It is best to simply ignore him. Rarely does he provide any insightful or meaningful comments; mostly parroting corporate spin and regurgitating anything that affirms his bias.
Nor conducts any degree of mature discourse, usually relies on straw-man arguments, false equivalences, misrepresentation, and ad hominum attacks, etc. Never mind his dubious appeals to, supposed acquaintanceship with, certain authorities.
Now a more interesting comment is by R. Harris over at HTF on the hot topic of DNR.
Though personally I do not wholly agree with his comment it does provide some illumination to his criteria for what falls in or out of acceptable usage of DNR.
My criteria is the application of DNR should be minimal and should not affect fine detail, nor change the characteristics of the originating film stock. Ideally it should be used in removing certain visual flaws such as dirt or print damage but 'managing grain' to the point of what remains is blotchy residual grain is unacceptable.
When Universal leaves things alone in their releases can look fantastic, Serentiy, Dune, or the Bourne series spring to mind. Whereas say Apollo 13 or The Thing looked great on a former HD format were later 'improved' for the BR release with DNR or some contrast boosting and EE.
FoxyMulder brings up a intriguing point in regards to the usage of DNR, some studios are generally more subtle in its application whereas others seem to habitually error on the side of excessive.
KvEEdited by KMFDMvsEnya - 8/2/12 at 1:39pm