A Few Words About A few words about...™ Casablanca (70th Anniversary) -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Colin Jacobson]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /t/319152/a-few-words-about-casablanca-70th-anniversary-in-blu-ray#post_3905134
The quality, or at least the grain level, as resolution and detail are minimally affected, if at all, and looked fine on the earlier incarnation, is better than the 2008 counterpart. Those who run their films via projection will appreciate this. Those with 50" screens and less will probably not notice it.

Speaking as someone with a 50-inch screen, I noticed the differences. I thought the 2008 Blu-ray had a lot of positives but disliked the smoothed-out look that came with it; while it seemed attractive, it just didn't feel "right".

That's not an issue with the 2012 Blu-ray. To use a cliche, I think it's more "film-like" and natural.

Would I spend $60+ to upgrade? Probably not, but I did want to chime in to say that I think the 2012 Blu-ray does offer an appreciable upgrade, even for those of us with "small screens".

(Man, it doesn't seem like long ago that a 36-inch 4X3 set was regarded as BIG - and now a 50-inch 16X9 TV is thought of as being on the small side!)

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by TonyD /t/319152/a-few-words-about-casablanca-70th-anniversary-in-blu-ray/60#post_3908116
Why aren't the audio flaws fixed. Video flaws get fixed.

What audio flaws?

 

[TonyD]

I'm not specifically asking about Casablanca but to the posts that say audio flaws are more prominent using a lossless track.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by TonyD /t/319152/a-few-words-about-casablanca-70th-anniversary-in-blu-ray/60#post_3908167I'm not specifically asking about Casablanca but to the posts that say audio flaws are more prominent using a lossless track.

Let's see if I can't defuse this.
Older tracks, especially of optical origination, were cobbled together from pieces. Older optical trks were a myriad of splices and blooping. Even mag originals from the '50s, can still have occasional splice bumps, ticks, etc.
I don't believe anyone is speaking in terms of major, earth-shaking problems or deficiencies, but rather tiny bits of originality that would have been imperceptible on older theatre playback systems. A fully uncompressed data stream, derived from these older original elements, can simply sound just a bit less in one' face, and more "homogenized," if you will, if it is not being beamed through a modern digital playback system in that fashion.
We're discussing nuance here, and even an older track that has been put through a regimen of restorative efforts, proper diet, and a good long walk, can still sound slightly exposed via uncompressed DTS or Dolby, which have been designed to do what they do best -- to fully replicate the separation of digital channels, each to the fullest degree of reproducing the extreme highs and lows of a modern digital recording to perfection.
RAH

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by TonyD /t/319152/a-few-words-about-casablanca-70th-anniversary-in-blu-ray/60#post_3908167I'm not specifically asking about Casablanca but to the posts that say audio flaws are more prominent using a lossless track.

We're discussing nuance here, and even an older track that has been put through a regimen of restorative efforts, proper diet, and a good long walk, can still sound slightly exposed via uncompressed DTS or Dolby, which have been designed to do what they do best -- to fully replicate the separation of digital channels, each to the fullest degree of reproducing the extreme highs and lows of a modern digital recording to perfection.

This is where I get lost, Robert.
If the older track has been restored so that it sounds the best it can...I'm still unclear as to why a lossless replication would hurt it. It would be reproduced with the lowest lows and the highest highs and no chance of issues created by compression.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say it would be "exposed."
My understanding of lossless is that the superior signal would mean the restored soundtrack would be reproduced with the highest degree of clarity and accuracy.
I think we are getting close to the crux of the misunderstanding in this debate.

 

[David Weicker]

My interpretation of this Sound debate is that the goal is to reproduce what was heard when the films were originally screened.
Some people feel that Lossless does this, others feel that Lossy does this.
The way I read some of the comments is that our current home audio systems are actually more "powerful" (using the term loosely) than the original sound systems of the day. We can reproduce audio at home with a wider range of sound than a movie theater could back in whatever decade we are talking about. The theater's less "powerful" sound system masked part of the audio that was recorded, and the filmmakers counted on that unintentional masking. Things were sometimes recorded that weren't meant to be heard - whether it be splices, pops, or whatever. Accurately reproducing what is on the soundtrack (through Lossless) is not necessarily reproducing what was heard in the theaters. The theory that some people are giving is that Lossy also 'masks' these unintended sounds, and is therefore truer to the original sound heard in the theater.
I'm not saying that these are true statements, but this is merely the explanation I got from reading all these posts (plus a few from other threads when the same arguments showed up).
David

 

[Robert Crawford]

Some of this continuing audio discussion leaves me with the feeling of WTF is going on here.







Crawdaddy

 

[Adam_S]

If you focus on the trees and never see the forest, it will all make sense. The key is to never think about the forest. Just individual moments, never the greater whole.

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford /t/319152/a-few-words-about-casablanca-70th-anniversary-in-blu-ray/60#post_3908233
Some of this continuing audio discussion leaves me with the feeling of WTF is going on here.







Crawdaddy

 

My brain is spinning.

 

[DavidJ]

This is what bugs me to no end. I've seen this bandied about several times and it is complete nonsense.

No it's not and those with a lot of experience and knowledge have been involved in this discussion, but I will not argue it further.

 

[John Stockton]

Is this how they are also showing Ben-Hur?
can't say for sure but I'd imagine so. The times I've seen a Fathom event, I went with the idea that I was getting to see the movie with an audience (which is usually fun) and not as much for the presentation.

I caught the 7 PM showing of Ben-Hur on Mar 15 at Cinemark CineArts in San Jose and the film was projected using an industrial 2K projector and not the Cheap ones which they show commercials on.
A few years ago when they were setup for 35 MM, they showed First Blood using one of those cheap projectors and it looked poor to say the least. But now that the theatre has switched to all digital projection, all their feature films and commercials are shown via an industrial 2K projector. The person in charge of the booth also told me that the film came on a 1 Terabyte hard drive, which was then loaded onto the Digital system.
How did it look??
Very good I must say. Of course it was no way near the quality of a 70MM print but being sourced from the 8K restoration, this 2K showing looked pretty Darn good. It was even letterboxed for full the 2.76 ratio.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by John Stockton /t/319152/a-few-words-about-casablanca-70th-anniversary-in-blu-ray/90#post_3908267
I caught the 7 PM showing of Ben-Hur on Mar 15 at Cinemark CineArts in San Jose and the film was projected using an industrial 2K projector and not the Cheap ones which they show commercials on.
A few years ago when they were setup for 35 MM, they showed First Blood using one of those cheap projectors and it looked poor to say the least. But now that the theatre has switched to all digital projection, all their feature films and commercials are shown via an industrial 2K projector. The person in charge of the booth also told me that the film came on a 1 Terabyte hard drive, which was then loaded onto the Digital system.
How did it look??
Very good I must say. Of course it was no way near the quality of a 70MM print but being sourced from the 8K restoration, this 2K showing looked pretty Darn good. It was even letterboxed for full the 2.76 ratio.

2k is worthless for a film like Ben-Hur.

RAH

 

[JoeDoakes]

2k is worthless for a film like Ben-Hur.
RAH
 

I thought WHV was doing scans for theatrical projection to be at 4K. If it is sent out in a digital format why would it be at 2K?

 

[TonyD]

Some of this continuing audio discussion leaves me with the feeling of WTF is going on here.







Crawdaddy

Yeah me too, mostly because whoever brings it up gets responses like that one.
Older films get restored or fixed or whatever the proper word is including wire removal, mattes around spaceships removed. An old audio track goes snap crackle and pop but that stuff just stays there and it's called flaws in the original track. When it's suggested those flaws get a fix people are are looking at you like your eyeballs are falling out of your head.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I thought WHV was doing scans for theatrical projection to be at 4K. If it is sent out in a digital format why would it be at 2K?

Because theatres have different projectors, there's 2K machines and 4K machines.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Peter Apruzzese /t/319152/a-few-words-about-casablanca-70th-anniversary-in-blu-ray/90#post_3908320
Because theatres have different projectors, there's 2K machines and 4K machines.

I would suggest that before anyone falls into the "smoke and mirrors" digital projection mess, that they ask the theatre precisely what the projection format will be.

Keep in mind that 4k is 4 times the resolution of 2k. And for a film like Ben-Hur, 2k is very much like viewing your Blu-ray, but on a larger screen. There is little to be gained, and the impact of the film is lost.

Please do not fall for the "Special Digital Presentation" marketing sizzle without knowing what your'e seeing.

RAH

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I would suggest that before anyone falls into the "smoke and mirrors" digital projection mess, that they ask the theatre precisely what the projection format will be.
Keep in mind that 4k is 4 times the resolution of 2k.  And for a film like Ben-Hur, 2k is very much like viewing your Blu-ray, but on a larger screen.  There is little to be gained, and the impact of the film is lost.
Please do not fall for the "Special Digital Presentation" marketing sizzle without knowing what your'e seeing.
RAH

Wouldn't it have been great if the studios had settled on 4K originally, instead of making US pay for 2k machines and then a couple of years later going to 4K? Imagine if they didn't have it in their business plans to try and shut down most independent theatres (which IS part of their business plans) with costly unending upgrades (Series 1 and Series 2 mods anybody)? And then you have Sony selling their awful machines into every AMC, ensuring that all non-3D shows get a nice dim presentation since their engineering geniuses didn't figure out a way to make their 3D kit easily removable by the end user.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Peter Apruzzese /t/319152/a-few-words-about-casablanca-70th-anniversary-in-blu-ray/90#post_3908375
Wouldn't it have been great if the studios had settled on 4K originally, instead of making US pay for 2k machines and then a couple of years later going to 4K? Imagine if they didn't have it in their business plans to try and shut down most independent theatres (which IS part of their business plans) with costly unending upgrades (Series 1 and Series 2 mods anybody)? And then you have Sony selling their awful machines into every AMC, ensuring that all non-3D shows get a nice dim presentation since their engineering geniuses didn't figure out a way to make their 3D kit easily removable by the end user.

Business plans aside, most theatres really don't need 4k, unless they have huge screens.

There is nothing wrong with quality 2k projection of normal theatrical product.

Digital smoke and mirrors.

RAH

 

[Charles Smith]

Peter, how is the Lafayette equipped? Also, isn't that an exceptionally long throw? I guess the only thing I've seen there in digital so far is "Bye Bye Birdie", which looked very fine to these eyes.

 

[rsmithjr]

Business plans aside, most theatres really don't need 4k, unless they have huge screens.
There is nothing wrong with quality 2k projection of normal theatrical product.
Digital smoke and mirrors.
RAH

It is sad that we have lost the really special presentations of the past.
I recently saw Ben-hur at a Century theatre using their "XD" projection. Basically, it is a 2K Barco DLP projector with a larger bulb for a brighter picture.
The quality of the picture seemed to be slightly better in resolution than the original 35mm dye-transfer prints, which I saw a number of times during original release. The color balance and blacks were, however, better on the 35mm prints, although the DCP was entirely acceptable.
However, it was no match for the look of the 70mm projection of this film that I saw at several theatres, none of which still exist. One theatre, the Capri in Des Moines, was specifically built for Camera 65/Ultra Panavision 70, used Norelco DP-70's, and was simply spectacular.
I have similar thoughts about West Side Story and The Sound of Music, both of which I have now seen in DCP.
It is sad to think that my own house now can rival theatres in presentation, and I don't have a particularly expensive system (Mitsubishi 1080 DLP projector). It is also sad that the original look of these films is not available anyplace at all on anything like a regular basis. (I do attend special presentations in LA and other places.)