 |
US 70th Anniversary Edition
Blu-ray Warner Bros. Home Entertainment 1920x1080 AVC |
Casablanca |
DE
Blu-ray Warner Bros. Home Entertainment 1920x1080 VC-1 |
 |
|
Chris
May 24th 2012 01:32:45 PM
|
| Some scenes on the 2008 release look quite good,, but at the end of the day it is not a faithful reproduction of how the film is SUPPOSE to look. It uses an outdated
master that was recycled from the DVD with contrast boosted and lots of DNR. The new version was a multi-million dollar restoration project scanned from the original film negatives. It maintains a proper grain structure with sold blacks and much more detail that accurately reflect the film source. Newer is better in this case. |
|
Gigolo Joe
April 14th 2012 01:39:51 AM
|
| Oblivion - Well done from me - a perfect skewering of the first Blu Ray.. I've always been of the opinion that they should do as little work on Film transfers as possible - it's always better to match exactly what's on the negative. All the 'hindsight' manipulation - noise reduction, colour correction, sharpening just takes away the magic of Film.. Obviously the restoration process is important - if there are serious tears in the film or completely bogged down in dirt or the colours have faded away - this needs to be fixed - but that's mostly done optically and with a physical wash. The digital part almost always screws with it too much! If people want the DNR or the Video Sharp look - then nearly every TV and disc player out there has a DNR option they can bloody well switch on and ramp the sharpness control up to their hearts content. I'm seriously bored of the homogenous look of nearly every vintage Bluray I've got - the format had exactly the right capability to do justice once and for all to our film heritage but the Studios have well and truly ballsed it up.. Please someone tell them to put down their digital toys. It's expensive and unnecessary. |
|
wt
April 5th 2012 06:21:42 AM
|
| @oblivion . hear hear |
|
Oblivion
April 4th 2012 08:19:55 AM
|
| @ Zetmoon - Of course we know what it was supposed to look like. We know that it was supposed to be dark because Hal Wallis's memos to Michael Curtiz explicitly state
that he wants the film (especially the interiors at Rick's) to be dark. The lighting tests did not satisfy him, as he felt there was entirely too much general lighting. The film was shot dark, to be
printed and projected dark. This is a well-established fact. And the grain is there on the new transfer because it existed on the original film elements. It would have been there in 1942, as the means for softening it on the 2008 transfer (digital filtering) did not exist at the time. If it's an intrinsic part of the film image (and it is), then it would have been very visible in the film's theatrical run. And there would have been MORE of it, in fact, in theatrical prints than is seen on the new transfer, as theatrical prints are four generations removed from the original camera negative. More generations = less detail and more grain. The new transfer is an accurate representation of the original look of the film, but with better quality than any 1942 theatrical print ever could have delivered. And no, the 2008 transfer did not suddenly and magically begin to look like video...it has always looked like video. I said so the moment I laid eyes on it, and have said so ever since. I was never "amazed" by it, and always held the opinion that the digital manipulations marred what could have been a great presentation of a classic film (which we now, finally, have in the 70th Anniversary Edition). The 2008 black levels are washed out, the grain is filtered, and there is ample evidence of artificial sharpening. Which equals a "video" look, versus a "film" look. Warner used their existing DVD master for the original BD release, and that was to its detriment. The new transfer is from a brand new, multi-million-dollar 4K restoration, and it shows. Don't get me wrong...you can PREFER the look of the 2008 transfer. That's a subjective opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own. But it's a fact that the new transfer is superior. It presents more of the fine image detail from the original film elements, and there can be no truthful argument to the contrary...just look at the rain (not to mention the detail and texture in faces and clothing) in Screenshot #6. Nor can it be argued that the new transfer does not look more filmic, or better represent the film's original look. It does, and that is a fact, not an opinion. Whether you prefer that look or not is entirely beside the point. This is how Casablanca SHOULD look. |
|
Leimbacher
April 3rd 2012 08:00:59 AM
|
| Bild 6 sagt für mich alles & es zeigt nur das die BR sich doch gut entwickelt hat in den letzten 6 Jahren... |
|
Zetmoon
April 3rd 2012 07:45:46 AM
|
| @ Oblivion We don't know what Casablanca is supposed to look like, we weren't there in 1942..... People were amazed with the first Blu-ray and know it looks like "video"? The first edition has grain but I think the new one has too much. |
|
Howie
April 3rd 2012 01:10:00 AM
|
| Harold Brent Wallis (producer Casablanca) "Again I want to say that I don't think the Cafe is dark enough. I think there is too much general lighting and somehow or other the place doesn't seem to have the character to me that it should have." |
|
Oblivion
April 2nd 2012 10:43:37 PM
|
| @ Zetmoon - So what you're actually saying is, "I don't like the way the film is SUPPOSED TO LOOK...I'll stick with the transfer that looks more like video than
film." Eh...to each his own, I suppose. |
|
mr.wood
April 2nd 2012 09:01:04 PM
|
| Nonsense! Blu-ray actually is a digital, optical disc storage medium and therefore directly related to the Compact Disc - and yes, compression is part of Blu-ray as well. |
|
WT
April 2nd 2012 05:37:51 PM
|
| i have the new version with all its film grain glory .Screencaps cant reflect how beautiful it looks in motion Its like listening to Vinyl compared to compressed CD . Long live film !! |
|
Howie
April 2nd 2012 04:19:37 PM
|
| The Casablanca-DNR-Artifacts-Massacre |
|
Lordmajestic
April 2nd 2012 01:02:58 PM
|
| Diealte BD ist mir zu hell (deutlich zu erkennen an den leicht überstrahlenden hellen Flächen) und die neue zu dunkel (es verschwinden zuviele Details). Schade, das
man sich hier nicht für ein Mittelding aus beiden entschlossen hat. Schade ist zudem, das die neue BD in den USA keinen dt. Ton mit an Bord hat, die Edition ist sehr schön ausgestattet! |
|
mr.wood
April 2nd 2012 12:39:29 PM
|
| Schön, die neue Scheibe. Könnte mir auch gefallen, doch groß Geld ausgeben werde ich dafür nicht. Falls der neue Transfer hierzulande eingepflegt wird und irgendwann
mal im Angebot auftaucht, greife ich vielleicht abermals zu. Glaube ich allerdings nicht so wirklich dran. Bei den Helligkeitswerten scheinen mir auf der neuen Scheibe auch manchmal Details
abzusaufen (Bergmans Haar in #10), weshalb man schon über "zu dunkel" diskutieren könnte. Grundsätzlich ist das wohl ein Vorgeschmack darauf, wie Warner sich künftig "double dipping" (vielleicht auch mehr) im Blu-ray-Zeitalter vorstellt. Das Ausgangsmaterial wird häufig dasselbe bleiben (was bei einem 1A-Scan kaum kritisiert werden kann) und später dann noch mal anders ausgebaut in neuer Edition auf den Markt gebracht. Der "Zauberer von Oz" ist ja auch schon neu angekündigt. Man darf gespannt sein, an welchen Parametern man da ein wenig herumfiddelt. Ich persönlich möchte das grundsätzlich eher nicht unterstützen. Da hat die Liebhaberei irgendwann doch Grenzen, wenn man bereits gute Blu-ray- und DVD-Fassungen in der Sammung stehen und damit fleißig gekauft hat. |
|
Zetmoon
April 2nd 2012 12:31:12 PM
|
| The new one is too dark and grainy, I'll stick with the first one. |
|
PaxiFixi
April 2nd 2012 11:01:54 AM
|
| Das ist eine Überraschung wenn man bedenkt, wie die erste Casablanca-BD damals abgefeiert wurde. Ich werde aber nicht upgraden. Die neue Edition ist mir persönlich zu dunkel. |
|
Leimbacher
April 2nd 2012 10:20:12 AM
|
| Wow, danke für den Vergleich!!! Größerer Unterschied als gedacht...auf manchen Bildern mehr, auf anderen weniger... Hoffe auf eine Single-BR auch in dt. mit dem neuen Transfer, dann update ich noch einmal^^ |
|
US 70th Anniversary Edition
April 2nd 2012 03:38:29 AM
|
   PLAYLIST REPORT: Name: 00100.MPLS Length: 1:42:37.192 (h:m:s.ms) Size: 23.566.694.400 bytes Total Bitrate: 30,62 Mbps (*) Indicates included stream hidden by this playlist. VIDEO: Codec Bitrate Description ----- ------- ----------- MPEG-4 AVC Video 25912 kbps 1080p / 23,976 fps / 16:9 / High Profile 4.1 AUDIO: Codec Language Bitrate Description ----- -------- ------- ----------- DTS-HD Master Audio English 894 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 894 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 1.0 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 24-bit) Dolby Digital Audio French 192 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB Dolby Digital Audio Italian 192 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB Dolby Digital Audio Spanish 192 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB Dolby Digital Audio Spanish 192 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB Dolby Digital Audio Portuguese 192 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB * Dolby Digital Audio Japanese 192 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB SUBTITLES: Codec Language Bitrate Description ----- -------- ------- ----------- * Presentation Graphics Japanese 36,579 kbps Presentation Graphics English 46,110 kbps Presentation Graphics French 35,120 kbps Presentation Graphics Italian 40,409 kbps Presentation Graphics Spanish 35,309 kbps Presentation Graphics Spanish 31,453 kbps Presentation Graphics Portuguese 38,330 kbps Presentation Graphics Danish 29,704 kbps Presentation Graphics Finnish 31,749 kbps Presentation Graphics Norwegian 24,530 kbps Presentation Graphics Swedish 23,283 kbps * Presentation Graphics Japanese 36,727 kbps * Presentation Graphics Japanese 41,422 kbps * Presentation Graphics Japanese 5,262 kbps  |
|
DE
April 2nd 2012 03:38:29 AM
|
PLAYLIST REPORT: Name: 00000.MPLS Length: 1:42:34.565 (h:m:s.ms) Size: 16.143.298.560 bytes Total Bitrate: 20,98 Mbps VIDEO: Codec Bitrate Description ----- ------- ----------- VC-1 Video 17915 kbps 1080p / 23,976 fps / 16:9 / Advanced Profile 3 AUDIO: Codec Language Bitrate Description ----- -------- ------- ----------- Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB Dolby Digital Audio French 192 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB Dolby Digital Audio German 192 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB Dolby Digital Audio Italian 192 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB Dolby Digital Audio Spanish 192 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 1.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / DN -4dB SUBTITLES: Codec Language Bitrate Description ----- -------- ------- ----------- Presentation Graphics English 44,789 kbps Presentation Graphics English 44,326 kbps Presentation Graphics French 37,805 kbps Presentation Graphics German 37,499 kbps Presentation Graphics German 39,049 kbps Presentation Graphics Italian 41,253 kbps Presentation Graphics Italian 43,588 kbps Presentation Graphics Spanish 38,066 kbps Presentation Graphics Dutch 28,173 kbps Presentation Graphics Danish 32,110 kbps Presentation Graphics Finnish 34,319 kbps Presentation Graphics Norwegian 26,500 kbps Presentation Graphics Swedish 25,140 kbps Presentation Graphics Italian 0,153 kbps  |