A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Wizard of Oz -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Adam_S]

Originally Posted by Greg_M

I saw the Film last month at Warner Bros' backlot theater - it looked great - almost as if it were filmed yesterday. Should look great on Blu-ray. On Wed Sept 23 some theaters will screen the print in HD - if you can GO see it you'll be glad you did.

I'll just point out that this screening won't be as good as the bluray because it will only be 1080i and then upconverted (or not) as necessary by different theatres.

 

[benbess]

So the bottom line seems to be that a blu-ray in your home (1080p) can be better than a digital projection in the theater? Wow. I don't know if that's good news or bad news. I guess it's both....

 

Can anyone with a preview copy of the disc let me know if the Garland line "Oh Toto, Don't!" is present on this disc or is it the 1998 version where she simply wimpers "Oh Toto" as Uncle Henry is placing the dog in the basket? Thanks!

 

[ATimson]

Originally Posted by benbess

So the bottom line seems to be that a blu-ray in your home (1080p) can be better than a digital projection in the theater?

A real digital projection? No. The satellite events? Possibly. I don't know about their resolution, but at the one I saw there were a few minor glitches early on in the feed.

 

[Adam_S]

Originally Posted by benbess

So the bottom line seems to be that a blu-ray in your home (1080p) can be better than a digital projection in the theater? Wow. I don't know if that's good news or bad news. I guess it's both....

the satellite feed providing the theatres is only 1080i, so yes.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Originally Posted by Jesse Blacklow

Quote:

Here, for starters:
I'm seeing a series of assumptions backed up by arbitrary bitrates, which boils down to evaluating PQ solely on bitrate.
That's a direct contradiction to what you said above, where you explicitly tie bitrate to "detail, accuracy, and fidelity."

What picture quality are you talking about? The technical image quality of the source to be compressed? The subjective image quality of the source judged by different people?
And what exactly is your problem with the Oz example and the example bit rates I gave? So you disagree that
- Oz will not look bad at 17 Mbit/s
- will look better (as in more faithful to the source) at 25 Mbit/s
- will not look bad at even 10 Mbit/s to many people
?
I don't understand where the supposed contradiction is. Bit rate is stronlgy correlated to accuracy and lack of compression artifacts. And accuracy is strongly correlated to the objective technical image quality (not subjective image quality). The arbitrary average bit rates I gave are examples for Oz, but pretty much in the right ballpark. You want to talk about specific encoders or parameter settings in addition to the bit rate? I'm not saying they are irrelevant. But if you discuss bit rates in general and different sources and studios it's pointless to assume WB has better encoders or better compressionists who use more suitable parameters than the rest of the industry. So what applies in general applies to them and Oz as well. And what kind of bit rates work together with what kind of sources to achieve a result that can be called visually lossless relative to specific viewing conditions is not a complete mistery. Experience from many years of using these codecs has given ballpark numbers that describe the situation well.
I'm not saying bit rate is the only relevant factor. But the average bit rate does set upper limits for the kind of accuracy you can achieve. For finely detailed grainy material like Oz an average bit rate of < 20 Mbit/s leaves some quality on the table. You disagree?

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner

What picture quality are you talking about? The technical image quality of the source to be compressed? The subjective image quality of the source judged by different people?

Quality is pretty much a subjective term by it's definition. I have no idea what you mean when you refer to "technical image quality of the source" apart from resolution.

And what exactly is your problem with the Oz example and the example bit rates I gave? So you disagree that
- Oz will not look bad at 17 Mbit/s
- will look better (as in more faithful to the source) at 25 Mbit/s
- will not look bad at even 10 Mbit/s to many people
?

My problem is that you're stating all of the above as fact and using arbitrary numbers. There's so many other factors in play here (motion on screen, film grain, encoding tool, and codec, just for starters) that it's impossible to say what differences would be noticeable at what point by what people. To your credit, you do address some of these.

I don't understand where the supposed contradiction is. Bit rate is stronlgy correlated to accuracy and lack of compression artifacts. And accuracy is strongly correlated to the objective technical image quality (not subjective image quality). The arbitrary average bit rates I gave are examples for Oz, but pretty much in the right ballpark. You want to talk about specific encoders or parameter settings in addition to the bit rate? I'm not saying they are irrelevant. But if you discuss bit rates in general and different sources and studios it's pointless to assume WB has better encoders or better compressionists who use more suitable parameters than the rest of the industry.

The contradiction is in the assumptions, essentially. And your insistence on not following assumptions re: Warner further confuses the situation, and the fact that every single PQ discussion you have hinges on bitrates just seems misplaced.

I'm not saying bit rate is the only relevant factor. But the average bit rate does set upper limits for the kind of accuracy you can achieve. For finely detailed grainy material like Oz an average bit rate of < 20 Mbit/s leaves some quality on the table. You disagree?

Again, there are so many factors that I can't say that, and I don't think anyone can, even the people responsible. I'd hazard a guess that on even high-end calibrated system, a double-blind style of testing with unbiased observers wouldn't be likely to reveal any difference between your 17-25Mbps range, and possibly lower. But if you've got the bitrate meter on, already have a bias towards look for problems regardless of whether they exist, and some sort of arbitrary measurement, I'm sure you'll find something wrong with it.

 

[Ruz-El]

I'm not reading your reviews anymore Mr. Harris. I was quite content to skip this since I was happy with the previous DVD edition. Now this is a must buy for me! darn you!

 

[RolandL]

dvdbeaver has a comparison - http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/wizard.htm

 

[BillyFeldman]

Well, I'm hoping those screencaps are not indicative of the step-up in quality, color, and sharpness because in the screencaps I don't see all that much difference between the last DVD release and this new Blu-Ray - but then again, his screencaps never tell the story and therefore I don't really see what purpose they serve. I like the idea of having the comparisons, but I've bought too many DVDs and Blu-Rays where the difference between what I'm seeing and what's on those screencaps is huge. Wizard will be here next week and we'll all know.

 

[Paul Arnette]

Originally Posted by BillyFeldman

...but then again, his screencaps never tell the story and therefore I don't really see what purpose they serve.

Good to see I'm not the only one that feels this way...

 

[Adam_S]

if the screencaps aren't convincing then I would trust the people who have seen it in motion.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

So, is anyone going to any of the 440 theaters showing the 4K version tonight? I only just learned about the theatrical showings about and hour ago and am debating the matter. (I had a little outpatient foot surgery yesterday and I'm not sure I'll be up for a long film plus the intro. Wish I'd heard about this sooner, I would have rescheduled the doc and gone to the movie. You have to have your priorities straight in this life. )

Later,

Joe

 

[Adam_S]

Originally Posted by Joseph DeMartino )

Later,

Joe

these theatres are receiving a satellite feed that is 1080i and are projecting it on their screens. It's not a 4K screening, though it may be shown through a 4K projector at some venues, the source is definitely not 4K

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Adam_S

if the screencaps aren't convincing then I would trust the people who have seen it in motion.

In this case, the captures posted to Beaver are quite accurate, and the difference between the SD version of the film and the Blu-ray are immense and obvious. They may appear to be less so at an image size of four inches.

RAH

 

[Vincent_P]

Regarding the whole bit-rate debate, wouldn't a 1.33:1 title like THE WIZARD OF OZ theoretically require LESS bit-rate since a large portion of the image is taken up by those unmoving and unchanging solid black bars at the sides?

Vincent

 

[BillyFeldman]

Well, if they're less obvious at four inches (and they must be way less obvious at four inches), then what it the point of having the captures. To my eye, the difference in the caps on his site are anything but immense and obvious. I've seen some caps on his site where there is a much more obvious difference between SD and Blu-Ray counterparts, but nothing to compare to the obvious difference of actually viewing the Blu-Ray. I'm very much looking forward to the Blu-Ray but the only eyes I trust are mine own - and yes, I've seen IB Technicolor prints of this film my whole life.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris


In this case, the captures posted to Beaver are quite accurate, and the difference between the SD version of the film and the Blu-ray are immense and obvious. They may appear to be less so at an image size of four inches.

RAH

 

[Michel_Hafner]

QUOTE
Quality is pretty much a subjective term by it's definition. I have no idea what you mean when you refer to "technical image quality of the source" apart from resolution.
QUOTE

That's why we go in circles. It seems you don't understand what the job of compression is. And what image quality of the compressed image means if we don't talk about the image quality of the source per se. Image quality in the compression context is compression quality, e.g. delivering a compressed image that after decompression looks as close to the original uncompressed image as possible, whether that image has a quality you would call good or bad, pleasing or ugly, sharp or fuzzy, film like or not. It means lack of visible compression artifacts. It means don't take anything away from the original image and don't add anything to it, ideally, and if you do take and add make it so that humans can't see it under certain viewing conditions (such as real time and sitting 2 screen heights away), either with access to the original at the same time or without.

QUOTE
My problem is that you're stating all of the above as fact and using arbitrary numbers.
QUOTE

They are ballpark numbers that apply here in my experience. If you think they are wrong then suggest better ones and explain why, please.

QUOTE

The contradiction is in the assumptions, essentially. And your insistence on not following assumptions re: Warner further confuses the situation, and the fact that every single PQ discussion you have hinges on bitrates just seems misplaced.
QUOTE

There are no contradictions. Bit rate is THE relevant parameter here. All other parameters are either a given (such as the quality of the source, the use of AVC or VC-1) or it makes little sense to speculate on them as they are the same for all studios and we can assume all studios know how to use them properly (encoder settings, operator skill). I'm not saying a high bit rate encoding means a great looking disc, because there is no such connection. A high bit rate only gives the means to compress the source accurately. How 'good' the source looks is an entirely different issue. And so is the possibility someone uses the high bit rate very inefficiently and produces worse results than a more skilled person. But it would be silly to assume WB has all the skilled people and the other studios don't, so they need 50% higher bit rates to achieve what WB achieves. Makes no sense. What I'm saying is that the average bit rate sets hard upper limits for the accuracy of the compression and WB often uses lower average bit rates than other studios. While it's true that with variable bit rates they still can go all the way up at times. But if they do they also have to go below the average to compensate. Win some, lose some.
It is known from working with these codecs that the bit rates where things start to become visually lossless under critical viewing conditions is not 10 Mbit/s or 15 Mbit/s average with grainy detailed material. It's above 20 Mbit/s and requires peaks into the 40s and beyond. That's just how it is.
And no, with me it's not all the time about bit rates when I talk about BD quality. It's always about the proper film look and various digital artifacts eating away at it. Compression is only part of that, for many BDs not the quality bottleneck. For WB titles though it is sometimes clearly the weakest aspect. Why they are so in love with medium to low average bit rates, who knows.
For Oz they used 23 Mbit/s average which is high enough that obvious compression issues should not be visible.
For people interested in this stuff (and more):
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=147300

 

[Wayne_j]

I just got back from the theater event.

The projector definitely could have been brighter as the picture was pretty muddy. The sepia scenes were noticably sharper than most of the technicolor scenes. There was also noticable image stuttering during shots with large amounts of motion.

I still was able to enjoy the event due to the size of the screen and the community experience. I would prefer in the future that if theater events aren't of something live, they distribute it either by a hard drive or by a blu-ray disc authored for the presentation.

The biggest laugh happened after the end credits when the windows 'start button' appeared at the bottom of the screen.

Does anyone know if they did wire removal on the Lion's tail? I did not notice it tonight and it was very obvious in previous DVD releases.

 

[benbess]

Just came back.

It was great! I still *love* that film. Picture quality was a mixed bag, imho, but the movie itself is wonderful and it was great to see it with an audience. I was transported away. I didn't even think that often "I'm watching a movie." Obviously I was aware of it, but I was really wrapped up in it more than I thought I would be....Laughed and cried. And we all applauded at the end...

I'm guessing the pq will be better on my home system.