Adventures of Mark Twain, The (1944)

“same master as used for TCM. It looks good, not great, but is an improvement as far as no TCM bug in the lower right corner and no cable compression problems. It has a great trailer that looks almost as good as the film itself. The movie is 132 minutes, but everything looked fine. I hope this one sells enough to lead to an official DVD release from the nitrate negative. A great Max Steiner score.” –post #80 (103” screen)

“widescreen…Picture Quality..was very good---comparable to traditional DVD (pressed) releases for fifty year old films.” – post #54

“a very nice sharp and clear anamorphic picture...no softness and I didn't see any signs of compression. It looks pretty much like a regular Warner DVD release.” – post #101 (40” screen)

“not widescreen…Picture Quality..was very good---comparable to traditional DVD (pressed) releases for fifty year old films.” –#54

“a great 88-minute Western … Combing is evident” + Screen cap – post #102 (laptop)

“look[s] great, with proper letterboxing and good black and white contrasts.” – post #63

“Another interlaced, 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen presentation, though with a seemingly better encode than DREAM LOVER by a wide margin, even though the print used for the transfer is also less than optimal…Dolby Digital mono encoded at 192 kbps. Flat with slight hiss, though not sounding noisy like a typical optical track from a print might, the audio was neither so good or so bad that I look exception to it…I'm grateful to have it on DVD in anamorphic widescreen even though it appears no effort was made to correct some of the color and contrast fluctuations in the print.” + screen caps – post #8

“shot in 1:33 x 1 and is presented in Full Screen with the audio in mono. Again I only viewed a small portion of the DVD and the video was excellent.” – post #1

“[the film] was protected for Academy, but was composed and intended for widescreen presentation.” – post #5

“shot in widescreen 2:40 x 1 and are released in anamorphic widescreen 16 x 9. The audio is 2 channel stereo. I just viewed a small portion of each DVD and the video I saw was excellent.” – post #1

“From just glancing at the film, it looks pretty good; a little more stable than Quentin Durward. - includes a fullscreen trailer, and [presented] at 2.40:1.” + Screen caps – post #91

“I just measured the capture for [Bhowani Junction] and the ratio is 2.5:1. So I think this was transferred from the full CinemaScope aperture, not an optical soundtrack (2.35:1) element.”- post #95

“… is better looking than most Metrocolor efforts of the era, and has a nice stereo track that retains the directionality of the original. A significant improvement from the old laserdisc.” – post #111

“I found the print to be quite gorgeous. Also the screen caps posted don't do this film justice either. The stereo sound is also very good. A very satisfying presentation.” – post #124 (52” screen)

“surpised how impressive it looked and sounded (beautifully photographed by Winston C. Hoch), the CinemaScope picture is vibrant and the sound is robust.” – post #70

“…is too good a movie to have been forgotten for so many years, and Warner's disk is sharp & crisp, with surprisingly good color for late '50s Eastman, and bold sound.” – post #111

“…anamorphic, so that part is nice, but is nothing really more than average in terms of transfer quality.” – post #112

“By far the worst picture quality of all the movies I got. It was just downright difficult to watch. Movie was fun, but picture was more than distracting. No detail, faded. It's the one title I could say looks like what people think of when they think $1 "public domain." Make that $1 VHS "public domain". Was not worth $20.” – post #116

“look[s] great, with proper letterboxing and good black and white contrasts.” – post #63

“widescreen enhanced in color .... It starts out okay, but over the course of the 80 minute running time, the image quality deteriorates to the point where it looks no better than your average old movie recorded from television (aside from being widescreen); and some of the stock footage of cattle stampedes looks worse yet. It's not that great a movie either, unless you're a real western buff.” – post #139

“like [The Adventures of Mark Twain], it looks very good, but not great. A charming and heartwarming story about adoption and stars Ray Milland and Gene Tierney, with a nice Max Steiner score.” – post #80 (103” screen)

“I thought the video presentation was very good except an 8 minute segment that was a little dupey and soft.” – post #64

“… anamorphic but [it] fall[s] a little below the standards of a regular Warner catalog release from that time period. I did see signs of compression and … some softness and lack of detail in some scenes more than others. I would rate the transfer as fair in relation to a regular DVD release. But since this is what I expected, I can't say I am disappointed.” – post #101 (40” screen)

“the credits…which are red almost look like they have a unique effect to make a zebra pattern on the credits...this is not supposed to be there.” – post #122

“This [in reference to Mark Pytel’s comment above] is a very old problem. It is caused by Allied Vaughn using a very old MPEG2 encoder, and not deinterlacing the content. There is a very lengthy explanation from a long time ago here. It is sad that this is even an issue on DVDs being released in 2009, irrespective of the source material. It can and should be fixed during the encoding process, it is to WHV's discredit that it wasn't taken into account before authoring the first lot of DVDs.” – post #123

“…to my eye looked acceptable: like a typical "unrestored" movie of its vintage. I did not see any artifacts in red areas, as some have reported. The disc will be a must for Altman complete-ists!” – post #133

“Not in the league of Casablanca, but very watchable in my 80 inch projected screen. Very happy to finally have this in my collection. It includes a trailer.” – post #119

“looks barely better than VHS” – post #58

“The least, visually speaking, of the 5 movies I ordered[A Lion is in the Streets, The Crowded Sky, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Made in Paris, A Dream of Kings]. The fine print at the end of the opening credits exhibited a throbbing effect (sharp/fuzzy/sharp/fuzzy) The whole movie looked a bit fuzzy. No trailer.” – post #61

“looks okay” – post #58

“The 16x9 b&w image quality is not remarkable, but it is commensurate with other B&W titles of the era already released by many studios. It's still a fine DVD, with more than acceptable quality, and is a testament to the strange phenomenon that was Jack Webb.” – post #111

“A William Wellman film starring James Garner. It looks fine and is anamorphically enhanced and fills the screen top to bottom, something you wouldn’t get on TCM.” – post #80 (103” screen)

“Starring Freddie Bartholomew, Jackie Cooper and Mickey Rooney. The oldest film I have ordered so far. Again, it looks fine with good contrast and sound, but certainly not what you can look like with a new master.” – post #80 (103” screen)

“anamorphic widescreen in [its] original 1.85:1 aspect ratio…some minor (very minor) debris in the first few minutes which shows that it might receive further restoration in the future. The picture quality of the remainder of the film seems almost pristine. A trailer for the film is included on this DVD, and if you want to see how bad this film could look, then look no further than this unrestored trailer in 1.33.1 aspect ratio.” – post #24

“The image is presented in 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen from a rather grainy and speckled element. Darker scenes, of which there are many, are rather murky with ill-defined contrast and compression blockiness. Exterior daylight scenes fare quite well with decent contrast and lighter grain, though the transfer never quite reaches beyond simply average even during its best moments. The encoding, however, introduces some major problems. Aside from the disappointment of being an interlaced encode, there is some strange vertical strobing in many of the dark scenes with the infrared lights…Though the packaging states mono, DREAM LOVER is presented in 2.0 Dolby Surround, and in some scenes is quite effective!...Well, at least this disc also came with a non-anamorphic widescreen trailer. Oh, and the movie is in anamorphic widescreen. Some of it looks okay. Sorry, not a lot of good words for this DVD, or for the movie. ” + screen caps – post #7

“Best of the bunch visually [out of A Lion is in the Streets, The Crowded Sky, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Made in Paris and this]-I imagine the source material hasn't had much wear & tear. No trailer.” – post #61

“… anamorphic but [it] fall[s] a little below the standards of a regular Warner catalog release from that time period. I did see signs of compression and … some softness and lack of detail in some scenes more than others. I would rate the transfer as fair in relation to a regular DVD release. But since this is what I expected, I can't say I am disappointed.” – post #101 (40” screen)

“[with Beatrice Lillie]… This is a sweet [silent] comedy, and it's interesting to see how effective such a comedienne as Lillie could be even without her trademark way with words. For a movie that is 83 years old, it looks quite good, with its only visual difficulties seemingly coming from nitrate deterioration on the source.” – post #111

“shot in widescreen 2:40 x 1 and are released in anamorphic widescreen 16 x 9. The audio is 2 channel stereo. I just viewed a small portion of each DVD and the video I saw was excellent.” – post #1

“Looked very good to me, sound seemed weak, the only time I had to turn up the volume. No trailer.” – post #61

“widescreen…Picture Quality..was very good---comparable to traditional DVD (pressed) releases for fifty year old films.” – post #54

“looks barely better than VHS.” – post #58

“the image was sharp and clear and had an excellent grayscale, but there are plenty of age related dirt specks and the reel change markers are there. There was also one instance of the disc skipping for one moment (when Lurene Tuttle enters Joan Crawford's room). I did get it to do the same thing again, but I forgot to check to see if there was a problem on the disc surface or if this was just built into master. Otherwise, an acceptable disc.” – post #110

“Presented in an interlaced, 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer, THE GRASSHOPPER is quite watchable with only minor flaws consistent with the vintage of the film…There isn't much to report about this mono (DD 2.0 192 kbps) track: crisp-sounding music with low noise, lower in volume than I expected with no low end to speak of…The DVD from Warner Archive is satisfactory and better than I expected, though I do hope that progressive encoding as well as improved compression grace future releases.” + screen caps – post #18

“This is a very impressive historical drama with Hedy Lamarr and Robert Young. A solid example of fine MGM craftsmanship, I found the new DVD to be virtually flawless.” – post #111

“overall very good looking, to me. The old VHS is P&S and has a yellowish tint, as though a colorist was trying to create a visual feeling of nostalgia. The new DVD has much better color and is letterboxed, showing much more of the image.” – post #63

“One of my favorite films from the 50s. Although I have the laser, I was looking forward to the DVD release and I was not disappointed. I found the quality of this DVD to be almost flawless in Eastman Color and sound. Oscar nominee Eleanor Parker is quite superb as opera diva Marjorie Lawrence. Its hard to believe Parker is not actually singing the arias but the voice is in fact Eileen Farrell.” – post #124 (52” screen)

“The picture seemed much sharper on this new dvd [than a recorded TCM version]. But still could have been cleaned up more. My only issue is around the 56” mark the sound drops noticably. I checked my tcm version ,and it does the same.But the TCM drop doesn't seem to be as big of a drop as the new dvd. Still happy to have the film.” – post #105

“Full screen/Technicolor-Looks as good as similar Doris Day/WB DVDs of the same vintage-which means decent, unrestored condition. No trailer. Great Cagney.” – post #61

“has occasional print damage, and has "cigarette burns" (sprocket holes). The color seems a touch faded, too. It reminds me, as to quality, of some of the old pre-recorded studio-made VHS tapes that I had in my collection. But still very "watchable" “ – post #133

“looks okay” – post #58

“Picture quality decent but not as good looking as 24 year old Ann-Margret. Trailer was 4x3 letterbox.” – post #61

“I can't say I am overly impressed with what I saw. Video quality is quite watchable, but I would be very disappointed if this were a major studio release. Picture looked somewhat compressed as there were visible artifacts. The fact I was using a upconverting BD player probably magnified the transfer deficiencies. I mean, overall, the transfer looked just passable…audio..sounded very clean.” – post #29

Screen Caps – post #69

“looks great in its anamorphic scope transfer.” – post #58

“look[s] great, with proper letterboxing and good black and white contrasts.” – post #63

“… with Garson and Pidgeon is a lavish costume picture that has been given a first-class presentation here. Very clean image with lovely grey scale, a no impairments that I could see.” – post #111

“look[s] great, with proper letterboxing and good black and white contrasts.” – post #63

“widescreen enhanced in color, looks quite good, comparable to Westbound and Wichita…” – post#139

“This DVD opened with the old Turner logo and there seemed to be flickering on the credits. Did not see this once the film began. However this 70 year old film is showing its age. There were some scratches and the B&W image is on the softer side. But this was not enough to spoil my enjoyment of this beautiful fantasy.” – post #124 (52” screen)

“it's a 16x9 enhanced transfer, with 2.0 stereo surround (at least, that's what the packaging indicates - I can't verify if it's anything beyond 2.0 on my current setup). It did not include a trailer. Interestingly, when I hit the "info" button on my Oppo DVD player, rather than indicating that the disc was a DVD-R (as it normally does), it showed up as a regular DVD. So whatever they're doing to manufacture them, that does seem to lend some proof to WB's claim that their MOD process is a little different than standard burn-at-home stuff …As far as the packaging, the cases they came in were not shrinkwrapped and appeared to be slightly thicker than standard amarays. The discs themselves seemed securely fastened in the cases, and I had no problem removing the disc from the case. The label printed on the disc was of a pretty good, glossy quality, and the outer sleeve packaging is about what you'd expect based on the screenshots on their website …From the few minutes I watched, I was pleased with the quality. It doesn't look like it's been freshly restored or like a brand new film, but having only seen the film on cable before, it certainly looks far better than any broadcast I had previously come across.” – post #108

“I had no problems playing the DVD and thought the video presentation looked good considering this movie was low budget and filmed in 83/84 timeframe with that ugly film stock they used back in those days. The color is not vibrant at all and it's a little murky especially the night scenes, but at least, it's anamorphic widescreen and looks relatively clean. It's the best we're going to get for this little title and I'm happy to finally have it in my collection in its OAR.” – post #89

“It is fairly low bitrate, and suffers from egregious edge enhancement. The day for night scenes are very dark (at least on my set). The soundtrack was 2.0 surround. The picture was not particularly sharp, but I do not think it was "fake anamorphic". The edge enhancement caused halos and sometimes strobing. The studs on the French armor would strobe if the character was in medium to long shot. There were some speckles, but it was not an especially scratchy print, though no cleanup was done. – presented at a ratio of 2.55:1 – included a non-anamorphic widescreen trailer includes + Screen caps – posts #90 and #91

“… anamorphic but [it] fall[s] a little below the standards of a regular Warner catalog release from that time period. I did see signs of compression and … some softness and lack of detail in some scenes more than others. I would rate the transfer as fair in relation to a regular DVD release. But since this is what I expected, I can't say I am disappointed.” – post #101 (40” screen)

“There were some age-related white speckles throughout and the reel change markers were there, but the color was good and the close-ups were nice and sharp. There was some smearing in long shots, and I did notice a couple of places of interlaced shimmer, but they were minor instances, not major problems. Sound had some hiss, but actually, the film looked and sounded much as I remembered it in the theater when I saw a reissue of it in a revival theater (remember those?).” – post #62

“I was very impressed by the color print and sound. Colors in the film seem quite vivid and even more so towards the latter part of the movie in the musical numbers. The sound seemed almost stereo-like for the musical sequences especially in the opera finale. There are a few flaws in the print, minor scratches but nothing to get upset about. There was no trailer included on the disc.” – post #97

“It's just okay - quite soft - with what looks like a bit of edge ringing in some scenes. The software they are using for the compression seems to have problems with the color red…it did look quite soft and slightly fuzzy, like a dupe. Color was okay though, and the print seemed to be in good condition. I like that the original trailer was included. The compression and encoding didn't sport as many flaws as some of the other titles, but it was interlaced and lacked the fine definition of many other titles released to DVD from the same time period.” – post #36 (screen caps), #59

“looks ugly, smoggy, muddy, with no vibrance to its look at all.” – post #58

... pretty good! In fact, for the most part, it had a nice "film like" quality to it -- which is really all I ask of a transfer. Yes, there was some grain and occasional "speckles" due to print damage but the color was good and even vibrant in places. MPEG-2 compression artifacts seemed minimal. The Wide shots were a little soft (typical of DVD), but closeups looked good and sharp. I would say the resulting picture was about on average with the way good quality commercial DVDs from this era looked on this setup.’ – post #96 (32”screen)

“[using a} Toshiba HDMI XDE-500 upconverting and enhancing DVD player … in "sharp+color" 1080p/24 mode … movie immediately started out looking more like "video" than "film" when viewed with this setting. EE was visible (although not too obtrusive) on all wide shots; and most closeups had moire' artifacts around anything with a cross-hatch pattern (like Newleys' collar in a phone booth in an early scene). Turning off all XDE modes and dropping the upscaling back to 1080p/60 helped a lot -- but the transfer still never approached looking like film. The grain and print defects also looked a little worse on the projector, but I expected that that would be the case. Grain and print defects don't really bother me unless they become too intrusive. On the plus side colors looked stable (even the reds) and the resulting picture was definitely viewable. If I was assigning a grade based on comparable commercial DVDs, I would give it a C+.” – post #96 (96” screen)

“This is the oldest film of the five I purchased from the Warner Archive and yet it has the best image quality! The image is framed at 1.33:1 and is impeccably clean with a grand grayscale, one that unfortunately shows up the limitations of the encoding…Presented in its original mono (Dolby Digital 2.0 - 192 kbps), the film sounds as other films from the era do: a bit shrill and sharp, but quite distinct and intelligible. Surface noise was never a problem, and I didn't detect any distortion or optical track funkiness…I'm pleased with the result, even if the fact that it is interlaced and features substandard encoding does give me pause. The theatrical trailer is also included, though not noted anywhere on the packaging or the Warner Archive website.” + screen caps – post #16

“it does not look like a standard DVD...more like a VHS tape. The sound is good but the picture is not; one or so too many distractions (some flickering, some edge enhancement...).” – post #57

“…began production on January 30, 1953 and was composed for 1:37 presentation. Warner Bros. did not switch to widescreen cinematography until May/June of 1953.” – post #87

“although the color might not have been on par with So This Is Love, I was pretty satisfied with the look of this DVD. Unlike another comment, I did not find any flickering or edge enhancement and at times the colors were quite vivid. Reds sometimes tend to be oversaturated and this does not bother me as I have seen this on many HDNET color telecasts. The screen caps don't do the film justice. Sound quality was quite good. I am wondering if inconsistencies in watching this films and maybe others have to do with what TV or DVD system one is using. BTW, the notes on this DVD are quite laughable. They state "cameos from real life Broadway legends George Abbott, Moss Hart and Ira Gershwin." These three legends are played by actors impersonating these people.” – post #124 (52” screen) Screen Caps – post #69

“anamorphic widescreen in [its] original 1.85:1 aspect ratio…I found the video and audio quality to compare favorably with the other restored versions of the "Ranown" films on DVD...” - post #24

“looked decent, but was plagued with very minor video shifting and some minor compression artifacts…audio.sounded very clean.” – post #29

“widescreen…color…Picture Quality..was very good---comparable to traditional DVD (pressed) releases for fifty year old films.” – post #54

“widescreen…color…Picture Quality..was very good---comparable to traditional DVD (pressed) releases for fifty year old films…quite a revelation. Aspect Ratio is 2.55x1.” – post #54

“looks..good, which is a real treat” – post #58