DVD Review HTF REVIEW: "An Affair to Remember" (with screenshots) (1 Viewer)

[Carlo_M]

Anyone compared this to the film elements? I too see a bit of EE in the old one (look at the buildings against the sunset and see how the tops of the buildings "glow" with the old DVD) and I'm wondering if a lot of peoples' perceptions of "sharper" or "more detail" is related to the EE? Also are these uncompressed screenshots? Probably not. And as far as which color is more accurate, we'd have to have the original restored film elements to tell. Maybe the old DVD was created from non-restored elements and the color was bumped up to compensate?

I think a lot of people are jumping on the "shame on Fox" bandwagon without all the information necessary to make that judgment. I'd like to hear Bjoern's thoughts on how EE might be affecting perceptions here, as well as RAH's comments on how each transfer compares with the original elements. Then when we have more definitive information, we can make an informed decision not a knee-jerk one based on compressed screen caps.

EDIT: Oh, and as RAH mentioned about the anamorphic process not guaranteeing a better picture (which I wholeheartedly agree) - neither does BIT RATE, and the new disc is consistently in the 5-7 Mbps range which is more than enough to theoretically give a good transfer.

 

[Kim D]

I am soooo bummed. I went to Best Buy Tuesday night and they didn't have it.

On Thursday I went to Best Buy, Coconuts and Tower Records. None of them had it.

Anyone else having trouble tracking it down?

I used to buy off the internet but Best Buy is cheaper.
- kim

 

[GlennH]

I used to buy off the internet but Best Buy is cheaper.

Then I'd suggest BestBuy.com. They have it, and at the same price you'd pay in store. Free shipping.

 

[Kim D]

Glenn,

Thank you very much!!!

- kim

 

[TedD]

I took the opportunity to compare the old and the new versions, and I am not sure how to break this to those whose have complained about the grain being removed in the new version, but here goes:

The "film grain" in the old non-anamorphic version is certainly not the film grain that was present on the original source.

It is film grain magnified by artificial sharpening and MPEG compression to an ugly mess. Excessive grain can appear to sharpen an image displayed on a relatively small screen, but it's not truly added detail.

I'll take the new version any day, it has the same or better level of true detail than the old version, without the extreme edge enhancement and artificially induced sharpness and grain of the old version.

The new version contains clearly visible film grain, it's about what I would expect from a 1957 Scope film processed by Deluxe labs.

Ted

 

[GlennH]

Good to hear Ted. Now I'll have to check it out myself instead of talking about it like I know what I'm saying.

 

[Gary Tooze]

Not me... Here is an excerpt from an Email from Robert Harris to myself:

Gary,

Looks overly processed to me. While the older transfer had a bit of "ringing" around objects, the "restored" version simply looks "cleaner" but yet with an overall loss of resolution and general focus.

The grain structure seems to be virtually gone, but there in no information to fill in its place.

Don't think I'll like it.

Personally, I'll take the sharpness of the 1st one. Softening an image like they have done in the new release takes character out of the film (not as in an 'individual' )


As for compression of my captures. Only the new version was compressed in my comparison and compression usually improves the image quality. But here they are with no compression. You decide for yourself:
old version

new version


Don't know how you people have your monitors set, but this is obvious to me...

Regards,

 

[TedD]

Note: updated with screen shots.

Come on, Gary, your comparison screen shots aren't even the same size. Let's at least have them at the same size and resolution.

And, FYI, I'm not watching anything on a monitor. I am watching it on a 5' x 12' screen from a viewing distance of roughly 15'. The "grain" structure on the old version were clearly visible and the individual particles were roughly 1/4" in diameter.

Just a quick look at the main titles was enough to totally turn me off to the older version, it was clearly overly processed and enhanced.

For proof that the the new version has equal or better resolution, go to this page:

http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/Affair_Old.png

for a zoomed in section of the old version title and compare it to:

http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/Affair_New.png

which is the same area of the title from the new version.

Notice that you can barely make out the "Recording system" under Westrex on the new version, while it's just a blur on the old version.


Ted

 

[Gary Tooze]

Come on, Gary, your comparison screen shots aren't even the same size

They are original screen resolutions!... heck, I am condemned for compressing the images and then for giving them in their native screen resolution... ???

I own both versions and have watched on my 21 inch monitor, 53 inch rear projection TV and 28 Panasonic Tube... but sometimes there is no changing peoples minds... you will believe what you want to believe... regardless of the evidence or what experts (like RAH) say.... whatever....

Cheers,

 

[TedD]

Gary, one of them is a close up and the other is a medium shot. One of them is either not the same frame or the magnification is different between the two shots, which clearly invalidates any comparison.

Look at the two screen shots I added to my post for an apples to apples comparison of the resolution of fine detail between the two versions.

A good indicator of the actual resolution of a DVD rather than the apparent resolution is whether you can make out the small print on the copyright statements during the titles.

Ted

 

[Arnie G]

I guess we'll all have to get both. I like the color in the new version better though.:star:

 

[TedD]

Arnie, I do too.

I have both, and frankly, I can't stand watching the old one on my main HT system.

However, as I was doing my captures on my office system which has a 21" monitor, I could see how someone might draw the conclusion that the old version was sharper, because it certainly was heavily processed with an unsharp mask which tends to give the image more "snap".

It "looks" sharper, but as my previously posted screen shots show, it actually contains less "real" details by a slight amount.

My main goal was to prevent people running to Fox and complaining about the new version, which will simply reinforce the application of unsharp mask and other EE producing post processing to all DVD's.

If you want the best of both worlds, use an HTPC with Zoom Player, Sonic filters, and ffdshow. That way, you can apply either unsharp filters, or the DScaler sharpness filter to your hearts content without encouraging the studios to apply their own, which when carried to extremes, results in abominations like the previous two releases of "Stargate" on DVD.

Ah well, to each his own or as some would say, YMMV.

Ted

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm appreciateve for both Gary and Ted posting frame grabs.

From Gary's examples, the older version looks better to me.

Gary's Grant close ups are different sizes, so nothing can be determined.

Ted's field enlargement of the copyright notice is interesting, but cannnot be used as a judgment as every frame of a dupe created from background, holdback and hi-con are different, based upon moving grain patterns.

Precisely the same frame must be extracted.

Bottom line for me is that I'll have to see this one in the flesh, so to speak, before making any judgments or commenting further. I want to be fair to Fox.

Hopefully I'll receive a copy next week.


RAH

 

[TedD]

RAH, my frame captures were simply to prove that the new DVD has better resolution than the original, and not intended to be a comment on the grain issue.

Ted

 

[Robert Harris]

To TedD:

To clarify, I wasn't referring to the actual grain per se, but rather, the fact that in portions of the frame that are that small, the resolution differs by the actual pattern of the grain on a frame by frame basis, evening out once the frames are in motion and POV cuts in.

RAH

 

[TedD]

OK, I see where you are going, but that text is much larger than the grain structure.

I was also single stepping through the frames in that area of the main titles and the captures are representative of the average frame content. However, I will be curious to see what you think when you view the DVD.

Vern

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I'm going to view both versions on the Sharp 10000 DLP projector in Maryland and my friend's Sony 10HT to try to see them "big" side-by-side.

Will post back with results later.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Ok,

Still will have to compare them side-by-side on a *real* display (ie, 100" screen ) but for now I've done some serious scene-by-scene comparisons on my 16x9 34" direct-view data-grade 480P monitor.

My Panny rp91 is scaling the older version to 16x9 (it does anamorphic up-conversion for 4x3 lbxed material)...bravo to Fox for having properly flagged this original release so those with "smart scaling" DVD systems don't have to do anything other than press "play".

Before someone brings up the fact that the rp 91's scaling invalidates my conclusions...let me assure you that it does NOT. It *does* blur the facts a bit, but the results are valid. Why? Well...firstly on any display, to view the images side-by-side at the same size, some sort of scaling must be done (even CRT displays that simply braoden the raster of the scan to "zoom" non-amamorphic material have their beam-spot-size optimized for 16x9 full material so those results aren't any more valid than mine). Given that applying scaling so the two images can be compared same-size, it should be noted that the rp 91 does a very good job of scaling from 4x3 lbx to 16x9.

Let's proceed.

Firstly, I'll give you my conclusion and then the details.

The new 16x9 anamorphic version looks better to my eyes on all counts...color, detail, resolution, and overall "film like" appearance. I know this seems to contradict some of the screen-shots posted here. I can't reconcile this discrepency...I can only tell you what I'm seeing:

I'm sitting about 4 feet back from my 16x9 monitor getting a roughly 30 degree viewing angle (width). This is typically too close to get a decent picture off my tube, but for critical comparisons like this it's very revealing.

Grain:
There is grain in both the old and new version (as Ted/Vern mentions). The grain in the new version looks like "real" fine-level film-grain. The grain in the old version looks magnified somewhat processed. I'm actually quite stunned that there aren't MORE MPEG artifacts in the old version given how challenging it must have been to compress this signal (of course, having about 50% of the image field wasted on "black" probably helped ).

EE:
There appears to be a bit of vertical EE on the old version (enhancing vertical transions...which appear as *horizontal* ringing artifacts along things like mountains and people's heads) but it's not as bad as some other EE offenders. The new version seems to have much less EE if any...and there are a few places where it was a toss-up if I was seeing EE ringing or simple mosquito noise (the top-edge of the plane as it flies over NY city is a good example). In the old version is was clearly EE.

Resolution:
The new version *clearly* has more real detail and resolution on my display. Really! More facial detail, more fine-texture. The image not only has more detail, but looks less "noisy" from fewer compression artifacts and produces a picture that is much more 3-Dimensional with "depth". The old version looks more like the video from a laserdisc (well...I suppose that's exactly what it was!). How odd that running 480P into my 16x9 display is producing such different results from some of the screen captures posted here. I cannot wait to get these 2 discs to a 16x9 digital projector where the results can be compared on a much more revealing scale.

Summary: New version on my system has more detailed, finer-grained, 3-Dimensional image and gets a better "looks like film" grade.

All in all glad Fox took the time to remaster. I can definitely say one thing...the new version seems to be a bonifide *real* 16x9 transfer and not a "anamorphasized/processed" image upconverted from the older 4x3 lbx image.

I'm interested in your thoughts, and I'd like to see what those of you think who are able to compare these 2 versions back to back on a PC with a good monitor...being sure that the images are compared at the same size.

 

[Carlo_M]

Well can't wait for RAH's commentary. Since this isn't the typical loss leader type pricing I can wait a bit before deciding which to buy.

DaViD, don't feel the need to apologize for stating what you see! That is what we are all doing! Even going to the DVDBeaver website, where Gary sees the old version as superior, I look at those exact same photos and see 1) EE ringing in the old version - look at the tops of the city skyline with the sun in the backdrop, and 2) unnaturally red/orangish skin tones in the original version - in the pics above and below the boat pics, and 3) the halo around Grant's face with the blue sky backdrop in the boat scene (present in the old one, not so in the new version).

So that's really what we're doing, stating what we've seen. When RAH chimes in, with his years of film expertise and obviously having a notion of what the film itself looked like, we will have to give his opinion more credence than our own. But if what you see is an improvement on the second release, by all means say so unapologetically! You did a great job in enumerating and elaborating on the reasons you feel the way you do (just as Gary and others have as well).

 

[Gary Tooze]

I must admit, I have been doing more comparisons ( individual scenes ) and I am softening on my stance... but I do think it's a personal preference thing... I think the older version with its grain has certain nostalgic appeal.. but I can see others like the 'plasticized' version

Cheers,