WHV Press Release: The Wizard of Oz 70th Anniversary UCE (DVD/Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

^ I can't speak to this presentation but I think alot of the negative buzz about Fathom was when they were playing an, at best, upconverted DVD transfer on a movie theater screen. Now that they're using HD transfers, I imagine that they're alot better.

 

[Mark_TB]

Well, I think I have an answer. On another forum, someone emailed Fathom and asked them about the source material. Their reply?

The showing of The Wizard of Oz in high-def is being shown one week before the DVD release – it is the same high-def as will be on Blu-Ray.

Can I assume this means it will be 1080p? And that this would be inferior to a 35mm film print or the normal theatrical digital projection?

- Mark

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Mark_TB

Well, I think I have an answer. On another forum, someone emailed Fathom and asked them about the source material. Their reply?

The showing of The Wizard of Oz in high-def is being shown one week before the DVD release – it is the same high-def as will be on Blu-Ray.

Can I assume this means it will be 1080p? And that this would be inferior to a 35mm film print or the normal theatrical digital projection?

- Mark

It's my understanding that the Hidef master for WOZ was scanned at 4k. That's then downrezzed for Blu Ray. If they literally mean that the BR transfer is being used for the theatrical showing, you'd have about 2k resolution (1080p). It wouldn't be very different from the 2k resolution shown by many theaters. If some theaters used the full 4k HD master, that would be noticeably better.

 

[Brandon Conway]

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/blu-ray-disc/wizard-oz-debut-blu-ray-disc-70th-birthday-16050

"The film has been entirely remastered for the high-definition format. Each of the original Technicolor camera negatives was scanned using 8K resolution. From this scan, a final 'capture' master was created in 4K, giving the Blu-ray twice the resolution of the master for the film's previous DVD release. The Blu-ray also features Dolby TrueHD audio."

 

[Patrick McCart]

I opted to cancel my preorders for both this and Gone with the Wind so I could get the half priced regular UK BluRays. Region free and only $25 USD each.

 

[Garysb]

Amazon has exclusive pictures if you order from them:

Amazon Exclusive Set of 4 Collectible 8x10 Character PostersAs most have said they just want the movie on blu-ray I don't think this will help sales much

Still if there are people who want everything. I wonder if other retailers will have their own exclusives.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002HMDOAW/ref=s9_simz_gw_s0_p74_t1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0N7W66T1D63K2FJBQJ1V&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846

 

[Terry Hickey]

The only exclusive I would like to see is just the movie on blu-ray like Walmart had with 'Woodstock'. The chances of lightning striking twice are very slim.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by Terry Hickey /forum/thread/288902/whv-press-rele...-anniversary-uce-dvd-blu-ray/210#post_3599353

 

[Mark_TB]

Originally Posted by Patrick McCart ">[/url]

I opted to cancel my preorders for both this and Gone with the Wind so I could get the half priced regular UK BluRays. Region free and only $25 USD each.
[/QUOTE]Can anyone verify that if I order this from the UK, I should have no trouble playing it, and all of the bonus features, on my unmodified Blu-ray player here in the States? (Yes, I've read the previous posts in this thread and am pretty sure that's the case, but I'd just like confirmation

 

[benbess]

Is anyone else seeing OZ in a theater at the one time showing on, I believe, Wednesday, Sept. 23rd? I'm going with my kids and looking forward to it. I still wonder if a properly made real technicolor print would in fact look better than this digital projection we're going to see, but I guess I'll never know.

Well, in the 1989 re-release that I saw in theaters it did look pretty good. I don't actually know what kind of print I was looking at then.

There are rumors that there are fine quality technicolor prints that were made in the 60s or 70s that are still floating around and are in pretty good shape...

 

[Rob_Ray]

Originally Posted by benbess

Is anyone else seeing OZ in a theater at the one time showing on, I believe, Wednesday, Sept. 23rd? I'm going with my kids and looking forward to it. I still wonder if a properly made real technicolor print would in fact look better than this digital projection we're going to see, but I guess I'll never know.

We're going. A friend of mine whose opinion in these matters I respect saw the digital presentation at the Motion Picture Academy and gave up his thumbs up with the caveat that the Academy's projection was too bright. The skintones and color saturation levels were fine.

As to whether a genuine Technicolor print would look better, I would guess that's a matter of opinion. But the digital print will definitely look different. For one thing, it will be much sharper since 3 strip Technicolor is inherently blurrier due to the three matrices involved. But there's a texture from the grain in the film stock that no doubt will be gone and missed by those who have seen IB Tech prints. Life is full of compromises and all in all, I suspect the plusses will outweigh the minuses if for no other reason than the fact that how many people in earlier re-releases could view the film theatrically from a source as pristine as this? Digital replication has its advantages.

 

[RDarrylR]

Originally Posted by Mark_TB ) Thanks in advance.

- Mark

I doubt anyone can answer with certainty right now but from everything i've read we should be fine.

I'm confident i'll be happy with my order of this and Gone With The Wind from the UK.

 

[benbess]

Rob Ray: Thanks for this response. I'm hoping from what you've written that this will be an excellent experience.

By any chance do you know, or does anyone know, what most digital projectors are like these days in most theaters? Specifically, I've heard that most projectors are "2k." Forgive my ignorance, but I don't really know what that means. I assume (and I may be wrong here) that true hdtv being a bit more than 1000 lines of horizontal resolution is "1k"--which is what I've got on my sony xbr tv at home. So "2k" is twice that. But given my screen is only 46 inches in diagonal, and I assume that the screen I'm seeing it on is more than 46 feet diagonally measured, the limitations of 2k may become apparent if you get too close--just as they are apparent for 1k when I'm a few inches away from my tv. So, I would assume that 4k would do for even a pretty large theater. Is that correct? And are more theaters now buying 4k projectors?

 

[Rob_Ray]

I can't answer any of the technical questions but I can tell you this: I own the Blu-Ray of Gigi and recently saw it presented theatrically in a digital print. Seeing Gigi on a giant wide screen, while the image was probably as sharp as a 35mm print, I still felt like I was watching my Blu-Ray. There's just something about watching actual film...

I'm sure Oz will look fine but it won't look like any film print you've ever seen.

 

[benbess]

Yeah, that makes sense. I have a feeling it will look rather like a glorified blu-ray. Which is not a bad thing, since I'm new to blu and so far absolutely love it.

I have an acquaintance from another forum who tells me that a well made film print will almost always blow away anything purely digital, and I have a feeling that at this point he may be right. But with future improvements, who knows which will really be better.

I see that you're in So Cal, where I grew up. You probably know that there's a little festival of real Cinerama movies going on right now at the Cinerama Dome in LA. Wish I could be there for that. The highlight of their show is How the West Was Won--done with newly restored prints, three projectors, etc., etc. Even though that film may not be that great, apparently seeing it in that format is pretty cool.

Anyway, don't know if this link will work:

https://www.arclightcinemas.com/ArcLight/faces/MovieDetails.jsp?movieName=ArcLight+Presents%26%2346%3B%26%2346%3B%26%2346%3BHOW+THE+WEST+WAS+WON&pageInfo=ARC

 

I am reading online that wires were digitally erased for this new edition. The thinking was that 1939 audiences couldn't see them because of film stock, etc. However, I just popped in the 1998 disc and you can plainly see the wires holding up the Scarecrow. Something about the argument doesn't add up and frankly I'm a little concerned about it.

 

I am reading online that wires were digitally erased for this new edition. The thinking was that 1939 audiences couldn't see them because of film stock, etc. However, I just popped in the 1998 disc and you can plainly see the wires holding up the Scarecrow. Something about the argument doesn't add up and frankly I'm a little concerned about it.

 

double post

 

[benbess]

Eric Scott: Interesting. By any chance do you have a link?

Thanks, Ben

 

[Rob_Ray]

Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard

I am reading online that wires were digitally erased for this new edition. The thinking was that 1939 audiences couldn't see them because of film stock, etc. However, I just popped in the 1998 disc and you can plainly see the wires holding up the Scarecrow. Something about the argument doesn't add up and frankly I'm a little concerned about it.

I would think they would almost *have* to digitally erase those wires. If you were looking for them in older prints, they were always visible, but with Warner's ultra-resolution process perfectly aligning those three color matrices, the wires would almost become a distraction. It's an interesting dilemma -- what do you do when the improved resolution starts revealing things that the original filmmakers assumed would be obscured.