Mulholland Dr. 4K UHD - Criterion vs StudioCanal

filmbaron

Novice Member
Hello

I want to upgrade Mulholland Drive Blu-ray to 4K UHD. There are both a new 4K version from Criterion and one from StudioCanal. Which one should I pick in terms of quality (image and audio)?

In this site’s review, it says that the film has been newly scanned “by Criterion and Studiocanal in a joint venture” (Mulholland Drive 4K Blu-ray Review)

However, when I look it up on Caps-a-holic, they seem like different transfers (Mulholland Dr. • UK Ultra HD Blu-ray vs. US Ultra HD Blu-ray)

So… are they really identical or is there a difference between the Criterion and the StudioCanal? which one should I buy?
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
The only differences are the extras and packaging you get with each. If you've already got the Criterion Blu-ray then I'd suggest you look at the Studio Canal UHD. This way you'd end up with all the extras. The "biggest" issue with the SC release is the box. It looks awkward when put on shelves with other discs and the box is way larger than it actually needs to be to accomodate the content concealed within it.

When you start the SC version, a criterion intro is present. They are basically the same regardless of whichever of the 2 options you select. As said, the differences are basically the extras and the packaging.


 
Last edited:

Jim Di Griz

Distinguished Member
I seem to remember reading something different on the blu-ray.com 4k forum thread? And the standard UK one is out in two weeks if you dont like that big box - thats the one Im going for.
 

Will Scarlet

Well-known Member
The discs are not identical as they are completely different encodes. The Studio Canal release was authored by FIM and is superior, with better compression.
This was pointed out by several posters in the review thread but for some reason has been ignored by the reviewer.
Studio Canal's standard disc is released on 31/01/2022.
Amazon product
 
Last edited:

dante01

Distinguished Member
The compression used is lossless. That has no effect upon the actual grading or the PQ. All it means is that one version was compressed differently.

The same masters and digital files were used prior to the compression for both discs.

And no, larger files with greater bitrate don't always result in better video quality,
 
Last edited:

Will Scarlet

Well-known Member
THe compression used is lossless. THat has no effect upon the actual grading or the PQ. All it means is that one version was compressed differently.

The same masters and digital files were used for bother discs.
Compression has no effect on PQ, really? I think I'll get my coat and leave others to decide which of us has posted the more useful information.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
Compression has no effect on PQ, really? I think I'll get my coat and leave others to decide which of us has posted the more useful information.


So H265 results in less quality and smaller files when compared to H264? I can attrain the exact same quality using either. The only difference is the file size required.

Something simple such a the presence of grain can make file sizes larger and the bitrate greater when it comes to the encoding. Neither really indicate better quality.

That should make a difference in this instance though. Both versions originate fro the exact same remaster and transfer.
 
Last edited:

dante01

Distinguished Member
StudioCanal and Criterion have collaborated on the 4K restoration, so the picture is identical in both releases, and I think this overall package of extras (most of which are ported from previous releases) and all new artwork might just have the edge. Of course, you could just double dip and get both!



Hey, just buy both LOL


Even ig there are differences then I'd suggest that they'd not be at all apparent to anyone unless sat with 2 monitors close up the where they are sat and with that person purposedully analysing them. This is obviously what people do these days? Even then, just because you see a difference isn't an indication that you'd be in any way qualified to determine which one is better than the other.


Just buy the one with the extras and packaging you want :lesson:



There's nothing wrong or untoward with either disc. Has there been any adverse reaction to either anywhere?
 
Last edited:

Amoku

Active Member
The "biggest" issue with the SC release is the box. It looks awkward when put on shelves with other discs and the box is way larger than it actually needs to be to accomodate the content concealed within it.

This is definitely true but if you also have shelf rows dedicated to books then this box looks absolutely stunning when displayed among hefty hardbound books instead of disc cases.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
This is definitely true but if you also have shelf rows dedicated to books then this box looks absolutely stunning when displayed among hefty hardbound books instead of disc cases.


I unfortunately keep my books in a different room to where I keep my discs. Some people don't even own books these days. Some of them can't even read :confused:
 

pRot3us

Distinguished Member
They're from the same scan but the mastering and encoding will be different, this will be why they look slightly different. Criterion in general have always graded their masters towards deeper blacks/greater contrast, you will see it most obviously when comparing multiple releases of black and white films of the 30s/40s/50s. Where other releases can sometimes have slightly washed out/raised blacks, Criterion usually perform better grading, correcting the black level.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
The mastering is the exact same mastering. It was done as a joint venture between StudioCanal and Criterion.

The StudioCanal release even starts up with this:

by default 2022-01-14 at 17.44.52.png



Criterion makes their 4K UHD debut with David Lynch’s Mulholland Dr., presented here on a triple-layer UHD disc in its original aspect ratio of 1.85:1. The 2160p/24hz ultra high-definition encode (with Dolby Vision) is sourced from a brand-new 4K restoration performed by StudioCanal and The Criterion Collection, scanned from the 35mm original A/B/C/D camera negatives. Criterion includes a second dual-layer Blu-ray disc presenting an SDR 1080p/24hz presentation for the film. This presentation uses the 2015 4K restoration and not the new 2021 one. Criterion is more-or-less reusing the same disc from their 2015 release: the opening switches out the Universal logo with an older StudioCanal one, but the encode appears to be exactly the same. My original comments can be found here, though I will add that the noisy aspects of the presentation are even more evident now, at least on my 4K television.

 

pRot3us

Distinguished Member
The mastering is the exact same mastering. It was done as a joint venture between StudioCanal and Criterion.

The StudioCanal release even starts up with this:

View attachment 1636599


Criterion makes their 4K UHD debut with David Lynch’s Mulholland Dr., presented here on a triple-layer UHD disc in its original aspect ratio of 1.85:1. The 2160p/24hz ultra high-definition encode (with Dolby Vision) is sourced from a brand-new 4K restoration performed by StudioCanal and The Criterion Collection, scanned from the 35mm original A/B/C/D camera negatives. Criterion includes a second dual-layer Blu-ray disc presenting an SDR 1080p/24hz presentation for the film. This presentation uses the 2015 4K restoration and not the new 2021 one. Criterion is more-or-less reusing the same disc from their 2015 release: the opening switches out the Universal logo with an older StudioCanal one, but the encode appears to be exactly the same. My original comments can be found here, though I will add that the noisy aspects of the presentation are even more evident now, at least on my 4K television.

I hadn't read the specifics, I was more thinking out loud about Criterion's approach in general (often from a jointly funded restoration/scan). However it is a different encode and personally I don't think some final pre-encoding grading by Criterion can be 100% ruled out.

There is also the problem of SDR captures of HDR material which won't be the same as watching the film on a HDR display (I mainly use 4k screencaps to compare transfer/fine detail quality). I notice the Studiocanal release uses DV MEL whereas the Criterion uses DV FEL, but I doubt this affected the SDR grabbing process.

It does appear strange that the SC release is showing much better fine grain/detail in some of the caps despite having the slightly lower bitrate of the two release, see this cap :

 

Jim Di Griz

Distinguished Member
They're from the same scan but the mastering and encoding will be different, this will be why they look slightly different. Criterion in general have always graded their masters towards deeper blacks/greater contrast, you will see it most obviously when comparing multiple releases of black and white films of the 30s/40s/50s. Where other releases can sometimes have slightly washed out/raised blacks, Criterion usually perform better grading, correcting the black level.
Hmmm Criterion are not as great as many people think. There's all sorts of evidence about this elsewhere if you want to read it all - particularly in regard to compression.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
I don't have both copies so I cannot catagorically say which if any release is the better option in terms of PQ, but the consensus does appear to favour the CS release over the Criterion release.

It could be that Canalstudio has coverd the boxes in LSD and this may be influencing what people are seeing? Maybe this is why the box is so big?



O' my god, the box is getting bigger and It has eaten the cat!



That is strange. I don't own a cat :confused:
 
Last edited:

expensive news

Novice Member
I agree with all the above, same transfer but different encodings. The StudioCanal encode appears significantly better at preserving the film grain in the screen caps from Caps-a-holic. I compared the Caps-a-holic screenshot with my Criterion Blu-ray and Caps-a-holic does indeed give an accurate comparison through it's HDR->SDR conversion.

Mulholland Drive has extremely heavy film grain as it is. I'm not sure if this difference is something that Criterion did intentionally or if it just an encoding issue. Just because the screenshots look better doesn't mean the video does. Still, it makes me want to buy the StudioCanal release so I can directly compare, and it seems like a significant error for Criterion to make on their first 4K release.
 

pRot3us

Distinguished Member
Hmmm Criterion are not as great as many people think. There's all sorts of evidence about this elsewhere if you want to read it all - particularly in regard to compression.
I was specifically referring to their general approach to greyscale/grading which in the case of older B&W films is pretty much always superior irrespective what the encoding is like. I'm speaking as someone who is totally unbiased and able to make my own judgements.

I'll be buying the SC release of this film for what it's worth.
 

Cevolution

Suspended
David Mackenzie and his team at Fidelity in Motion for the win... The StudioCanal is the superior version over the Criterion PQ wise because of the encode, which is due to the exceptional work from David Mackenzie at his company Fidelity in Motion. Generally, Fidelity in Motion are the best in the industry at authoring and encoding discs, considering Criterion market themselves as a company that releases high quality products, they should've employed the services of Fidelity in Motion for their release like StudioCanal did, and should also use them for other titles too, but they don't... Which I find a little strange, since they clearly have met. Giles Sherwood from Criterion and David Mackenzie from Fidelity in Motion were in the same room at last years 2021 Value Electronics TV shootout event.
 
Last edited:

dante01

Distinguished Member
Note that this is the first time Criterion have ever issued a 4K UHD disc. Also note that StudioCanal haven't exactly got an exemplary track record as far as their 4K releases are concerned. T2 anybody?
 

Jim Di Griz

Distinguished Member
Note that this is the first time Criterion have ever issued a 4K UHD disc. Also note that StudioCanal haven't exactly got an exemplary track record as far as their 4K releases are concerned. T2 anybody?
Depends on who does the encode on the Studio Canal release. Some are great, some not so great.
 

Cevolution

Suspended
Note that this is the first time Criterion have ever issued a 4K UHD disc. Also note that StudioCanal haven't exactly got an exemplary track record as far as their 4K releases are concerned. T2 anybody?

This comment of yours and others in the thread reek of defense in favour of Criterion... (Personally I'm not big fan of Criterion, I don't like the majority of titles they release, and also don't think they are deserving of the amount of praise they receive with regards to quality) I don't agree with your opinion and comment about StudioCanal not having a exemplary track record as far as 4K released are concerned. Sure, StudioCanal have released some poorer quality 4K titles, and some of which could be considered as garbage, however StudioCanal have also released some great ones too, including these but not exclusive to, titles on 4K Blu-ray that StudioCanal paid Fidelity in Motion to author like Mulholland Drive:

Angel Heart
Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure
Don't Look Now
The Elephant Man
The Fifth Element
Flash Gordon
The Ladykillers (1955)
The Servant (1963)
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
I'm not defending anyone. I'm at a loss as to what is actually wrong with the Criterion Disc to warrant the rhetoric being exhibited by some within this thread?. There are no bad reviews of it and doubt anyone who bought one is regretting it either?

Yeah, moan about something if it is actually faulty or if it is badly done, but this doesn't appear to be the case?????

If I were defending them then why would I need to? They don't appear to have done anything wrong.
 
Last edited:

Will Scarlet

Well-known Member
I'm not defending anyone. I'm at a loss as to what is actually wrong with the Criterion Disc to warrant the rhetoric being exhibited by some within this thread?. There are no bad reviews of it and doubt anyone who bought one is regretting it either?

Yeah, moan about something if it is actually faulty or if it is badly done, but this doesn't appear to be the case?????

If I were defending them then why would I need to? They don't appear to have done anything wrong.
Forgive me, I thought I was in the 4K Ultra HD Blu-rays section on AVForums, an area of the forum whose very raison d'être is to discuss the PQ and AQ of UHD Blu-rays. I suspect the OP did too, hence them asking in here which of the current 4K releases of Mulholland Drive they should pick in terms of quality (image and audio).
Hey filmbaron, what on earth were you thinking posting such an inflammatory question in an audiovisual forum, shame on you.:facepalm:
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Maverick UK Premiere IMAX Review + Top Gun, Tom Cruise, Tony Scott and 4K + Movie/TV News
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

dCS announces Bartók 2.0 firmware upgrade
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Audiovector unveils QR 7 loudspeaker
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
What's new on UK streaming services for June 2022
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
LG UltraGear Gaming Monitors get VESA certification
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Sony confirms UK pricing for A90K and A75K Bravia XR 4K OLED TVs
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom