Quote:
| 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? |
This seems to be assuming all sorts of things, such as, but not limited to: that expert workmanship shouldn't lead to noticeable differences in color for
Oz from transfer to transfer, that even original 1939 dye transfer prints had identical coloring, and that there is such a thing as
"the" original print for color reference.
These would all be wrong.
Quote:
| 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. |
But without having knowledge of the film's history, you're not really in a position to judge the look on its merits, either, no matter how long you wait around.* If you're going to demand adherence to a single acceptable coloring (a first mistake that likely throws off the remainder of the endeavor beyond repair), and if this is only going to go on what you like, or what you think happens to be what was on the set (as if that which was visible to human eyes on the set was not itself variable from shot to shot by standard changing of lighting, etc.!), you won't be any closer to finding out whether the film achieves a proper look.
* Nor am I, which is why I choose not to wait around until some internal voice decides on its own that I somehow do know enough to make that judgment.Someone on this board has been kind enough to not hide the ball and just say it straight:
Quote:
[O]nce that color is encoded to the negative, it is very difficult to get two prints made on two consecutive days to match each other. Each will be slightly different from the other, but both will get the point of the color across and will pleasing to the eye.
The original prints of Oz that I've seen, have also not ever been cool. They always tended toward warm tones. |
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
