap is an identical, or near-identical, copy of what is on a Blu-ray disc, end of story. That's where the data comes from, it's not manufactured via osmosis, or a rough approximate. It's a frame of data pulled directly off a Blu-ray disc.

I'm with Robert Crawford, obviously. I have been led down the garden path endlessly by screen caps, either yay or nay. Everyone says the screen cap is exactly what's on the Blu-ray, but that has never, not in one instance, been the case. Now, maybe that's how I'm viewing the caps but since there can be that variable then they are pointless to me and that is that. People have posted caps and told me how terrible the color is, for me to only find out the color is actually perfect and not representative of what I'm seeing in the caps on my iMac.

The only variable is how the screencap is captured and compressed, and most professional review sites such as DVD Beaver do this quite well. To confirm this, I've personally compared unmanipulated lossless PNG screencaps I've taken with those on DVD Beaver (e.g. for the James Dean Collection), and they are identical, showing that Beaver's caps are not being molested in any way. Same with those on Blu-ray.com. I can't vouch for caps that various other individuals take (and obviously we can dismiss caps taken by photographing a TV screen), though I've seen the ones that HTF member Malcolm (FoxyMulder) has on his site and they too seem perfectly accurate.

It's virtually impossible for there to be anything close to a substantial difference between a screencap and the actual Blu-ray. In fact, contrary to what you've said Bruce, I've never in one instance seen a screencap that isn't exactly what's on the Blu-ray.

If there's a discrepancy between a screencap and what you're seeing on your screen, that's because you're viewing the screencap on one device or display, and the Blu-ray on another device or display. If you view both on the same display, they will be identical. Alternatively, if both of your display devices are calibrated, once again, the image will be close enough to being identical.

Sorry, but having this argument constantly pop up in threads is almost like debating with people who believe that the Moon landings were a hoax despite all the facts to the contrary. It's every person's right to ignore screencaps if they wish, and have an opinion that is dismissive of them, but at the same time, I thought that on a forum like this one, uninformed opinions were frowned upon. Nobody is saying that screencaps are the be-all and end-all of judging Blu-ray image quality. But they do serve an important purpose, and nonsensically dismissing them "just because" isn't very helpful to discussions.

 

[John-Weller]

Criterion's Red River looks like their Yojimbo and The Magician - very boosted whites, which I don't care for. But at least I won't have to try and find the subtitles this time!

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don't see any "belief" element at all, this is an entirely objective right-or-wrong issue based on facts. A screen cap is an identical, or near-identical, copy of what is on a Blu-ray disc, end of story. That's where the data comes from, it's not manufactured via osmosis, or a rough approximate. It's a frame of data pulled directly off a Blu-ray disc.



The only variable is how the screencap is captured and compressed, and most professional review sites such as DVD Beaver do this quite well. To confirm this, I've personally compared unmanipulated lossless PNG screencaps I've taken with those on DVD Beaver (e.g. for the James Dean Collection), and they are identical, showing that Beaver's caps are not being molested in any way. Same with those on Blu-ray.com. I can't vouch for caps that various other individuals take (and obviously we can dismiss caps taken by photographing a TV screen), though I've seen the ones that HTF member Malcolm (FoxyMulder) has on his site and they too seem perfectly accurate.

It's virtually impossible for there to be anything close to a substantial difference between a screencap and the actual Blu-ray. In fact, contrary to what you've said Bruce, I've never in one instance seen a screencap that isn't exactly what's on the Blu-ray.

If there's a discrepancy between a screencap and what you're seeing on your screen, that's because you're viewing the screencap on one device or display, and the Blu-ray on another device or display. If you view both on the same display, they will be identical. Alternatively, if both of your display devices are calibrated, once again, the image will be close enough to being identical.

Sorry, but having this argument constantly pop up in threads is almost like debating with people who believe that the Moon landings were a hoax despite all the facts to the contrary. It's every person's right to ignore screencaps if they wish, and have an opinion that is dismissive of them, but at the same time, I thought that on a forum like this one, uninformed opinions were frowned upon. Nobody is saying that screencaps are the be-all and end-all of judging Blu-ray image quality. But they do serve an important purpose, and nonsensically dismissing them "just because" isn't very helpful to discussions.

I think we're heading in a direction that is probably not good to go in so I'll let you have the last word without any direct response from me.

Back to Red River, just a couple of weeks more to go for this Criterion release.

 

[Jari K]

"A screen cap is an identical, or near-identical, copy of what is on a Blu-ray disc, end of story."I think the point here also is that the movies were once called "moving pictures". You don't stare bunch of screencaps - you watch the film in motion, usually in 24 frames/second. In motion you start to see many things that are not always visible in screencaps.In these comparisons the problem also is that the reviewer kinda has to write something and often give the "edge" to some release over the other(s). So one minor comment like "perhaps the black levels are a bit stronger on the US release" turns into "US release wins!" in the internet forums.Some people like when other people make the decisions for them. This also applies to reviews and comparisons.

 

[Bob_S.]

Been waiting a long time for this. Can't wait to dispose of my crappy dvd version.

 

[Persianimmortal]

I think the point here also is that the movies were once called "moving pictures". You don't stare bunch of screencaps - you watch the film in motion, usually in 24 frames/second. In motion you start to see many things that are not always visible in screencaps.

"Many things"? I've already noted the following aspects that require motion to fully detect: constant changes in color and brightness, frequency of damage marks, and grain movement. But these aspects rarely compose the bulk of what we refer to as "image quality" on the average Blu-ray disc. Most movies do not have any noticeable constant changes in color and brightness, and most also do not have much in the way of prominent damage marks. So really, that leaves us with grain movement as the only common feature in most films that cannot be fully represented by static screencaps. As I mentioned, that is one of the roles of a good reviewer - to let us know whether the image has significant fluctuations or temporal oddities in terms of brightness, color, damage or grain.

But it comes back to a simple formula: movies are composed of 24 static frames played in rapid succession every second. Playing these frames rapidly does not alter the information they contain in the process, they are still just static frames, being displayed quickly enough to provide an illusion of movement. Take any single frame out and examine it, and you have a very good representation of what that movie looks like, especially if you examine multiple frames taken at various points throughout a movie.

In these comparisons the problem also is that the reviewer kinda has to write something and often give the "edge" to some release over the other(s). So one minor comment like "perhaps the black levels are a bit stronger on the US release" turns into "US release wins!" in the internet forums.Some people like when other people make the decisions for them. This also applies to reviews and comparisons.

Which is precisely my point. Looking at screencaps lets you decide upon the quality of the image, and whether it suits your taste, not someone else. The screencaps of Red River we've seen in this thread tell me that I would not like the image quality of the Criterion disc, as it is too washed out and slightly too DNR'd for my taste. I'll still read the HTF review of the disc to see whether the image is actually faithful to source, and any other details that need to be kept in mind (e.g. I imagine Criterion has removed many damage marks from the film). But just by examining a range of accurate screencaps, I already know this disc is not for me, and that my MoC version of Red River is preferable.

Anyway, the thread has probably gone off on this tangent for long enough, so I'll leave it at that. If anyone wants to discuss this further, I suggest the screencap thread is a good place to do it.

 

[bugsy-pal]

I tend to agree with Koroush in his views re screencaps - with the proviso that they are done properly and not harmed by over-zealous jpeg compression. I have generally found a pretty good correspondence between the caps I look at on DVD Beaver and Caps-a-Holic, and what I see on my TV screen. I think caps are a very helpful way to assess a movie on DVD or bluray. They are certainly helpful for avoiding poorly transferred films on disc.

Re the Red River comparisons - I initially leaned towards the darker and grainier looking MoC transfer. But after looking further and reflecting on it, I think the Criterion transfer is just as good. I don't mind the brighter picture, and I think it reveals more shadow details and perhaps a bit more detail overall. There still seems to be a healthy amount of grain there. I guess one would have to see the two versions in motion to look at how the grain 'behaves' - ie. is the more prominent grain on the MoC more 'intrusive'?. I suppose it's nice to have the two releases to satisfy those with different viewing preferences. It's reminiscent of the differences between the recent MoC and Criterion releases of Kuroneko.

 

[Robert Crawford]

After watching Criterion's BD of the longer version of Red River in its entirety and then some comparison sampling between it and the MOC BD release, there is little question in my mind that the Criterion BD looks better to my eyes.

 

[jauritt]

I had the MOC version of Red River, but sold it as soon as I placed my pre-order for the Criterion edition, which I received today but haven't had the chance to watch yet. Even IF (and I stress IF) Criterion used a little DNR, it couldn't possibly be a worse transfer than the MOC, which I was highly disappointed in, given the almost constant barrage of scratches and other print damage which, from what I've read, was greatly minimized on the Criterion. Throw in the theatrical/Howard Hawks-preferred version, and it was a no-brainer.

 

[DavidJ]

Ok, I've never seen this film, but it was a blind but for me and I'm wondering which version of the film I should watch (first). Recommendations welcome.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Theatrical version is the director's preferred version.Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Mark McSherry]

DVD Savant states rather unequivocally that the longer (pre-release) version is superior in his review. And the gist of his reasoning is that-

"The long version is preferable in every way. There's enough Walter Brennan geezer-speak in the movie itself, making his extra narration too much of a good thing. Did Hawks decide that his audience of school kids couldn't read? The constant editorial tightening also mucks up the pleasing rhythms of Hawks' direction. The long cut allows a shot to play every once in a while, accompanied only by music."

 

[Matt Hough]

And I felt exactly the opposite. I will concede that the prerelease version has the better final confrontation between the two leads.

 

[JoHud]

I didn't see much of a difference watching the theatrical version. A few scenes were tighter, but the experience was still hardly different than watching the preview version. Neither of them ruins the film to any notable degree. I'd say the preview version was better simply because its elements appear to be in better shape and the resulting video transfer is superior.

I'm thinking the narration was added at the last minute because either Hawks or the studio realized that narrative text intertitles still seemed like a throwback to the silent era. Verbal narration was completely standardized by the 1940s.