[haroldS]

Last year WBHE released an Essential Classics series of three packs of films. One included the "Wizard of Oz". Is the version used in this set the original DVD release or the later Ultra-Resolution version and if the later, on standard receivers is there a significant improvement in picture quality.

[Garysb]

My understanding is that Warners took Disc 1 of 2 disc sets for the essential
collections rather than older version of film. I am not an expert on comparisons between versions but they both look good. You can see Judy Garland's freckles on the Ultra Resolution version.
You would get more extras on the older version as some of those extras are on disc 2 of the newer version. Wizard of Oz is on moritorum until next year when it comes out on blu ray so you may start having problems finding it soon.

[Ken_McAlinden]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haroldS

Last year WBHE released an Essential Classics series of three packs of films. One included the "Wizard of Oz". Is the version used in this set the original DVD release or the later Ultra-Resolution version and if the later, on standard receivers is there a significant improvement in picture quality.

It is the most recent "Ultra Rez" version. All of the "Essential Classic" releases included the most recent DVD masterings of the films.

My Forum review of the Essential Classics: Family Films set, which includes a link to Herb Kane's review of the Ultra Rez Wizard of Oz, is located at:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...ily-films.html

If you would rather go straight to Herb's review, it is at this link:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...commended.html

Personally, I think it is only a small step up from the previous Warner DVD release, which was also quite good. Your opinions on the differences in color timing between the releases will likely be more of a factor in your preference than the technical improvements in color record registration and video compression.

Regards,

[GregK]

DVD Beaver provides some nice comparisons and also weighs the pros and cons- The Wizard of Oz - Judy Garland

[Patrick McCart]

The 2005 isn't as big of an upgrade at first sight, but it does have more accurate color timing (compared to a dye-transfer print I've seen), much better contrast (witch's cloak is now inky black), and missing the artifacting from DVNR and compression visible on the '99 DVD. Next year's BluRay should look spectacular.

[John Sparks]

Yeah, with all the DNR they're adding on all the new BD releases, "TWOZ" should look just like "CARS" for all the J6Ks out there!!!

FS, WS. OAR. EE and now DNR...the battles are never ending!!!

[MatthewA]

I doubt Warner would remove the grain. They know that film purists like us would crucify them if they tried to over-DNR it.

[mike kaminski]

Yeah the new Warner is much too yellow. But then the previous one was too blue and had weak contrast and DVNR. The detail level between the two is really hit and miss in terms of which is better, sometimes the newer edition improve and sometimes it doesn't. Will be interesting to see how it looks on BR; I'm assuming they'll just use the 2005 collectors edition transfer but maybe they'll tweak it a little bit.

[Ethan Riley]

Remains to be seen--I didn't think the most recent one looked quite...right. It seemed like the reds were too bright. Also, I was wondering about the OAR while we're at it; was it cropped just a tiny little bit?

[Patrick McCart]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatthewA

I doubt Warner would remove the grain. They know that film purists like us would crucify them if they tried to over-DNR it.

There's not a whole lot of film grain to remove. The dye-transfer print I saw had a wonderful fine grain texture. About the same level as Children of Men from what I remember. Overall, the best part of the print was the golden tone to the image. Again, I don't know if the 1998 prints were timed correctly, but the UR remaster keeps that golden look. There's not really any basis in naming either as correct without having seen an original print. Even that's not 100% accurate.