But the previous DVD had FAR too much grain, to a distracting extent - no film should ever look like that. The grain on the new version has not been totally smoothed out. It still looks like film.
Listening carefully on headphones, it sounds to me as if the music is only in true stereo during the opening credits. After that, it has a mono spread alongside the dialogue and effects.
I just had a chance to compare the two releases. I agree w/ Robert; overall, the new release is much nicer. The contrast is better and the colors are more realistic. However, I also agree that the lack of grain makes it look not-quite like a real film. At first, I thought removing the grain also removed some detail, but I think that was a psychological effect of the more balanced contrast. It's a case of the lesser of two evils, and I'll settle for the new one!
It looks to me that the new transfer is from a much higher generation element. Compared to the last release where fine details were blurred (check out the trees in some of the screen captures) with some halos and high contrast, the new transfer reveals so much more detail and a greater black scale range. I am very curious as to how this new transfer was created and from what kind of elements. Has this film finally REALLY been restored? I am SO pleased with this new DVD. I never thought it would look more like a normal movie, you know? The framing is SO much better in all but a few shots, and I hope the green tinting for the night scenes was according to how the film was originally timed and released.
Um, I don't see a comparison with the new 2007 US DVD on that site - it just compares it to previous versions exclusive of the new US edition.
Funny thing is the reviewer at DVDAuthority.com stated about the new US DVD "looks exactly identical to the previous DVD offering," and that he "compared the two DVD's and the only difference between this new 'Special Collector's Edition' and the older disc (which is five years old now) is the commentary track on this disc."
!!!! I e-mailed the site with a link to this thread, and he just replied: "Opinions vary. They looked the same to me."
I guess opinions DO vary, but stating that it IS the same is clearly false.
They don't have any R1 grabs for a direct compare, but looking at the other caps (http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/hitchco...Image:5007.gif), the PAL transfer does look pretty good except for the lack of grain, but we're talking in comparison with the R1, which obviously shares the same fate.
Ultimately, I 'd take R1 any day for the lack of PAL speedup, but the screengrabs there look pretty impressive.
What's with the obscurity on Cary Grant's face - is that jpg compression or what (in the grab posted by Patrick)? You can see it especially on his nose and chin. I noticed it on some other images as well. Might have to take back my positive response if thats how it looks during playback...
It also appears that the new R4 and new R1 "To Catch a Thief" DVDs are not quite the same.
There is a nearly identical frame in the DVD Beaver's review and in one of the R4 screen captures posted here (the shot of Grant sitting next to Hitch in the car).
It's certainly not much to go on, but the R1 appears brighter (perhaps more contrasty) and redder, and to my eyes the R4 looks superior. Looking at the various other frames from each transfer seems to reinforce that, as none of the shots from the R1 seem as nice as those from the R4.
The green tinted night scenes were a deliberate choice by Hitch, who said he wanted to get away from the stereotyped blue tint to represent nighttime. If I recall correctly, when the film appeared on video the green tint was replaced with blue by the telecine operator, who claimed that the green looked terrible and if Hitch were around he'd prefer the blue anyhow. I disagreed, and now I'll get this new transfer just to have the green tint back.
Based on those 2 caps, the R1 seems to have a warmer, yellowish cast while the R4 looks cooler & more blueish. I don't know, but to me the skin tones (and the greenery in the background) look more natural in the R1.
I don't know- screen grabs are so often misleading. Personally, I'd save my money if I had already bought the R1. The sound speed-up in PAL DVDs bothers me, so I'd stick with the R1, unless the R1 had a horrible transfer in comparison to the R4 (which of course, it doesn't).
Offtopic, sorry... Meil, is that a Pixie-Bob cat in your signature? I have one, and I'm absolutely nuts about them. She completely won over our older cat who otherwise doesn't take too well to unknown animals, and now the two are inseparable (although she took a few beatings in the process). Sweetest, smartest cat I've ever known.
Back on topic... I haven't picked up either the R1 or R4 yet, and so I'm just putting the word out that a comparison review with matching screen-caps and perhaps the personal opinion of the reviewer on how these two transfers appear "in motion" would be very much appreciated!