HTF REVIEW: The Wizard Of Oz - Three-Disc Collector's Edition (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED). - Page 4

Glad I'm not the only one that seems to enjoy the cooler color temps of the original (based strictly on the screen caps). That being said, I'm pleased that they restored the film as they did and it sounds like they've done a masterful job. Can't wait to pick this one up next week as it's one of my all-time favorite films.

This new DVD set is a fine release, and I bought it pre-release day. But I think it's perfectly acceptable to find fault with some of these disks. The companies who put them out want us to buy, and re-buy, and re-buy the same movies. Some people, myself included, need to have a reason to buy this one again, when the other DVD is really so excellent.

I think the reason to buy this, is because of the additional extras that are provided -- not the transfer itself, which is fine here, but was fine previously, too.

This is why I love the HTF. Only here can you get a Star Wars reference on a Wizard of Oz thread. For me, that's heaven.

I might as well jump into this thread also. I just spent some time with this movie on my Projector and was able to adjust the color to where the houses in the back ground of the Witch (in the screen capture) is white, not blue like the first DVD and not tinted red like the new disc (I was using the old disc to do this). Guess what, the witches eyes are not blood shot like in their new disc.
I got the yellow brick road to yellow, Dorothy’s dress to blue, I kind of fought with the tin man, there was too much blue and when I adjusted it out he turned into C3PO but I'm sure there is a happy medium.

My point is this that all the releases colors wise are wrong. White should be white and I would imagine eyes and teeth are something we should be able to judge upon being we all have them to compare against. Someone could have done better on this new release; I was able to correct most of it with my LCD projectors adjustments.

Just my opinion!

Wes

6 days and counting.....I can't "cliche".

Did Harold Rosson shoot the film with your teeth as the baseline white? Or did MGM color time their original dye transfer prints that way? If not, I'm not sure what the look of your teeth have to do with whether a transfer of a film shot in 1939 (or yesterday, for that matter) has "wrong" color timing. Not every film is meant to have natural color - and definitely not what some viewer with no particular knowledge of the look of a film decides on their own happens to be natural color.

DJ

You can't assume anything when it comes to early Technicolor. And I'm afraid that is what most people in this thread are doing....making assumptions. Let the technicians at WB, who know more about this than most of you do, make the decisions. They are usually the right ones.

Scottr,

while I agree with you in principle, it's also curious that two discs released so close in time to each other (just a couple of years) have such a different color balance. Did the WB folks not have a clue three years ago but today suddenly are experts in color accuracy? What about Ben-Hur which has the same sort of color shifts between the two versions?

While I trust that the folks doing the actual restoration have a better clue than the typical HTFer (myself included) just guessing what looks better...I'm still a bit wary given the differences WB has given us one edition to the next!

OK, here we have clearly two different color tints of the same WB Technicolor film that WB restoration teams restored with in 10 years of each other. Do you really think they are always correct with their restorations? Yah what ever!

I would highly doubt the witches eyes were bloodshot given the old dvd clearly shows them as being white. I am not an expert on eyes but I am guessing from the 1000 of people I have met that there are not too many different color shades of whites in eyes except blood shot. OK, I admit Teeth may be a different color!

The house back behind the witch should be the tell tell sign of the true color. The houses from other views seem to be white, but in this shot the side off to the left of the witch is clearly blue or red depending on which dvd you pick. The house is white and I and you with the correct adjustments on your video equipment can achieve that so why couldn’t they? If you can’t see that then I will bow out and let you guys think the technicians are always right!

These are the colors I wish they would have achieved!
http://thewizardofoz.warnerbros.com/

Wes

Do you really think that the definition of "correct" is that narrow in the world of photochemically timed film presentations? Yah what ever!

Regards,

I'm getting this release regardless of the differences. I just wish it was a slam dunk without all of the controversy.

Very true.

We can't confirm the correct color by assuming that a "white" house should look "white". That's only true if the film-makers wanted the house to look white in the projected print.

Very often filmmakers adjust color timing and use filters to modify color presentation in a number of ways. In fact, it's more the rule than the exception.

What?

All right then which is correct Red Or Blue if not white like you see in other shots of the same house?

I give! Lets be happy with this Red tinted presentation Of The Wizard Of OZ cuz it looks more pleasing to the eye then the Blue tinted version!


Done!

Wes

Actually...I never said we should be happy with either version because it "looks more pleasing to the eye"...



..My hope is that we could be happy because folks who have some familiarity with actual prints of this film say that the new version gets the color more like what the projected image is supposed to be.




hehe.

Yes...I get how stupid it sounds to say that a white house shouldn't necessarily be white. What I mean is that if any color balance modification had been intended by the director at all...that white would most certainly no longer be "white", and so one can't just watch movies and use an "is white stuff really white?" rule to evaluate the transfer.

As an example...

Watching Erin Brokovich, I don't think there's a single instance of true-white in the entire film. Everything that is "white" in real life is an orange-cream-pink in the movie...and that's the way the director wanted it...it's as if all the colors have been filtered to look like the sun is setting with light bouncing off the cloud cover. That film is an extreme example but even minor color balance modification is common for many movies and in all cases it shifts "white" away from true-white.

I know exactly what you mean, David. The night scenes in Terminator 2 have a distinct blue look to them. It wouldn't make sense to try to fix them to acheive a "neutral" black.

Re: White

Remember that Judy Garland's "white" shirt under the pinafore was in reality a shade of yellow in order to come off as white through the Technicolor process, so...

But isn't it perfectly possible that some prints (in 1939) were bluer and some were pinker and some were yellower? I think... we may be demanding an actual standard that doesn't exist (at least on these older movies).

Yes I know filters and I know intent but I also know we have two different color tints here of the intire film (not just a piticular scene). I'm assuming the Director was not involved with restorations as I doubt he would have stated the blue tint was correct for the first release and the Red was ok for the new.

I never said you Dave that stated it was more pleasing, it was another Pro new restoration advocate on here that said that!

Wes

Or how about The Matrix which is green, Payback which is blue, and S1m0ne which the cinematographer used a broad spectrum of various color filter lenses.

That said, the use of colored filters for these types of dramatic artistic effect is a relatively new practice or at least it hasn't been as popular as it is today. Personally, I don't believe this new transfer or Warner's latest transfer of Ben-Hur represent the original presentations as accurately as they could have been.

I'm surprised no one seems terribly bothered by the cropping on this new Oz edition.

As a loyal fan of Warner bros, while I am disappointed in these latest releases, part of the problem is that they have set a high standard. In addition, considering the previous editions were done not long ago, one might have hopped for a significant improvement with greater attention to the finer details of the presentation.

On the bright side, these are both titles that would look marvelous in 1080p, and thus I am still holding out hope that Warner will address the issues and release editions worthy of these great classic films.

I saw a dye-transfer print of Oz in a theater and the new DVD looks extremely close to it. So what if different restorations are not identical? If the original photochemical restoration couldn't get the colors just right because of technology issues, does it mean we're stuck with it forever?

Knowing how WB used an original 1939 dye-transfer print of Gone with the Wind for its digital restoration, they probably did the same for Oz. I don't want what's pleasing to the eye, I want what it's supposed to look like.

Mmm, according to the documentary on the new disk, this Oz was taken directly from the original negatives. No print was brought in.

They actually show what a composite made from the onegs would look like. It looks ridiculous -- saturated with so much color that Judy's face is practically pure magenta.

At some point in the process, somebody is choosing the saturation levels, the hues, etc. Somebody is *choosing* what this film will look like.

Within the Technicolor process, there is no "white."

RAH

Something I meant to comment on first thing this morning but forgot to. After reading this thread yesterday and Mr. Harris' thread I decided to pop in the Warner Bros disc last night. Looks pretty dang good. They really did a nice job on it then. I think the improvements might be less obvious since the older dvd looks great too.

Got to say, I don't have a lot of pity for people who flog their DVDs on e-bay the minute they hear of a new release. Anyone who reads this forum regularly should know that's a risky business.

Obviously what's happening here is that some people prefer the colour on the last release, be it "right" or "wrong". So watch your old one. For me, the presentation and extras are enough to justify a double-dip.

Of course, here in the UK, we've given up using our teeth to measure whites. The Yellow Brick Road is another story . . .

Do you mean the previous Oz DVD? The new one wasn't sourced from a print at all...just the digital composition of the 3-strip negatives.

Agreed, especially considering how big a deal was made of the fact that the new Ben Hur disc doesn't have the cropping of the old one.

No original dye transfer print was used for the transfer itself, but one was used as a reference for the color timing.

-Lyle J.P.

How do you know that the cropping is wrong?

Ahhhh.