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

[Traveling Matt]

Did anyone catch Casablanca's screening yesterday? Picture looked very nice (contrast, grain level). Still doesn't look like film naturally. I was hoping the sound would be a little better than it was, but I was able to hear quite a bit more than ever before (which I was hoping for).
A great time overall. Folks definitely enjoyed it!

 

[AnthonyClarke]

Blu ray soundtracks should be lossless to present audio as clearly as possible. Lossy means loss of info and that is BAD BAD BAD.
But that doesn't mean that the soundtrack cannot be carefully restored/filtered or whatever to eliminate the absolute problems Robert Harris identifies.
Remastering does not repeat not mean that lossy compression must be used. Lossy compression loses information without control of what is being retained, or what is lost.
Remastering without compression means optimum presentation for today's audiences, bearing in mind the fidelity of today's home audio systems.
Anthony, in Woodend, Vic Australia

 

[TonyD]

I agree Anthony. Too bad no one else does or even cares except for Mike Frezon.

 

[stevenHa]

For Mr. Harris, looking at the screen grabs over at DVDBeaver, one can see that the new edition is slightly darker - can we assume this is more the way the film originally looked as opposed the the previous edition ? Thanks.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by stevenHa /t/319152/a-few-words-about-casablanca-70th-anniversary-in-blu-ray/120#post_3909798
For Mr. Harris, looking at the screen grabs over at DVDBeaver, one can see that the new edition is slightly darker - can we assume this is more the way the film originally looked as opposed the the previous edition ? Thanks.

The Beaver scans appear to represent precisely what I'm seeing. A bit heavier, less transparency in the shadows, a far more natural grain structure, but no gain whatsoever is ultimate resolution.

While I have no doubt that this is a new image harvest, the older one seems to have captured everything that was there, and was probably then slightly detrained, to give it a more "pleasing" appearance.

Do I like the new one better?

Certainly.

Is it worth an upgrade as a boxed set.

Yes. If you like boxes, stuff, and have a decently large viewing surface.

Is it worth an upgrade without the large box, with a chance to trade-in or sell the previous edition?

Absolutely.

To be clear, I have no problem with this release. My problem, as indicated above, is with the fact that the studio didn't present this to the public in 2008, which they could have done. I still believe that some sort of an upgrade program for the original purchasers would be a nice touch.

RAH

 

[JoeBond]

The Beaver scans appear to represent precisely what I'm seeing.  A bit heavier, less transparency in the shadows, a far more natural grain structure, but no gain whatsoever is ultimate resolution. While I have no doubt that this is a new image harvest, the older one seems to have captured everything that was there, and was probably then slightly detrained, to give it a more "pleasing" appearance. Do I like the new one better? Certainly. Is it worth an upgrade as a boxed set. Yes.  If you like boxes, stuff, and have a decently large viewing surface. Is it worth an upgrade without the large box, with a chance to trade-in or sell the previous edition? Absolutely. To be clear, I have no problem with this release.  My problem, as indicated above, is with the fact that the studio didn't present this to the public in 2008, which they could have done.  I still believe that some sort of an upgrade program for the original purchasers would be a nice touch. RAH 

Totally agree with Mr. Harris's post. Well amazon.com is currently offering $15.75 for trading in the 2008 Blu-ray in like new condition but you get an amazon gift card not cash.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I agree Anthony. Too bad no one else does or even cares except for Mike Frezon.

I'm certain there are more who care, Tony.

But it appears as if my quest to get a better understanding of other's points-of-view (as well as more knowledge of the issue) has been brought to a halt.

 

[Douglas Monce]

How can lossless be detrimental? And I still don't understand how I'm able to see the wires in The Wizard of Oz on a 1985 vhs version that is blurry, soft, and no detail, but audiences couldn't in 1939? I know that the dye transfer prints were softer, but detail is clearer on a vhs copy? Sorry, but I don't buy that.

Its likely more a matter of contrast rather than resolution.
Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

So care needs to be given to an older soundtrack to make it the best it can be.  That's understood.  Again...it's basically the same as the video transfer.
And once that soundtrack sounds as good as it possible can, it should then be given to the home consumer in the kind of format that only "high-definition sound" can bring to the home audience...uncompressed files.  We should expect nothing less.
Once the soundtrack is processed so that it is in its best possible condition, it should be then transferred to the home audience in as high a quality as is possible.  The better fidelity should not yield anything that the film's handlers don't want us to hear.
Nowhere have I called for "bigger and louder" audio.  I believe that the audio reproduction should simply be given the same high-quality treatment as the video. 
I DO believe that uncompressed audio can have EVERYTHING to do with "faithful reproduction." 
Robert, if you can believe that Blu-ray can provide a more accurate reproduction of the original film experience in the home due to its higher video resolution, I believe it is legitimate for me to believe that Bu-ray can also provide a more accurate reproduction of the film experience in the home due to its higher audio resolution. 

But you are comparing the uncompressed audio to compressed audio as though it were HD video as compared to SD video. A more analogous argument would be comparing audio recorded at 96kHz 24 with one recorded at 12khz 8 bit.
The truth of the matter is that the video image we see on blu-ray is compressed, still high definition, but compressed. If I showed you the original uncompressed video master, next to the blu-ray of the same film, I have serious doubts that you would be able to see the difference on a normal sized screen. The same is true of compressed audio. It is compressed, but it is still high definition audio.
Doug
Edit: sorry I came to this conversation way late.

 

[Scott Calvert]

But you are comparing the uncompressed audio to compressed audio as though it were HD video as compared to SD video. A more analogous argument would be comparing audio recorded at 96kHz 24 with one recorded at 12khz 8 bit.
The truth of the matter is that the video image we see on blu-ray is compressed, still high definition, but compressed. If I showed you the original uncompressed video master, next to the blu-ray of the same film, I have serious doubts that you would be able to see the difference on a normal sized screen. The same is true of compressed audio. It is compressed, but it is still high definition audio.
Doug
Edit: sorry I came to this conversation way late.

Video compression codecs for BD are very good, most of the time it would be very difficult to tell the difference at normal viewing distances. Same for audio, the compression codecs used now are amazing. But, these codecs were created to solve space problems. If there isn't a problem that needs to be solved then why use them? Video compression for Bluray is a practical necessity. For audio, this is not the case.

 

How is it that this version shows more picture info on all four sides than the previous blu? Aren't they in the same AR? What kind of guide is used? What is correct?

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by eric scott richard /t/319152/a-few-words-about-casablanca-70th-anniversary-in-blu-ray/120#post_3910314
How is it that this version shows more picture info on all four sides than the previous blu? Aren't they in the same AR? What kind of guide is used? What is correct?

Interesting question. Correct in reference to what? If one is to try for original projection matte, I'd bet on the more cropped image, which would hide dirt at the edges of the image, and be more generic from print to print. Aspect ratio does not come into play here, as one can project an eye in the center of a frame, yielding less than 1% of the image, and have the correct AR.

RAH

 

Robert, thanks. I was looking at Citizen Kane screencaps on another site, and there was more image on the right, especially during the "News on the March" headlines. Some of the sub-headline is cut off on the US blu-ray but it may be that it is more centered. I guess that may have been cropped out too during projection? The blu ray cropping is the same as the old US dvd, so I would think that WB knows what they are doing and are cropping the film correctly. The UK dvd may not have been centered, but I was just wondering because it brings up the question "What is intended?"

 

[Mark-P]

Eric,
Framing really isn't a precise thing as it will vary from one image harvest to another. As it has been said before, film projectors all over the world had variances in their aperture plates so that, like snowflakes, no two are exactly alike. It is of course possible to scan an oneg all the way to the edges of the frame but it really isn't correct to show the entire filmed image, so there are small framing variances with each individual restoration. The latest Casablanca has a bit more image revealed than the previous one. It's really nothing to obsess over. Just my 2 cents.

 

I'm more concerned about the KANE framing. Did Orson intend for us to read the complete headline and see the right side of the frame like the UK dvd shows, or is the US version more correct? One little letter cropped off changes the meaning of the headline. It's not obsessing as much as it is fascination of framing....or questions about what the studios use when transferring the films as a guide to make sure they are doing it correctly.

 

[Mark-P]

The only headline that the filmmakers probably took into account was the main one: CHARLES FOSTER KANE DIES AFTER LIFETIME OF SERVICE. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if many of the theaters screening prints had even more cut off of the secondary headline than the Warner Blu-ray does.

I'm more concerned about the KANE framing. Did Orson intend for us to read the complete headline and see the right side of the frame like the UK dvd shows, or is the US version more correct? One little letter cropped off changes the meaning of the headline. It's not obsessing as much as it is fascination of framing....or questions about what the studios use when transferring the films as a guide to make sure they are doing it correctly.

 

[Patrick Donahue]

FYI the "Casablanca" blu is available at Target in a 1 disc, regular blu-ray case version for $19.99. It has the 2 commentaries, documentaries, deleted scenes, shorts, etc, and some pretty decent cover art to boot.
I should also note the sticker on the cover says "exclusive offer expires April 24, 2012"

 

[Kevin EK]

Is this the 70th Anniversary Blu, or is this the earlier Blu?

 

[gomezfan69]

Is this the 70th Anniversary Blu, or is this the earlier Blu?

There is a sticker on the front that says it's a "1-disc 70th anniversary edition".

 

[Kevin EK]

Then that's a whole other story. I might bite for that, or I may just wait a while for the price to drop down to the $9.99 level, since I already shelled out enough for the earlier edition.