10 x may be a slight exaggeration, but its only slight. i finally got a gander at the dvd tonight and was shocked and disappointed at what i saw. not only was there significant damage to the elements (speckling, large speckling, prominent vertical scratches lasting several minutes at a clip, etc) but the transfer in general had a slightly processed look to it. or maybe it was just the fact that it was a generation or two away from the source which would explain the slightly pumped contrast, and blown out and lost detail. i own the LD, though i hadn't watched it in about 14 years, and i never remembered it looking like this. i pulled it out afterwards and fast forwarded to a couple sequences and, sure enough, there is a totally different print used for the LD transfer. apart from some minor speckling and scratches that occur very infrequently, the film on LD looks fantastic! a substantially better greyscale, and thus much better, finer details. and nowhere close to the damage seen on the dvd. the LD has a copyright date of 1991. anyone know why the same print/neg wasn't used for this dvd? in comparison to the ld, the dvd looks about a 1/2 step away from being an ok public domain job. Warner has done some amazing stuff, no doubt, but to say i'm disappointed in the job done here, to one of the best romantic comedies of the '30s (its one of my favorites of all time), would be an understatment. especially in light of seeing how decent the LD looks- in fact, i think the results would have been better if they had just used that transfer seeing as how all the fine detail on the dvd is obscured anyway, by what looks to be the dupey nature of the print.