DVD Review HTF REVIEW: The Wizard Of Oz - Three-Disc Collector's Edition (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED). (1 Viewer)

[Mike Frezon]

Duh! I think your smile gave that away!

 

[DeeF]

Yes, I think that's right. The first 2 disks make up the 2-disk edition. The 3rd disk has the other Oz movies on it, and this is what is not included in the 2-disk set.

 

[Jonathan T.]

I think the new transfer has an obvious yellow cast, which IMO is unfortunate. More vibrant, yes, but better, I am not so sure.

I'll still buy it.

 

[Jeff D Han]

I pre-ordered this set from Amazon, and I'm looking
forward to checking out the extras. I have the Ultimate
Oz laserdisc, and I'm keeping it for the original Fricke
commentary, and the wonderful packaging. That's the one
thing lasers still have over DVDs- the packages on some
of the collector's sets are special.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Make it BLUE!!

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Come on David, admit it. You really want it made... DEEP PINK

 

[JoeJ]

Oh yes. This review makes me feel good for upgrading my old Region 2 1 disc version. And seeing as how I adore bonus features, this looks like it won't disappoint.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Pretty much all of Warner's Ultra Resolution restorations have a golden tint to the image.

 

[Kevin M]

DEEP PINK.......sounds like a porno supercomputer that can play a mean game of checkers.

 

[Wes]

I debated on posting this seeing as my perception on these DVD's are not shared by many if any, but I just wanted to run these screen captures into Photo Shop and do what I had suggested they needed. Lets see if you can guess which one is the new, which is the old and which is my Photo shopped picture.
Later I will tell which if you can't figure it out and tell what I did to achieve it if your even a bit interested!
http://wizardofoz.iwarp.com/photo.html

Wes

 

[Kevin M]

Top first WB
Middle new WB
Bottom MGM or....?

Right?

And what was the point behind this?

 

[rich_d]

Top = Old

Middle = New

Bottom = Photoshop

Wes:

I thought about trying the same thing to see how I would adjust it (looks like you took the old and adjusted it). Nice job ... I think you brought a nice healthy balance to things.

As someone mentioned, not everyone sees colors the same which can make discussions tough for those that are messed up.

 

[Wes]

Here is three more to consider!
http://wizardofoz.iwarp.com/photo2.html

Sorry could not fit them on the same page!

Wes

 

[rich_d]

Photoshop adjusted versions of the new DVD.

Wes, did you apply the same exact changes to all three images?

 

[Kevin M]

AH, I'm sorry for not understanding, you adjusted the new colors in photoshop to a point that you consider to be "correct".......considering that original dye transfers were used to match correct color to what the original filmmakers had approved I still don't see the true point behind this exercise.

 

[rich_d]

Kevin,

I'm just catching up on the discussion. How do we know the dye transfers match what the filmmakers approved? Were they even involved? How do we know?

How do we know how good a job WB did matching the dye transfer?

All,

I'm taking a wait and see approach to an opinion on the colors of the new disc.

However, as posters have noted, if one takes the opinion that WB professionals have created expert workmanship in this new video presentation than why the large differences in color? Was the dye transfer lost in a cave so that these professionals didn't have the best reference material during the last go around?

I guess I'm not willing to accept much on reputation. Like a restaurant, I'll wait to see what the current chef cooks up and judge it on its merits.

Admittedly, I have precious little knowledge about the making of The Wizard of Oz. Why the discussion about filters and such? Were color filters used during the making of the film? Do we have any specific knowledge that the filmmakers were going for invented colors rather than faithfully presented colors of the actors/sets (albeit as close as Technicolor could provide at that point)?

 

[ScottR]

They look different because technology has come a long way since 1998. I'd actually be more concerned if the new edition looked the same..."Dorothy's dress has been this color since I first saw it on television, so I guess I'll make it light blue instead of navy."

 

[Damin J Toell]

The entire ideal of "the original dye transfer print" is a myth. Of the original dye transfer prints, few, if any (say, about 1%), had completely accurate color as was to be found in the negative (er, well, assuming for a moment that the negative wasn't a bunch of black-and-white strips and was color). The majority of those original prints would have had defective colors, to one small degree or another, in one direction or another, in each of the three strips. Those original prints also would have obscured some fine detail held in the negative, given the soft reproduction of the time.

As compared to 1939, the new DVD can be more accurate as to the color as found on the negative. There is little to worry about, anyway, as the new transfer's colors are, with much thanks from this corner of the world, confirmed by those who should know to be well within the acceptable range for the film.

As compared to 1939, the new DVD can also be more accurate as to detail as found on the negative. And Ms. Garland, now truly over the rainbow, is surely embarrassed that modern video transfer technology has led to the discovery of her freckles all these years later.

If the basic "don't worry, be happy" tenor given by some here seems inappropriate for as serious a trade as film restoration...it is probably time to reasses one's assumptions about that trade.

DJ

 

[ScottR]

Nicely said!

 

[Kevin M]

Damin, I'm sorry if I am being dense but I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at, are you saying that dye transfer prints should or shouldn't be used as a guideline for the Director's/DP's intentions?
If dye transfer prints are so unreliable then why use them at all to judge "proper" color, and if this is the case then how do we know at all if the OZ prints that "have always been warm" over the years are accurate at all to the "intended" look of the film? I thought the whole point behind referring to (hopefully) director approved dye transfer prints was that the colors don't fade and therefor are a reasonably* good guide to correct intended color.
Why does RAH (or anyone) partially rely on them in their restorations to judge the DP's & Director's intended color ranges?

*reasonable, not absolute. I understand that they are not totally 100% accurate but I assumed that they were accurate enough to refer to them to begin with.

I'm sorry for the confusion but, again, I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying.