Wierd. I clicked on that link of the comparisons and think the blu-ray original release looks VASTLY clearer and brighter than the new remaster. I'm not saying better, just clearer and brighter - perhaps these were artificial enhancements?

I am mainly talking about the image of the arm / pocket watch:

If however the remaster image is correct, then I can see that the edge enhancement or whatever (I'm no expert) seems much less prominent (such as the roman numerals on the watch), but overall the picture does seem to lack the detail evident in the first release (check out the wall) - whether this is an accurate represntation of the movie or not. Seeing the movie running though may give different results.

I liked Gangs Of New York even though I don't consider it a Scorsese classic, but I would like to see it again.

(Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 4:45 PM)

I admit to not having the eye for image quality that you do, but the images I've seen look lacking in detail, even though the new version, agreed does look more film like. I would like to learn more about 'what' to look for in image quality when watching blu-ray material. Could u point me in the right direction, a how-to website perhaps?

(Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 5:43 PM)

The only negative thing that I see in the AVS forum link you provided is that the remastered blu ray looks a bit cropped on the right side in the comparison shots. Other than that, it looks gorgeous.

(Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 10:28 PM)

The cropping is likely well within SMPTE guidelines. Since Super-35 filmed movies are designed to be optically printed, there are allowances for cropping not only top and bottom, but side to side as well. The actual frame area from perf-to-perf on Super-35 is almost 25mm (it's something like 24.89mm), but the 2.4:1 extraction "safe area" is 10mm X 24mm. It's possible that the old transfer was "opened up" and went all the way to the edge of the film, whereas the new one sticks to the actual 10mm X 24mm standard. I actually have some Super-35 framing charts for DOGMA around here somewhere, if I can get them scanned I'll put up some JPEGs so you can see what I mean.

Vincent

(Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 10:47 PM)

CraigTheRave:

What you want to look for is ACTUAL TEXTURE in the screen-caps. Look at pores in the actors' skin, textures on clothing and fabric, etc. From a distance the old transfer "pops" because it has been artificially sharpened and the contrast has been boosted, but if you look at the actual details of objects, you'll see that the old transfer has almost NO real detail. It has hard edges around basic shapes due to the excessive and horrible processing, but real detail is all but gone. On the new transfer, you see real details and textures to objects.

(Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 10:50 PM)

Craig: Note that any brightness comparisons between the two images are merely relative, and you'd need an accurate color calibrated display to be sure you are seeing the true representation of what the image should/would look like on your home theater setup. So although the old image looks 'brighter' on your computer display, in a calibrated home theater setup the highlights will be blown out, as the contrast is far too high, whereas the new transfer will look far more natural compared with what was originally captured.

(Posted on Monday, February 1, 2010 at 12:17 PM)

A lot of my friends watch their HDTVs with the contrast really high, the picture is so blasted out. It drives me crazy.
My g/f sometimes comments that the picture on my TV looks dark and I say, "that's how it's supposed to look."

(Posted on Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 12:29 AM)

Some good advice. Thanks.

(Posted on Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 8:59 PM)