Tweet Warner digitally restores Casablanca. Again...

After the film resolution re-digital restoration of Gone With The WInd, firstly in 4K and followed by 8k resolution, and a similar case for The Wizard of Oz, Warner created another digital restoration of Casablanca.

Casablanca was restored in early00's by Lowry Digital Images in 2K resoltuion, and the resulted pleases many fan, for DVD and Blu Ray.

Now for the 70th aniversary a 4K digital restoration was created. The result, people said, looks not visually better on Blu Ray. perhaps on 2K digital theater look better.


http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Casablanc ... 23/#Review


Warner always tends to do great restoration works. But many péople get a bit curious if the 2k resolution of the prior restoration was enough or not to take all details from a camera negative from aearly 40's film.

On the Home Theater Forum, Robert Harris says there is improvement, but probably not apparent unless viewed on large projection system. I have one of those, and the first Blu-Ray, but I'll hold off on the new one until or when there's a single-disc issue at a good discount.

Here's what Harris says:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/319152/a-few-words-about-casablanca-70th-anniversary-in-blu-ray

Big Whoop.

Yet ANOTHER version of a common film made only for obsessive tech geeks who want resolution so sharp they can count the pores on Bogart's nose.

The first digital restoration Done by Lowry Digital Images, at the time was the only system able to reduce grain and preserve details.
As far as I know, they are still the best system to handle grain, or even improve image detail while reduce some grain.

But now Warner go to 4K. I still feel theat Lowry could do better in terms of enhance detail, if work in 4K.

See how good was the prior Blu Ray from Loiwry restoration:

http://highdefdiscnews.com/screenshots/casablanca_3.png" target="_blank" target="_blank



And compare a same scene from the old and the new digital restorations:

Old 2K restoration:

http://highdefdiscnews.com/screenshots/casablanca_1.png" target="_blank" target="_blank
If link did not work go by: http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=8296" target="_blank and find the image capture among the set


New 4K restoration:


http://www.doblu.com/wp-content/uploads ... nca924.jpg" target="_blank" target="_blank




Am I wrong or the new looks darker with less details in shadows???


Warner it's great, incredible propject to present old films, but they have not 1000 computers working together to processes grain reduction or image detail enhancement.

Big Whoop.

Yet ANOTHER version of a common film made only for obsessive tech geeks who want resolution so sharp they can count the pores on Bogart's nose.

ABSOLUTELY! A great picture none would deny, but nothing is so great it can't be run into the ground, & at this point, Casablanca has gone subterranian. What a waste of dough that could be spent on restoration of the hundreds of badly deteriorated pre-codes.

Big Whoop.

Yet ANOTHER version of a common film made only for obsessive tech geeks who want resolution so sharp they can count the pores on Bogart's nose.

ABSOLUTELY! A great picture none would deny, but nothing is so great it can't be run into the ground, & at this point, Casablanca has gone subterranian. What a waste of dough that could be spent on restoration of the hundreds of badly deteriorated pre-codes.

I'll bet that the money made from releases like this help subsidize such restorations.

Robert Harris quote about 70TH Casablanca Blu ray:


"My suggestion to WB, only because one should not sell something as "Ultimate" if you don't mean it -- and for the record, the Ultimate could have looked precisely like this one in 2008 -- would be to make the new feature Blu-ray disc available to those purchased the Ultimate for a nominal price, perhaps $10 and proof of purchase. That way, consumers who support the product can have the best of everything."

I'll bet that the money made from releases like this help subsidize such restorations.

An important consideration--let's hope it's working out that way. Considering, nevertheless, the multitude of previously unobtainable films introduced into circulation by the DVD revolution, I marvel that this Casa-mania sustains itself.

Big Whoop.

Yet ANOTHER version of a common film made only for obsessive tech geeks who want resolution so sharp they can count the pores on Bogart's nose.

Yes, indeed.
In addition, as a movie it's just about average. It wouldn't bother me if I never saw it again in any format, "ultimate" or other.

I'm far more stoked about the apparent restoration of KING OF JAZZ (1930) this year.

ABSOLUTELY! A great picture none would deny, but nothing is so great it can't be run into the ground, & at this point, Casablanca has gone subterranian. What a waste of dough that could be spent on restoration of the hundreds of badly deteriorated pre-codes.

I'll bet that the money made from releases like this help subsidize such restorations.[/END quote]
---------------------------


Let's hope so and hope any money doesn't just go toward the 178th restoration of such over-exposed stuff as MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS, AN AMERICAN IN PARIS, SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS, etc.

Hey, those two Colleen Moore movies are still sittin' over there in Italy awaiting restoration.
(And because we can't forget about them for a second, I'm glad to list their titles again: WHY BE GOOD and SYNTHETIC SIN).

Big Whoop.

Yet ANOTHER version of a common film made only for obsessive tech geeks who want resolution so sharp they can count the pores on Bogart's nose.

Yes, indeed.
In addition, as a movie it's just about average. It wouldn't bother me if I never saw it again in any format, "ultimate" or other.

I like it, but have you ever counted how many times Bogart says "Here's lookin' at YOU Kid" ? After a while it's a bit silly.

I've never been a big fan of CASABLANCA, It took me years to warm to it. Because it's an excuse to get out of the house, I'm seeing the TCM theatrical projection today. I'll try to report back later.

I've never been a big fan of CASABLANCA, It took me years to warm to it. Because it's an excuse to get out of the house, I'm seeing the TCM theatrical projection today. I'll try to report back later.

Excellent! I'll be anxious to hear your report.

I'm in the I love Casablanca camp. Warmed to it instantly.

One reason we keep getting new versions is that previous restorations are, surprise, surprise, simply not good enough. A while back I read that Singin' in the Rain was saved as 1080i (!). It's sure dismaying, though, to see the studios spend so much wasted effort. In Universal's announcement of their new restorations, I was shocked to see them again brag about fixing the same damaged shot of To Kill a Mockingbird that they bragged about fixing in the Nov. '01 American Cinematographer. Should've been fixed properly the first time. Disney's been using what looks like the same transfer of Snow White for twenty years now, so it can be done.

Well, I think that HD transfer advances like2K or 4K scanning it's a key reason in first place, despite I suspect some restoration use resolution that it's more marketing than really need, for example:
I don´t believe Gone Withn The Wind camera negatives have real benefits comparing the 4K restoration with the 8K restoration they did last time.
So why 8K ??? For marketing ? SOme technicians said a 6K would get more dynamic range due some details of tone depend of the grain precise shape.

But about fix deffects, I must agree that's a constant evolutions, and there are still a lot of deffects that are not well fixed even with actual last generation digital tools.
There is still no tool or filter to fix bromide drag.
Some spatial flicker, even in some films from 70's, are not very well fixed, despite be reduced in some degree.
Some very large scratches can leave artefacts when appear in a complex detail pattern.

But some softwares just fix a region of image, and also file, record, the non fixed area, so they can get back latter and try another fix for the same area. And a 4K scanning in digital restoration could save a non restored file, for a future new digital fix with improoved tools.

I think Warner had or should had a version of the 2K digital restoration (made by Lowry) without the grain reduction or contrast enhancment for shadow details.

One reason we keep getting new versions is that previous restorations are, surprise, surprise, simply not good enough. A while back I read that Singin' in the Rain was saved as 1080i (!). It's sure dismaying, though, to see the studios spend so much wasted effort. In Universal's announcement of their new restorations, I was shocked to see them again brag about fixing the same damaged shot of To Kill a Mockingbird that they bragged about fixing in the Nov. '01 American Cinematographer. Should've been fixed properly the first time. Disney's been using what looks like the same transfer of Snow White for twenty years now, so it can be done.

Some films are what W.K. Everson referred to as "overprotected." Much as I love CASABLANCA, OZ and GONE WITH THE WIND, surely there are hundreds of lesser known but equally worthwhile titles that deserve a full-scale restoration. Yes, I know, the marketplace doesn't allow such luxuries, and who but us devotees really care about such things? But think a moment. How many people ever watched IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE before it lapsed into the Public Domain and suddenly became a ripe-for-restoration classic? (I'll bet that the cineastes who were doing nip-ups over BICYCLE THIEF and GATE OF HELL back in the 50s wouldn't have given WONDERFUL LIFE the time of day).

One reason we keep getting new versions is that previous restorations are, surprise, surprise, simply not good enough. A while back I read that Singin' in the Rain was saved as 1080i (!). It's sure dismaying, though, to see the studios spend so much wasted effort. In Universal's announcement of their new restorations, I was shocked to see them again brag about fixing the same damaged shot of To Kill a Mockingbird that they bragged about fixing in the Nov. '01 American Cinematographer. Should've been fixed properly the first time.

That's almost like saying "The Wright Brothers had manned flight in 1903, why didn't they just go to the moon then and get it over with?" Digital tools, all the way from initial scanning to restoration, have improved tremendously over the past 11 years. Why shouldn't they take advantage of that for important films? By the way, the latest Snow White incarnation derives from a new transfer of the original negative in 2009, not the 1993 scan.

Yes, many old films are almost ignored.

But Warner restored a lot of old films not very famous, like many gangster films of low budget.

Don't you mean Colleen Moore instead of Clara Bow re those films waiting in Italy?

Don't you mean Colleen Moore instead of Clara Bow re those films waiting in Italy?

Must be the unknown remakes?

Big Whoop.

Yet ANOTHER version of a common film made only for obsessive tech geeks who want resolution so sharp they can count the pores on Bogart's nose.

Yes, indeed.
In addition, as a movie it's just about average. It wouldn't bother me if I never saw it again in any format, "ultimate" or other.

Overplayed, definitely.
Overrated, maybe.
Average, don't make me guffaw. If it was merely average, there's absolutely no way it would still have the sterling rep as a classic that it's had for 70 years now.

It's not my favourite film in the world, but I like it very much. Tremendously entertaining.

[Christopher Jacobs]

Big Whoop.

Yet ANOTHER version of a common film made only for obsessive tech geeks who want resolution so sharp they can count the pores on Bogart's nose.

Yes, indeed.
In addition, as a movie it's just about average. It wouldn't bother me if I never saw it again in any format, "ultimate" or other.

Overplayed, definitely.
Overrated, maybe.
Average, don't make me guffaw. If it was merely average, there's absolutely no way it would still have the sterling rep as a classic that it's had for 70 years now.

It's not my favourite film in the world, but I like it very much. Tremendously entertaining.

And sadly, for the majority of freshman students it's still almost completely off the radar and not something most would watch on their own outside of class. Classics like CASABLANCA and IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, THE MALTESE FALCON, GONE WITH THE WIND and STAGECOACH, etc., used to be something to avoid in general survey film classes, because they were already so well-known. Today, despite their (to us) high profile, the average high school or college student may have vaguely heard about them, but is not likely to have seen them, at least not since being a small child forced to watch them with a parent or grandparent. THE WIZARD OF OZ and the Disney cartoon classics are still fairly likely to have been seen, but not much else made before the time they or their parents were born (i.e., pre-1990 or pre-1960).

Big Whoop.

Yet ANOTHER version of a common film made only for obsessive tech geeks who want resolution so sharp they can count the pores on Bogart's nose.

Yes, indeed.
In addition, as a movie it's just about average. It wouldn't bother me if I never saw it again in any format, "ultimate" or other.

Average, don't make me guffaw. If it was merely average, there's absolutely no way it would still have the sterling rep as a classic that it's had for 70 years now.

It may well have a "sterling rep as a classic", but my opinion is that it is just about, if not below, average. It's routine stuff.
Nobody else needs to agree. I'll live with it.

It may well have a "sterling rep as a classic", but my opinion is that it is just about, if not below, average. It's routine stuff.
Nobody else needs to agree. I'll live with it.

So I guess if Casablanca had starred Buster Keaton, you'd have been totally out on it!

Just got back from the screening. First, the program started 30 minutes late because the entire staff of 12 year olds couldn't figure out how to run the digital projection. We sat there interminably and stared at the digital dish menus while the entire staff was in the booth trying to get it to go. They ALMOST showed us "The Bodyguard"! The audience was NOT amused. When it did finally start, we got about 2/3 of the way through the bonus introduction and the kid decided that no one wanted to see it, so he fast forwards to the beginning of the movie. After the screening, the manager hid because so many people were asking for refunds. I will never attend a Fathom special event at that theater.

I will say that the film looked and sounded fantastic! The photography was amazing, little character touches that you've never seen before. Yes, it was a little darker than I remember, but it looked wonderful. Well done WB.

I have to admit some interest when this newest print gets the 3D treatment and gets in a theater (only a matter of time, right?)

Any excuse to spend time watching Ingrid Bergman is okay in my book.

I have to admit some interest when this newest print gets the 3D treatment and gets in a theater (only a matter of time, right?)

Maybe less than you think. The use of historical photos digitally doctored to create a 3-D effect has become commonplace on the History Channel.

Nobody else needs to agree. I'll live with it.

The philosopy I espouse ("a majority of one," said Thoreau) when talk turns to the Great Humbug of the silent cinema: Passion of Joan.

It may well have a "sterling rep as a classic", but my opinion is that it is just about, if not below, average. It's routine stuff.
Nobody else needs to agree. I'll live with it.

So I guess if Casablanca had starred Buster Keaton, you'd have been totally out on it!

I guess so, yeah...though I'm not sure what the relevance of such a hypothetical situation is.

I don't particularly enjoy Casablanca and I don't particularly enjoy Keaton - so what?