A few words about... The Wizard of Oz - Page 4

Frankly, though I realize I'm in the minority here, I found the most recent DVD of Wizard to be far inferior to both the original DVD and the Ultimate Oz laserdiscs. These had far deeper, warmer, and more saturated color; also, the more recent DVD was far too bright.

If the new one looks that similar to the last go-round, I for one won't be thrilled with it.

I think the new one will be both very saturated as well as detailed. I saw the film version this summer on a huge screen and the colors were like velvet and extremely saturated. Also the detail was so good you can basically see the pores in people's skin on closeups. I can't wait to read the review here hopefully very soon. I believe they got their screener last week.

Sounds like my experience with Singing in the Rain 35mm after restoration: "Color were like velvet"...it's something that's hard to describe and you have to see the projected print to understand the sensation. Wonderful!

Only 7 days left!!!

I know many of you are anxious for screen cap comparisons showing the differences from the previous version and the new release – well here they are. The following caps are from my review, which will be posted here later this evening. I apologize to all for the delay - this has been a huge package to cover.

EDIT - The screen caps can be seen in the HTF Review.

I know we always say this that we should NEVER use screen shots as our only indicator. But....I kind of think the previous edition has a more pleasing and natural look. Call me crazy. Other thoughts?

It ain't no Singin' In The Rain Thanks for the caps, I look forward to the review!

OK, you're crazy. Just what is the natural look for a Tin Man, a Wicked Witch, a Munchkin parade, etc.?

DJ

uh oh.

I have to agree the first set of pics looks better in most shots here. Look at her blue dress as she is standing with the Munchkins! It's no longer the bright blue it used to be. It seems they adjusted the blue down a bit, look at the blue tint on the house in the first one but it is white on the new pic which does look better on the new but I can't get over the faded blue dress.

Greens do look brighter as well as reds not sure thats a good thing. Guess I have mixed feelings about the new remaster!

I am not sure as to why there seems to be more grain in the new (perhaps it's the larger screen capture of the new version ) but she looks to be all freckly in the new B/W shots.

Just my findings!

Wes

The screencaps from the new version definitely look warmer *and* softer to me than the screencaps from the current release.

This is the first time I've seen Garland's skin tone look right. She's always been too pink in the past.

Which is sepia.

Just playin' with you, Mr. Harris.

I see a very familiar discussion along the lines of Ben-Hur coming later in this thread....

I think what RAH means is that the BW segements are not comprised of 3 discrete merged/aligned elements and so there's no registration issue and therefore no gains to be made using the "ultraresolution" process which only has meaning when applied to 3-strip technicolor film.

Agreed we need to see the screen caps the same size (why are they different anyway...all (NTSC) DVD is 720 x 480..shouldn't they already be the same???) and often I find that screen-captures can be misleading...it's seeing those images *in motion* on a wide-angle high-resolution display that really tells you what they look like. I'll gladly watch the 4K digital master if anyone wants to send me the file and a 4K projector to review it on...

Just another closer look and comment/question, why do you suppose the Witches eyes are bloodshot in the new pics and white in the old?

Wes

RAH,
I know we were talking about Academy Ratio cropping in another thread. I noticed a little here, as well. Would different theatres have different maskings or cropping, making this a non-issue?

I wish they'd just windowbox academy ratio dvds so that nothing is cropped....

Robert,

If overall color isn't that important, they why bother obtain paint samples for Madeleine's green Jaguar in Vertigo?

All,

Certainly color continuity is important but I see no advantage for not doing the best job one can on getting the color right.

Viewers may adapt to a film but they still notice when colors they expect to see are not what they expected. Green velvet should look like green velvet, etc.

Agreed that the images comparisons should be the same size image as others have noted.

Herb,

Were the images captured off the same computer and with the same software?

RAH, thanks for that explanation.....I can't wait to get this!

I know, I know my computer monitor is not calibrated but the more I look at these pics the more I dislike the new transfer.
Look at a few more areas, The Lions hair is a nice rich brown color in the old shots and has a golden highlights in the new. His face is almost yellow in some areas where the old is alot more natural (as a man painted to look like a lion can be I guess).

Back to the house with the ruby slippers, The old has a definite tint of Blue were as the new has a slight feel of yellow and green. I am not sure what it should be like but I would say somewhere in between the two. The old looks like there was a slight blue filter on the lens and the new they lowered the blue level which in return brings out the green, yellows and reds.

Again just my opinion which really does not matter!

Wes

I have been lucky enough to see dye-transfer 35mm prints of OZ several times, most notably one made in 1955.

The color hues in the new DVD transfer more accurately reflect what was in the dye-transfer prints than the previous (very nice) DVD transfer. (As I mentioned in a posting several days ago, I was fortunate enough to see the new DVD at a friend's home).

Indeed, there was no "blue tint" in the dye-transfer prints, but definitely a greater sense of yellow and green.
This was especially true in scenes such as Munchkinland and
the arrival at the Emerald City.

The frame grabs posted here by Herb reflect more detail, sharpness, and clarity than that of the previous disc, although the differences aren't that shockingly different because the old disc was very nice, indeed.

As a kid, I bought the first video release on Betamax, then upgraded to the 1983 laserdisc, both of which came from muddy print. Then came the 1989 release, which taken from a true dye-transfer release print, finally gave us a better rendering of Oz in terms of color. However, release prints, especially dye-transfer prints, are not a good source for telecine. The resulting image was lovely, but fuzzy (although far superior to previous video versions).

The 1993 "Ultimate Oz" LD reflected the use of a new Interpositive made from the original YCMs. A significant improvement. That transfer was used for MGM's 1997 vanilla DVD.

I asssume that same element was used for the far-improved transfer found on the 1999 WB DVD. It still didn't have the real feel of true dye-transfer hues, but was a very fine job.

It is my own personal opinion that this new transfer, is the most faithful representation of the original creators' intent, and is something to celebrate.

I trust others will feel the same joy I did when they get to see what the wizards of Warner have done this time.

Cheers to all

The new transfer seems to have a lot of yellow compared to the previous version, which might've had too much blue. The shot with Dorothy and the munchkins behind her is confusing though. The previous edition seems to have more pleasing colors.

I don't know what RAH is talking about either. The overall color isn't important?

Rich, I don't know what happened there with respect to the sizes of the images. I used the same PC, done at the same time - absolutely identical for each version...



Anyway... I'd be the first to agree that one shouldn't base an absolute opinion - one way or the other on a screen cap - especially those relatively compressed such as these. However, the obvious leaps out in this case; improved texture and better colors. These improvements were quite obvious projected on a large screen.

The HTF Review is up and posted here.

thanks Roger Rollins for your excellent information.

Herb...off to read your review!

Thanks for the great points RAH. I was beginning to prefer the older disc. However, if the ones who know the accuracy of the film say the new version is more accurate then I'm good with that.

I just want to know why her dress looks so dull compared to the previous edition. I'm starting to think that neither edition is really correct.

Edit: The comparisons on DVDBeaver.com are better than what was posted in this thread. Her dress seems more accurate and the colors are even more saturated than before. It just goes to show that you need accurate full sized screenshots to show the difference.