BLACK CHRISTMAS 2002 DVD vs 2006 DVD [screenshots]

Chuck Pennington

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 11, 2001
Messages
925
BLACK CHRISTMAS 2002 non-anamorphic DVD vs. 2006 anamorphic DVD.

Which transfer is better? That's tough to say as it seems to vary scene to scene. The older transfer seems to have better color and a more correct brightness/contrast ratio, but the newer transfer is much sharper. The framing varies on both also. The frames aren't exact in this comparison, but they are very close.

Oh, and both transfers are encoded interlaced rather than progressive. Rather odd for a 2006 DVD made from a "new high definition master"...

The 2002 non-anamorphic transfer pic screenshots are followed by the 2006 anamorphic transfer screenshots of approximately the same frame.








































This title card is missing from the front of the film on the 2002 DVD, but it is on the 2006 DVD.
 

Mark Zimmer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
4,306
I think you're right; the color timing looks off on the new version, with too much yellow. Maybe the 4th version will get it right....
 

Arnie G

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 29, 2002
Messages
662
Real Name
Arnie Douglas
The old transfer looks smoother, new one looks granier. The new one also looks a bit yellow. I think I'll stay with my old DVD.
 

Chuck Pennington

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 11, 2001
Messages
925
Ah, but the new DVD has the 5.1 remix, which sounds like it was really rebuilt from the ground up from the original stems. Some of it sounds TOO good though, and I suspect some newly recorded foley was added...

Also, the doco is decent, as are the threee new interviews - though Margot Kidder's interview is reason to purchase the new release ALONE! She's a riot! :)

I just don't understand how the producers of this DVD went so wrong... :-( DVDBeaver only compares the 2006 DVD to the 2001 release - they ignored the 2002 DVD entirely in their comparison! I hope they fix that soon...
 

Chuck Pennington

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 11, 2001
Messages
925
I wrote to the webmaster of itsmebilly.com and, bless him, he wrote back!

Here's what I wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan,

I just saw ya on CinemaxHD in a behind-the-scenes segment on the BLACK CHRISTMAS remake - good job! But anyway....

I have owned all three NTSC editions of BC by now (2001, 2002, and now 2006), and aside from the new Kidder and Hussey interviews - and parts of the 5.1 remix - I think I prefer the 2002 release! :-( The transfer of the new edition is sharper and anamorphic, but the color and brightness are far worse than on the earlier edition. :-( I also can't understand it being interlaced rather than progressive, either...

I made some screen cap comparisons here:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...d.php?t=248140

Maybe there will be a 2007 or 2008 edition that gets things right... and includes ALL of the bonus features from both versions - a 2 DVD set maybe :)

Just wondered what you thought. BTW - the HD version shown on INHD and HDNET is from a far more battered print, but in many ways it looks better than any of these commercial releases - but maybe that's because it is in HD - I dunno...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's what he replied with:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Chuck,

The version shown on HDNET is the exact same print as on the new DVD, we simply downconverted it for this new DVD. The colour and brightness werent tweaked as much as the first transfer (there have been only two from the neg) due to time constraints.

I do like the new verison a lot, but there are some minor colour issues as you mention.

Im not sure what you mean witht the interlaced/progressive debate.
Surely all DVD material is interleced and then dependant on output or display, converted to progressive on the fly. (i.e dependant on your DVD players ability to put pure progressive)

Its frustrating to me too in some ways that the definitive DVD kind of doesnt exist, but we did set out this time with a budget for one disc only. and to include any old material would have been kind of ripping off the fan base that bought it again or a third time, so we went with 2 hours of new material.

hope thats been of some help.

regards
Dan
 

mike7883uk

Auditioning
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
2
Real Name
Mike Marks
I'm hoping someone can compare the new R1 to the Tartan R2 release. The pictue on the R2 is less than stellar, but I dont want to upgrade if the difference isnt very noticable. If anyone has both please let me know the verdict!

Chuck, thanks for including the screencaps, very interesting.

Mike.
 

Chuck Pennington

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 11, 2001
Messages
925
I rented the R2 Tartan release and found it to be pretty horrid. It looks like a bad NTSC-to-PAL conversion that was digitally morphed into being anamorphic. It is worth seeking out the R1 NTSC release of that disc rather than settle for the R2 PAL version.

BTW - I just viewed BLACK CHRISTMAS on HDNET, and I don't see how this same print or master was used for the new DVD as the webmaster of itsmebilly.com states. In addition to the Warner logos, the opening credits are terribly wobbly and exhibit a high amount of white flecks and scratches, whereas the new DVD - with its faults, to be sure - is stable and very clean. There are other differences as well, though I think the color and contrast balance on what I saw broadcast beats any of the DVD releases, with the 2002 non-anamorphic DVD coming the closest to presenting this film as it was shown on HDNET and INHD (when I saw it in INHD a few months back, the brightness was too high - but that may be able to be blamed on my local cable provider). Though it is much softer than the 2006 DVD, and it doesn't have the reworked 5.1 soundtrack, I think the 2002 DVD is the one I will show to friends in the future.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
344,832
Messages
4,721,648
Members
141,345
Latest member
els