HTF REVIEW: The Wizard Of Oz - Three-Disc Collector's Edition (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED). - Page 2

But what happens when the next new format (say Blu-Ray) sees ANOTHER "improved" release of THE WIZARD OF OZ and then the studio has to make some new change, say, back to the cooler colors?

Well...if it can be determined that the color balance is wrong on a video edition *regardless of how pleasing it might look in the abstract* then the studio should be criticized for it, and urged to be more faithful with future releases of that and other titles.

That's just the type of thing that "reviewing" should be about.

It's one of the reasons I pay special attention to the look of projected film prints in the theater...I want to make sure that the DVD versions are properly presenting the film. Had I not see Erin Brokovich (sp?) in the theater, I might not have known that the overly-warm color balance was an intended artifact that SHOULD be there.

The same applies to historic presentation of audio. It's WRONG when historic multi-channel mixes are dumbed-down for "home theater" with everything mixed to center. It's another reason I keep many of my laserdiscs around...often the 2-channel PCM and AC-3 of many laserdiscs more accurately reflected the original mix-presentation than the 5.1 we see on DVD which is all-too-often overhauled to make it "home video friendly". Heck...even when the "mix" isn't modified, the tonal balance and dymanics on 5.1 DVD are often completely screwed up because of "home video" manipulation (like dialog normalization with most DD soundtracks...something I wish would have never been coneived).

And of course the input from historians and film buffs who are familiar with the proper audio and video presentation is the best resource of all.

Now that really intrigues me - the only outtake I have ever been aware of was the Ray Bolger Scarecrow dance -what other scenes have been found? And do they have sound?

And of course, that was a great review. Thanks!

Re: Color
I guess then we have to wonder how we can accurately arrive at what is truly "correct"? Sometimes the projection in a theatre can look incorrect, say if the lighting is too dim or what have you. Was Judy Garland's dress in WIZARD truly lilac on the day that screen capture was filmed? Were the actual surroundings cool or warm?

It's interesting to me that those who defend the previous DVD version seem to be ignoring the great number of instances in which the misregistration of the three strips is glaring and highly annoying.

The Jitterbug uses stills and Harold Arlen's on set home movies to recreate a feeling for the original sequence. The others are recreated with stills and soundtrack.

I think there is a very slight audio out-of-sync problem with the 5.1 track. It was heard most in the very beginning scenes of dialogue.

Just something I noted, possibly due to my own equipment.

I understood all of that before & I agree that this most likely is a more accurate representation of how the film should look.....but I can't help what my eye finds pleasing. I can understand, appreciate and accept the acurate version as the version to watch but what my eye personally finds pleasing while observing in side by side comparison.....that I can't help.

Thanks for the review, Herb! Looking forward to owning the set.

FWIW, I agree with Mr. Harris in the other thread that to make framegrab comparisons at all meaningful, they need to be scaled the same.

Thanks Mark B.

Reading all the comments almost makes me think someone went and lifted the Ben Hur thread and put it here. Once again people sweating out something most of us dont even have yet. As far as the screen grabs...they both look good. Which one is right? I dont know. But i do know a lot of time and money was spent so WE can have a great presentation. I know we are different, but really, what does it take to make everyone happy? Maybe the original negative brought forward in time? Cant wait to own this.

Gary/DVDBeaver has posted comparison shots as well.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/wizard.htm

Again, not apples to apples (i.e. different screen grabs) but I don't see Gary replicating what Herb is showing ... such as the color of the witch's face and Dorothy's dress color (in comparison to the earlier DVD release).

No need to do that. I will happily watch it in 1.33:1. For some reason, I thought they cropped it for the multiplexes.

It looks like from the DVD Beaver set that the tremendous Audio Vaults have been dropped from this release. This is quite disturbing to me, as it was one of my favorite things from the release, and I was really hoping for a cleaner interface to selecting the various tracks. This is a HUGE downer for me, and I would have rather they dropped one or more of the documentaries that are on TCM a couple times a year. Now I have to keep both DVDs plus the LD to keep the original commentary track.

I think we all need to dedicate an entire shelf in our HT to all the Wizard of Oz releases since the Ultimate OZ LD box set in order to compile the perfect list of comprehensive extras that we deserve...





Fair enough. That's why I said this:

EDITED POST:
This was my post bemoaning the fact that
the Recording sessions were not listed in the
review as being part of the disc.
A later post corrected my fearful assumption.
Never mind

I cant tell you how many times i have had to keep an older release of something just cause i couldn't part with the extras. I am going to hang onto my Criterion King Kong LD just for the great commentary on it even though i know the new release will be superior to the LD in every other way. So dont fret holding on to all things Oz all well, you have company my friends.

And I never suggested that it should, I only reported what I personally thought upon looking at the side by side comparisons.
You're lecturing to the converted David.....and doing so in a slightly patronizing tone I might add, "folks like you" and all of that.
If not Patronizing then certainly presumptuous, as a rule I do not prefer cold over warm, it is a case by case decision, take MGM's transfer of Silence Of The Lambs in many ways it is a better transfer than the Criterion transfer but it dumped the warm tone of the Criterion disc in favor of a very cool tone which I do not prefer.

Great review Herb, but when I first glanced at your scans I thought the top shots were from the new dvd, to my eyes the color looks far better than the orangey tones in the bottom shots, particularly in the shot of Dorothy's face.

So, based solely on your scans I prefer the previous transfer. But I'm still looking forward to checking this ultra-classic fantasy out for myself on my equipment and settings.

Everybody can relax about this. Herb has made a mistake about the audio vault.

Here's what's on Disk 2 --

Audio Vault

Jukebox of Over 4 1/2 hours of Unedited Musical Numbers. Various "looping" tracks and underscore recordings • Leo Is on the Air Radio Promo Good News of 1939 Radio Show • Lux Radio Theater 12/25/50

dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/wizard.htm

Now just look at the framing! What the .... made them crop the frame on all four sides, especially on the left? Most disappointing!

I understand. That's why I've been transferring all of my lasers to dvd-r, just in case the ol' machine gives out on me.

I transferred the Fricke commentary from the OZ set last week. Wouldn't want to lose that. Plus I made mp3s of all the audio material. It took several weeks, but now they are easy to access. I created a single file for each take, rather than grouping them as the laser did. The end result -- 270 individual files.

From viewing the screen shots on this and other websites, I would say keep your previous DVD for the video transfer. The new one looks brown and muddy with an overabundance of grain. It is also cropped on all four sides. Buy the new one if you want all the extra features. Also, David Boulet, your comments are extremely insightful as always and very much appreciated. You have a great way of making a sophisticated concept very comprehendable.

Thank God! Strange that DVD Beaver doesn't list this either though.

I ran the film 3 times as a projectionist. Twice I ran prints created in 1989 for the film's 50th Anniversary. They were all Academy Ratio prints, true 1.33 taking up the whole frame. Much later I ran a print that had been engineered to display 1.33 in a theater that would have no 1.33 plates or lenses (I can't remember if it was 1.33 inside of 1.85 or 1.33 inside of a scope print).

I've never come across a Wizard of Oz film print meant for widescreen projection, though undoubtedly some were made in the 50s, when "widescreen" versions (abominations I should say) of Gone With the Wind and Fantasia were common.

-Lyle J.P.

If you get any aspect ratio other than 1:33 you are losing a great deal of information on top and bottom. It's true that the film was released in semi-widescreen in the mid-50s, but obviously it had to be fabricated by cropping.

Dialnorm does not affect dynamic range. Think of it as a virtual volume knob in the encoding process. This should not be confused with Dynamic Range Control. An example of a title with a large Dialnorm level shift is Star Wars Ep 1 (an incredibly dynamic soundtrack).

And now, I'm off to see the Wizard...

I'm pretty sure it was cropped when it was re-released as an MGM Matinee Classic in the early seventies. I have vivid memories of seeing it on the big screen, and there were no borders on the side of the screen. Of course, it is possible that the projectionist just matted it himself.

Hey Kevin,

my ramblings about color were directed to the broader discussion in the thread...not towards any one poster.

I said "Folks" (general)...not "Folks like you" (particular).

The only reason I pointed out that I had mentioned that it was "ok" to prefer whichever version one preferred (as long as we in our discussion what we think looks pleasing and how we expect WB to direct their restoration aren't necessarily the same thing) was because I had posted this already--before you responded in a way that seemed to interpret my comments as suggesting that someone would be bad for liking/preferring the look of the cooler color temp. I just wanted to make clear that I wasn't passing judgement on what looked good to anyone's eyes...only trying to comment on the rules by which we should judge our DVD presentations. Very often these two things are not the same thing.

The cropping isn't that bad.