Casablanca (1942) (70th Anniversary Edition)

[arcadeforest]

I'm all in for the single disc version. Not a big multi-disc swag packaging sort of buyer. Sometimes I wish I could get into the extras - just can't seem to do it.

[Maggot]

I took a look at the DVD Beaver review and I gotta admit, IMHO it doesn't look that much better, if at all better then the first Blu-ray. More like.....just different than anything else. For a 4K scan, the difference at least as seen on a 1080 motior is hardly, again if at all noticable. It looks like a case for the blacks have been brought down a little over the original, creating a more contrasty image. I even think in some cases the original looks a little sharper. Except for the darker image, I would say this is much to do about nothing. After seeing the side by side, I will most likely keep what I have.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Maggot

I took a look at the DVD Beaver review and I gotta admit, IMHO it doesn't look that much better, if at all better then the first Blu-ray. More like.....just different than anything else. For a 4K scan, the difference at least as seen on a 1080 motior is hardly, again if at all noticable. It looks like a case for the blacks have been brought down a little over the original, creating a more contrasty image. I even think in some cases the original looks a little sharper. Except for the darker image, I would say this is much to do about nothing. After seeing the side by side, I will most likely keep what I have.

Do you notice the presence of additional grain and fine detail in the new version? I sure do. It's not just somewhat either, but a substantial difference. Someone applied mild DNR on the first release, but this time their hands off that button AND gave it a restoration. Automatic purchase in my book...when the price is right.

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Do you notice the presence of additional grain and fine detail in the new version? I sure do. It's not just somewhat either, but a substantial difference. Someone applied mild DNR on the first release, but this time their hands off that button AND gave it a restoration. Automatic purchase in my book...when the price is right.

Actually, I just came back from giving the comparision screens another look over, and I find the original is sharper. In some shots, noticably. For example, look at the shot with the man sporting the zebra tie and the mono specticle. The black zebra pattern is sharper. Same shot, the dudes hat, particularly above the black headband is vastly sharper with a ton more detail. You can actually see the weaving. Same shot, the guy next to the dude wearing the hat: take a look at the pattern on the cuff and lapel of his suit. Like the dudes hat, a BIG WTF happened to the detail in the new version. Even the check writing shot is sharper. In the last screen they have, the close up of Bogart. Check his right eye-ball. Again, a BIG WTF happened to the sharpness/detail in the new print. The more I look, the more I'm sticking with what I have......

[42041]

DVDbeaver's captures are still inaccurate, I wouldn't put too much stock in their comparisons.

Blu-ray.com's screen captures show a much more filmic appearance and strong detail where the photography permits. The original disc is mushier and more digital looking, never found it impressive.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Maggot

Again, a BIG WTF happened to the sharpness/detail in the new print.

Less sharpening. A good thing in my book.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Maggot

Actually, I just came back from giving the comparision screens another look over, and I find the original is sharper. In some shots, noticably. For example, look at the shot with the man sporting the zebra tie and the mono specticle. The black zebra pattern is sharper. Same shot, the dudes hat, particularly above the black headband is vastly sharper. Same shot, the guy next to the dude wearing the hat: take a look at the pattern cuff and lapel. Like the dudes hat, a BIG WTF happened to the detail in the new version. Even the check writing shot is sharper. In the last screen they have, the close up of Bogart. Check his right eye-ball. Again, a BIG WTF happened to the sharpness/detail in the new print. The more I look, the more I'm sticking with what I have......

That's called artificial sharpening. It's a tool used hand-in-hand with DNR and EE. The grain would give the edges a softer look because a film of this vintage is supposed to look soft and grainy.

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

That's called artificial sharpening. It's a tool used hand-in-hand with DNR and EE. The grain would give the edges a softer look because a film of this vintage is supposed to look soft and grainy.

I've heard that argument a thousand times and I don't buy it. Personally, the sharpness for me is excellent and the new copy looks sloppy as sh*t. I've had a photography hobby for years and that's not oversharpening in the first one. I've seen oversharpening.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Maggot

I've heard that argument a thousand times and I don't buy it. Personally, the sharpness for me is excellent and the new copy looks sloppy as sh*t.

Then you don't understand celluloid. It's your money and impaired judgement. A film from 1942 is not going to look that as sharp as you think it should. Look at Wizard of Oz if you don't believe me. There's plenty of softer edges to go around.

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Then you don't understand celluloid. It's your money and impaired judgement.

No, it's called personal preference....or can your mind not handle a concept like that.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Maggot

No, it's called personal preference....or can your mind not handle a concept like that.

Preference? If you want sharper then turn on the DNR feature and raise the sharpness setting on your display. Don't make the rest of us suffer because you expect everything to look sharp, shiny, and pretty. This is NOT what Blu-ray or HD for that matter is about.

[42041]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

A film from 1942 is not going to look that as sharp as you think it should.

It looks every bit as sharp as B&W film from the 40s should where it's not in soft focus.
Like here, for example: https://images4.static-bluray.com/re...5_22_1080p.jpg
or here: https://images4.static-bluray.com/re...5_19_1080p.jpg

If mr. "Maggot" feels the new transfer is "sloppy as shit" based on questionable impressions of inaccurate screenshots, that's certainly his prerogative, but the truth is that this is precisely what B&W film looks like.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by 42041

It looks every bit as sharp as B&W film from the 40s should where it's not in soft focus.
Like here, for example: https://images4.static-bluray.com/re...5_22_1080p.jpg
or here: https://images4.static-bluray.com/re...5_19_1080p.jpg

If mr. "Maggot" feels the new transfer is "sloppy as shit" based on questionable impressions of inaccurate screenshots, that's certainly his prerogative, but the truth is that this is precisely what B&W film looks like.

I see rather soft edges in those shots. Sharp is definitely a relative term being thrown around in this thread.

[vertigo12314]

The new version looks better with more grain and since it's a great movie I can see the reason for the double dip but I don't fault anyone for not going for it. I'm satisfied with what I have and will double dip when a regular sized version appears.

[ssjmichael]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Preference? If you want sharper then turn on the DNR feature and raise the sharpness setting on your display. Don't make the rest of us suffer because you expect everything to look sharp, shiny, and pretty. This is NOT what Blu-ray or HD for that matter is about.

You think the people who own the original suffered? For the most part the original release got excellent reviews for its transfer. Even Blu-ray.com gave it a 4.5 for PQ. I don't think anyone suffered through that print. Yes it lacked noise, but a cleaned up image is not exactly a terrible thing if restored properly. It is all preference. Think of it like a piece of antique furniture. Some want it to stay in its original form, with an old petina finish, while others want a piece that looks restored with a luster that gives the impression it was made yesterday. You can't say one is better than the other, it is mere preference.

People seem to be becoming revisionists now that we have this new transfer. They make it seem like the old one was some horrible mess that should have been recalled (not you specially just what I'm reading at various places). The previous transfer has a lot of great detail and isn't a DNR'd mess like say that re-release of Predator. It's actually quite good but obviously not perfect. I don't think this 70th anniversary edition is perfect either. It appears too dark at times and has a lot more artifacts as a result. Something that DVDBeaver claims may have been relieved if given more space on the disc and thus a higher bitrate

Here's Blu-ray.com's video portion for the original:

Video: 4.5/5

The black-and-white video presentation is in the original Academy aspect ratio of 1.37:1, featuring Warner's VC-1 encode. While it is miraculously noise-free, with only the smallest traces of grain, the signs of processing and noise reduction do not seem to inhibit the vibrancy or dynamics of the picture. This Blu-ray is not meant to make viewers feel like they are watching film from 65 years ago--that was not Warner's intention. Rather, it is intended as more of a museum piece that has been carefully excavated, cleaned up and restored to a relatively asceptic state. In some cases, film is DNR'ed to death, but Warner seems to have taken great pains to remove the noise, grunge and grain without losing too much detail in the process. The effect is disarming. For the first time, Bogart's facial expressions have a clarity and resolution that seems to bridge the past and present.

The only feature that suffers is depth. Watch the beginning of the film. The opening shot over Casablanca shows a minaret and palm tree in the foreground with buildings behind them, breaking off where the ocean stretches back to the horizon. While the landscape shot is detailed and convincing and the sky shows organic qualities, the picture appears two-dimensional. Less noise reduction would have resulted in a dirtier picture, but may have yielded better feel for front- to-back depth and shadow detail. But these amount to six-of-one, half-dozen-of-the-other arguments and minor quibbles. The bottom line is that Warner took pains to clean up the picture as much as possible, and it pays off in every frame of Casablanca.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by ssjmichael

You think the people who own the original suffered? For the most part the original release got excellent reviews for its transfer. Even Blu-ray.com gave it a 4.5 for PQ. I don't think anyone suffered through that print. Yes it lacked noise, but a cleaned up image is not exactly a terrible thing. It is all preference. Think of it like a piece of antique furniture. Some want it to stay in its original form, with an old petina finish, while others want a piece that looks restored with a luster that gives the impression it was made yesterday. You can't say one is better than the other, it is mere preference.

People seem to be becoming revisionists now that we have this new transfer. They make it seem like the old one was some horrible mess that should have been recalled (not you specially just what I'm reading at various places). The previous transfer has a lot of great detail and isn't a DNR'd mess like say that re-release of Predator. It's actually quite good but obviously not perfect. I don't think this 70th anniversary edition is perfect either. It appears too dark at times and has a lot more artifacts as a result. Something that DVDBeaver claims may have been relieved if given more space on the disc and thus a higher bitrate

Here's Blu-ray.com's video portion for the original:

I never said the original looked horrible, but I always felt there was a mild amount of DNR involved. Turns out my suspicions were confirmed with this re-release.

[ambient_indie]

I felt underwhelmed by the video presentation of the first release. It had a flat video appearance and lacked a film-like quality that I expect from blu-ray. I was sad to discover this when I purchased the disc. With all the reviews, I'm extremely happy to pull the first release off my shelf. Time to sell it off. GIVE ME THE FILM GRAIN!

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by Maggot

I've heard that argument a thousand times and I don't buy it. Personally, the sharpness for me is excellent and the new copy looks sloppy as sh*t.

You're entitled to your opinion...but factually speaking, it is either misinformed or flat-out wrong.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp....php?id=113536

The 70th Anniversary BD shows more grain, more detail, improved contrast, and more information within the frame. In what way does that constitute "sloppy as shit?"

Aside from the fact that you're looking at screenshots from DVD Beaver (a site whose captures have been called into question time and again), I can't see where your opinion is coming from at all.

[mzupeman]

DVDBeaver is one of the worst sites to get 'accurate' screencaps from. Honestly.

Regardless, I really don't know how one can assess that the previous Casablanca release was sharper. It's softer, without question. The digital noise reduction made sure of that. Furthermore, the previous releae also had boosted contrast levels... maybe you're mistaking the boost in contrast somehow for sharpness when you're A/B-ing the discs? Because this releasea is more detailed and edges are more defined than they previously were as a result.

[dougotte]

I have the HD-DVD (and the original BD was apparently identical), and always thought it looked great, if a bit too smooth.

Looking at the comparison shots at DVDBeaver, I don't see any more detail in the new BD. However, I do think the contrast looks better. In comparison, the original BD was too bright overall.

Doug