UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory -- in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[JohnMor]

I was happy when I saw the original review for this but after seeing the revised lower scores and seeing the reframing I will have to pass. They should have left the framing alone and not let someone go through the movie and reframe whatever they wanted as it's no longer the same movie as before. Is there anyone with contacts at WB who could provide an answer on why they changed the framing destroying the original intent? That is the main dealbreaker as I could have lived with the overly cleaned grain and no mono even if it would be a letdown.

It’s a pass for me as well. The blu will suit me fine until there’s a better UHD, if there ever is. A shame, but both Warners and I will survive.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It’s a pass for me as well. The blu will suit me fine until there’s a better UHD, if there ever is. A shame, but both Warners and I will survive.

Don't hold your breath! However, you're right, all parties will survive.

 

[dpippel]

Well crap. When I think of Wonka Vision this is NOT what comes to mind. What a shame.

 

[Robert Harris]

All else aside, most viewers seem to love this release.

 

[AllanMc]

I'm sure that there are improvements but the reframing just disturbs me for lack of a better word. This is not something I want to see any company make a habit out of especially when the filmmakers aren't around to do anything about it. I just can't support a practice like this and the fact this happened worries me about future remasters of other classics. This is very disheartening.

I hope all who got this enjoy it but the cropping is something i know i won't be able to overlook.

 

[Mark-P]

Very well thought out review over at high def disc news.

While I don’t generally trust frame grabs, if these are correct, the film has been re-framed, potentially correcting an earlier problem of exposing too much of the left side of the frame, which would have been covered by the track.

But that isn’t what was done in this situation, as the new version of exposed picture area changers in different shots.

Cropping the image to 1.85, as well as losing the track area, loses a great deal of real estate, changing positioning for different shots, and turns medium shots into medium close-ups. If this was the original intent, then it’s fine. All one has to do is run a masked print, which was presumably done.

But again, that’s not what was done here.

Someone was deciding how they liked each shot framed, and that function, short of having the DP or director at one’s side, should not occur.

If both filmmakers’ intent and also history were set aside, the film would probably appear less claustrophobic at 1.66.

As it is, the new closer-ups make a strange film, even more odd.

I’ll leave the task of comparing the attached 4k frames to the new disc to confirm.

4K Ultra HD Blu-ray Review – HighDefDiscNews

Posts about 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray Review written by Justin Sluss

highdefdiscnews.com

I think the guy who first claimed that the original Blu-ray was horribly misframed was saying that it is the version where each shot was individually reframed, many of which exposed left-side soundtrack area. And if the new 4K is the actual SMPTE framing, then the variation between the old and new would be from the revisionism of the old, not the new.

 

[David Norman]

I think the guy who first claimed that the original Blu-ray was horribly misframed was saying that it is the version where each shot was individually reframed, many of which exposed left-side soundtrack area. And if the new 4K is the actual SMPTE framing, then the variation between the old and new would be from the revisionism of the old, not the new.

That was certainly my understanding. I don't have the 4K disc, but the BD was the botched item and the 4K appears to have corrected most of those issues. I certainly have no way to tell which is closer to the original, but from all the examples I've seen so far in screenshots, the framing on the 4K makes far more sense to me than the BD if I have to pick one being closer to original intent. It seems avoiding the 4K and accepting the BD based on the framing argument appears backwards.

With the otehr improvements and what seems to be framing correction, the 4K has far fewer issue

 

[Robert Harris]

That was certainly my understanding. I don't have the 4K disc, but the BD was the botched item and the 4K appears to have corrected most of those issues. I certainly have no way to tell which is closer to the original, but from all the examples I've seen so far in screenshots, the framing on the 4K makes far more sense to me than the BD if I have to pick one being closer to original intent. It seems avoiding the 4K and accepting the BD based on the framing argument appears backwards.

With the otehr improvements and what seems to be framing correction, the 4K has far fewer issue

While the 4k corrected the exposure of the left side issue, it seems to have introduced new ones. And we're not referencing opticals.

To be clear, and I have no direct knowledge, there are probably shots exposed without image in the track area (a different camera), necessitating whomever prepared the original (old) Blu-ray master to adapt the framing for those shots while (whilst) not understanding why it might have been necessary. It is those shots that seem to match the positioning of the original Blu-ray.

If that's the case, then the work on the new 4k was performed correctly, and the non-repositioned shots were always locked in as they were. This situation shines a light upon any attempt to make comparisons between new and older video transfers, as opposed to referencing original prints.

The lesson: There is little to nothing to be learned from referencing video materials.

What it goes back to is that whomever set up the matte for the original video had little to no understanding of why certain shots might not have info in the track area - and never taking into consideration what might or might not have been seen in absolutely perfect projection of an original 35mm release print.

Regardless, none of this will damage the viewing experience of those who enjoy the film. The fact that I don’t believe that the grain structure is original is also irrelevant to that cause, as the imagery will be perceived to look better - not worse.

Reminds me of how Kwai was handled for original printing in 1957, except the opposite, where the left side of the frame was covered by track, as opposed to being exposed - and the image improperly centered.

This was corrected for later home video releases.

And it still won an award or three.

 

[AlexNH]

I'm sure that there are improvements but the reframing just disturbs me for lack of a better word. This is not something I want to see any company make a habit out of especially when the filmmakers aren't around to do anything about it. I just can't support a practice like this and the fact this happened worries me about future remasters of other classics. This is very disheartening.

I hope all who got this enjoy it but the cropping is something i know i won't be able to overlook.

UPDATE: The 4K transfer does seem to be correct (and with far better color too, and the Paramount logo)!

 

[MatthewA]

Were the original 35mm Technicolor prints open-matte or hard-matted? There's your answer.

Although the Laserdisc format launched way back in 1978, it didn't come into its own as a "videophile" medium until the early 1990s. Disc releases in the 1980s were sporadic and tended to be poor quality.

Even so, they waited on a Wonka release in that format longer than I would have expected.

The oldest home video release I've seen of any kind was from 1984:

 

[Robert Harris]

Were the original 35mm Technicolor prints open-matte or hard-matted? There's your answer.



Even so, they waited on a Wonka release in that format longer than I would have expected.

The oldest home video release I've seen of any kind was from 1984:

I believe original prints were dye transfer, and would presumably have been derived by creating the optically produced printing matrices directly from what is called the "RA" or regular area of the frame, as opposed to "FA," or full area.

Because they were already optically produced could have been any format.

 

[moviebuff75]

The 1978 NBC broadcast doesn't have a logo at the end. It has a Paramount logo at the beginning. Was there no Paramount logo at the end?

 

[B-ROLL]

The 1978 NBC broadcast doesn't have a logo at the end. It has a Paramount logo at the beginning. Was there no Paramount logo at the end?

If there was a closing logo in in theater I don't remember it. People would be up out of their seats and exiting the theater as virtually no one stayed for the credits. Also, it was difficult to read through the shear curtains that started moving across the screen ...

 

[MatthewA]

Plenty of other Paramount releases from 1971 had them, particularly Harold and Maude:

 

[moviebuff75]

It seems like if it was on the elements, WB would have included it. It was not a Paramount production. It was Wolper and their in credit ident is there. I would also think it would be on the NBC version since it had the opening.

 

[MatthewA]

Either way, I'm still buying this disc. Whoever did the framing obviously had the same intentions in mind as whoever framed the 30th anniversary DVD that was only created after the uproar over a full-frame-only disc announced first. I haven't been able to track down the Roger Ebert rant about it.

And even if we only get the 1996 remix, at least it's lossless. The reinstatement of the original Paramount logo is the icing on the cake, a small consolation for the mighty WB shield itself being retired for ugly and garish text in the middle of the sky.

 

[AllanMc]

While the 4k corrected the exposure of the left side issue, it seems to have introduced new ones. And we're not referencing opticals.

To be clear, and I have no direct knowledge, there are probably shots exposed without image in the track area (a different camera), necessitating whomever prepared the original (old) Blu-ray master to adapt the framing for those shots while (whilst) not understanding why it might have been necessary. It is those shots that seem to match the positioning of the original Blu-ray.

If that's the case, then the work on the new 4k was performed correctly, and the non-repositioned shots were always locked in as they were. This situation shines a light upon any attempt to make comparisons between new and older video transfers, as opposed to referencing original prints.

The lesson: There is little to nothing to be learned from referencing video materials.

What it goes back to is that whomever set up the matte for the original video had little to no understanding of why certain shots might not have info in the track area - and never taking into consideration what might or might not have been seen in absolutely perfect projection of an original 35mm release print.

Regardless, none of this will damage the viewing experience of those who enjoy the film. The fact that I don’t believe that the grain structure is original is also irrelevant to that cause, as the imagery will be perceived to look better - not worse.

Reminds me of how Kwai was handled for original printing in 1957, except the opposite, where the left side of the frame was covered by track, as opposed to being exposed - and the image improperly centered.

This was corrected for later home video releases.

And it still won an award or three.

So if I am reading this correctly then the 4k could potentially have correct framing after all? How likely do you think this is and is there anything you noticed while watching in motion which made you question the framing?

If there is no real evidence that it's wrong then I'll probably purchase it as it looks like a big improvement over the BD, it was just the framing I was worried about.

 

[Robert Harris]

So if I am reading this correctly then the 4k could potentially have correct framing after all? How likely do you think this is and is there anything you noticed while watching in motion which made you question the framing?

If there is no real evidence that it's wrong then I'll probably purchase it as it looks like a big improvement over the BD, it was just the framing I was worried about.

As previously noted, this is not a favorite of mine, and I've never researched anything about it.

From everything that I'm seeing, and with a bit of it's history, my feeling is that the framing is probably correct, and that it was the Blu-ray that had to be re-formatted, possibly moving RA shots into a new position.

As long as the overall look is pleasing, as it will be to most viewers, it's a buy.

 

[MatthewA]

I found two articles by Roger Ebert on the old full-frame DVD brouhaha from 20 years ago. Note the date of publication on the one by Salon; that was the last thing on people's minds that day for obvious reasons.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I am a little bothered by the framing, take this shot, the first is the UHD, the second from the blu Ray, you touch it to get the second shot, now look and you will see Willy and his dad are missing from the frame on the UHD, is this just for a few frames, do they appear in that shot, I don’t know but it looks strange to me.

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory • UK Ultra HD Blu-ray vs. US Blu-ray

caps-a-holic.com