Why Does Libeled Lady on DVD Look 10x Worse Than The LD? (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

I've been called a lot of things in my life and most of them are true, but being a snob isn't one of them. Sorry, you feel that I'm the only fault with this forum.





Crawdaddy

 

[Brandon Conway]

Yeah, the name calling is absurd.

 

[Roger Rollins]

First, let me say that I applaud and value the intelligent, sage and always welcome contributions of Robert "Crawdaddy" Crawford to the HTF. I don't know him. I've never met him. I know nothing about him. But I have always found his postings to be nothing but an asset to HTF. To disagree with his opinions is what forums are about. To refer to him as a snob, is, well..a word I would not use here on the forum. So cheers to Mr. Crawford.

Secondly, why beat a dead horse? The general consensus out there seems to be that the LIBELED LADY DVD is not perfect. but more than fine, and the excellence of the film itself more than forgives whatever "speckles" may mar viewing of this 70 year old motion picture. Screen caps have already been posted at DVD BEAVER. It probably would have cost Warner $200K to make LIBELED LADY look at pristeen as CASABLANCA, but the world in which we live wouldn't support that. Meanwhile, we have a perfectly nice DVD of a great movie.

Why don't we all just enjoy it? I know I certainly did, and will again as I have a bunch of friends coming over tonight to see it. Imperfections and all....

 

[Robert Harris]

A major factor which may well be creeping into this thead way below the radar is technology.

The transfer technology used for these titles for laserdisc was MUCH more forgiving of the film element, which is then combined with a lower resolution playback system.

One can take the exact same element used for a laserdisc / VHS transfer twenty years ago, place it on a new datacine and watch the flaws appear.

Also, every studio has problems with some early films, whether the fault of floods (Columbia), fires (M-G-M) or negatives which no longer exist backed up by a choice of two fine grain masters with an either / or, neither of which provides the quality that the studio would like (Universal)... the problems are shared. One can only hope that a foreign delivery element or an archive has something tucked away.

RAH

 

[ArthurMy]

Brandon Conway wrote: " Arthur is right - Warner has become so chic, so infallible, that even when Universal releases a very nice and admirable Box set like the Marx Bros set - which could never have the films looking as good as the Warner films due to the way they were handled over 70 years - it's lynching time for Universal by unfair comparison."

Thank you. There are times I feel almost persecuted for holding this view.

Oh, and I'm sorry, but I go out of my way to not sound condescending. The fact that Mr. Crawford finds that I do sounds to me more a problem with his interpretation rather than what I'm actually posting. I have received many nice messages from members of this forum who have no problem with me and, in fact, value what I have to say. The fact is, whether anyone cares to realize it or not, if I post something that is in any way critical of people's continual lambasting of Columbia and Universal, I can be almost certain that it will be followed by a posting from Mr. Crawford. It has been this way almost since the day I arrived here and began posting, and the threads are there as proof.

I really have no problem with Mr. Crawford other than that. I'm sure he's a very nice man, and I even agree with some of his opinions and when I do, I post that I do.

 

[george kaplan]

I disagree a LOT with Robert about various films, but he's certainly an asset to this forum, not a fault, and even if he were a fault, to say that he would be the only fault is about the funniest thing I have ever read here.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Arthur, I certainly understand what you're saying about Warner and it's a fight many others have tried to fight but in the end, Warner will win.

I agree that (sometimes) people jump on Universal and Columbia way too much and I think they bash those studios simply because they aren't Warner. Every older release today automatically gets compared to the work Warner is doing, which could be unfair but I don't know. People can complain about Universal's "fire sets" but at least we have the films. We can't say that about many Fox films. At any rate, good or bad, we're getting the films we love and 99% of the time, they might not look like CASABLANCA but they do look better than ever before.

To me, I really don't see too much to be unhappy with in this great format.

I think most jump on Universal because it is rare they release a "Warner quality" disc. People overlook Warner's mistakes because they rarely release a "Universal quality" disc. To my knowledge, Paramount, Fox, Universal and Columbia has never released a poor "collection" as Lions Gate has done with Laurel and Hardy. I understand the fights with LG but with reguards to Universal, those Abbott and Costello films might not look like CASABLANCA or have the extras of GONE WITH THE WIND but we did get 24 films for $60 and all of them looked good. Could they have been better? Of course, EVERY single DVD release could be better. I simply try to look at the good and move on.

 

[Brandon Conway]

This is, for the most part, my philosophy. Yes, there will be times when a serious lack of quality deserves critical drubbing (The SE of The Quiet Man comes to mind), but I think, in general, the HTF crowd is too quick to label something "imperfect". I know that if I waited around to only buy releases that were perfect - especially for very old films - I'd have about 1/10th of the DVDs I own and greatly enjoy.

If someone has the Laserdisc of Libeled Lady and feels it is better than this apparently quite good DVD of Libeled Lady they are welcome to not re-purchase the title. But I was too young to be part of the LD crowd, and it appears to me that this DVD of such a very old film is of a fine quality and very worth a purchase by someone who has never owned this film on home video before.

And I would say that the vast majority of classic film releases over the last 3 years of DVD from the major studios have been between good and excellent. I know in my case I do not have the money to buy all of them, and that tells me that the studios, as a whole, are doing a good job of releasing them. Some studios in more quantity than others, but no one is outright flunking, IMO.

 

[Paul_Scott]

i may have been wrong initially. these may be the exact same elements that were used on the LD (one shot in particular seems to reveal the same damage, although not to the degree i saw on the dvd).
there two things that hit me when i flipped thur the dvd last night.
one was the print damage.
i read several reviews before hand and thought i was prepared for the degree here. it was , at various times, either more excessive or more consistent than i was expecting.
the other thing that struck/bothered me was that, unlike 99% of Warners other vintage releases, it just doesn't look like film to me.
it looks like DVNRd videotape.
a slight blur, a slight surring of detail. little in the way of actual grain.

it sounds like, going by what people are saying (the original element is lost, the newer technology reveals more flaws in the elements)
wouldn't it be reasonable to suppose that the new transfer did reveal 'a very problematic' image, moreso than the LD-era transfer, and that someone felt the need to minimize the effects of these problems by 'smoothing it out' via noise reduction?
i will obviously defer to people who actually know about this technology and the processes involved.

but if what i wrote above were the case, if detail and an honest(excessive?) film-grain appearence were lost due to DVNR, would this still have yeilded a better result than just recycling the old LD era master?

 

[Roger Rollins]

Nobody uses DVNR in the industry anymore. It is considered outdated (and ineffective) technology. Similar to that of CRIs in the photochemical world....

 

[Patrick McCart]

Good grief!


Well, Casablanca's excellent image quality has a lot to do with Warner Bros. having a beautiful fine-grain positive. Compare the original DVD with the SE. The main difference is the reduction of excessive grain in certain shots, elimination of dirt and scratches, and erasing a few very obvious tears.

 

[ArthurMy]

Michael, I agree with much of what you say. The Columbia bashing especially rankles me and I just can't and won't shut up about it. They've done some really great transfers, and have put out some really incredible catalog titles - even when they're going from less-than-wonderful elements (mostly due to the famous flood they had) they're still acceptable. Yes, they've made mistakes, but so has Warners and every other studio. I'll get off my soap box now.

It's also always funny to me that it's always Columbia and Universal, when MGM/UA deserves the Lion's share (pardon the pun) of the drubbing. They get it right far less than they get it wrong.

I, like Michael Elliot, am just so grateful to have so many films on DVD that I never thought would see the light of day.

 

[Paul_Scott]

iirc, Dee, it was a blind buy for me on LD, due to the presence of Low and Powell, and i had the same reaction the first time i saw it.
it baffles me why this remains one of those'also ran' classics.

and the purpose of this thread was far from disuading prospective buyers from picking it up.
i am disappointed in the PQ- but the content is so damn good, alot of people will be able to overlook this.

i've got a couple of screencap comparisions made up.
just have to look around for an image hoster.

 

[Paul_Scott]

hard to tell from this one, but there are several vertical scratches that persist thru the shot, and give it the appearence that its raining on their heads.
you can kind of make it out in the LD transfer (to the side of Powells head) which would lead me to believe that there is some connection between the two elements- but if they are indeed one in the same what expalins the other differences?

 

[Paul_Scott]

 

[Paul_Scott]

 

[Greg_S_H]

That's very unfortunate print damage, but the overall image detail is much more pleasing than the LD.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

I reckon that the same element was used for both transfers - probably a fine grain. The Laser has less resolution and defitition, of course and the DVD transfer will have had contrast/brightness correction. But in the 14-year interim, that element was surely damaged by some careless person (this happens all the time with film elements to varying degrees, no matter how careful one is) and so we will have to live with it. Digital correction (MTI, etc) could have rectified the damage, but perhaps the damage wasn't deemed consistant enough. I really don't know. The damage in capture 2 really should have been fixed though: blotches on faces is the worst kind of print damage, other than huge tears, of course.

As for putting down studios (and HTF admins! ) it is something to avoid. Send them an email or letter or try and get someone on the phone, if you can. ALL of the major DVD distributors makes mistakes and use inferior elements - even Criterion - but none of them deliberately release poor products. They can't all be great all of the time.

Just for the record: I think that Universal's Noir DVDs are fantastic. It would have been great to have extras on them, but the transfers are excellent. To be honest, when it comes to Noir, if you really want to know, there are many great books out there.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I get messages about your posts too, but those messages aren't so nice in nature. Let me say this one last time, it's not what you said, but how you said them that I and others have problems with.

Anyhow, we have hijacked this thread enough, any further comments about this issue needs to take place off-line.






Crawdaddy

 

[Paul_Scott]

timecode 20:46

can someone also explain to me how you can get what looks to be analog-like ghosting on a 2K digital transfer?
just look around the cabin boys white jacket.
its mildly visible in some other scenes as well.
its not EE. definitely something else .

also i stand by my comments as to the black levels.
they are clearly horrible.
you don't need the LD to see this either, just look at the trailer.
from the scene near the end of the film where Tracy and Powell are getting ready to come to blows, in the film Powells tux is one solid mass of black, in the trailer (and on the LD) you can clearly see the shape and folds with a significantly greater tonal range.

Warner has put out some wonderful discs of vintage films, moreso than any other company- and they would still be my preferred studio to release more of my favorites-
but the job they did on Libeled Lady is awful.
i have a real hard time believing a recycled LD transfer wouldn't have looked better than one made from a print that displays some kind of damage in nearly every scene, and then on top of that, is way too dark.
or did someone misplace the LD transfer too- as it appears they misplaced the only decent print.

i haven't been this disappointed(annoyed) in a transfer since MGMs Jean DeFlorette debacle.


btw, i also watched King Solomans Mines tonight, which is another disc that i've seen get its PQ panned in several reviews.
i saw a few shots that looked soft, but in toto i thought it looked quite nice, and occasionally sensational.