Why some films look better on cable than on DVD

[Smokey]

I bought the 1951 WWII navy movie Caine Mutiny on DVD yesterday which have issue date of 2010. While watching it last night, I noticed alot of inconsistency regarding picture quality.

In general the picture quality is good, but in some spots the picture turns brownish, and other spots the colors seem faded and skin tone turns yellowish. And sometimes the sea is purple instead of blue.

I have watched this movie over years on cable and never seen such an inconsistency in picture quality. The picture qulity have always looked kind of decent and remember never seeing purple sea when it was on cable.

I am guessing on cable, there is alot of edge and noise enhancements where alot of picture flaws are kind of hidden and smoothed over. Or just may be the the studio just did lousy job of DVD remastering. I vote for the latter.

[Worf101]

When you find out, let a brother know will ya?

Worf

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I bought the 1951 WWII navy movie Caine Mutiny on DVD yesterday which have issue date of 2010. While watching it last night, I noticed alot of inconsistency regarding picture quality.

In general the picture quality is good, but in some spots the picture turns brownish, and other spots the colors seem faded and skin tone turns yellowish. And sometimes the sea is purple instead of blue.

I have watched this movie over years on cable and never seen such an inconsistency in picture quality. The picture qulity have always looked kind of decent and remember never seeing purple sea when it was on cable.

I am guessing on cable, there is alot of edge and noise enhancements where alot of picture flaws are kind of hidden and smoothed over. Or just may be the the studio just did lousy job of DVD remastering. I vote for the latter.

It could be that cable used a newer remastered source, and the DVD is from an older printmaster. It does not necessarily mean a poor remastering job, just a complete lack of remastering period.

[Smokey]

It does not necessarily mean a poor remastering job, just a complete lack of remastering period.

From the look of film, you're probably right. The strange thing is this is the second reissue of movie on DVD (first one being in 1998), amd one would thought at least studio would clean it up a bit for second time around.

Most of time I have seen this movie on TCM, and as you said they may have better quality prints. But I imagine the original negative prints (if there is one) still reside with Columbia Piture which issue the DVD.

But neverthless it is an awesome movie which I'm sure you and Worf would agree