"Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc? - Page 2

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

The disc contents are bit-identical, IIRC.

Regards,

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

When did they "admit" that they messed up the Todd-AO remaster?

Oh, and Fox only supports Blu-Ray, not HD-DVD. So... It won't be fixed on HD-DVD since it will never be on that format.

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

South Pacific was restored. Oklahoma has not been restored and probably needs to be poste haste. Considering next year is the 65th anniversary of the Broadway show that would be a great incentive to do it.

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

I'd like to see something in print or a quote or something where Fox admitted they released a botched OKLAHOMA set. I haven't seen that yet.

Do I think it is a perfect set? No.
Do I think the anamorphic Todd-AO is better than the old non-anamorphic release? Yes.
I swear that the people praising the old release MUST NOT be viewing it on an HDTV or some other premium, calibrated setup. I believe my local library has the old DVD release on hand, and if they do I'll use it to make some screen captures for some comparisons and post them here. I have the THX Laserdisc still, but using it wouldn't be a true comparison. I can say that at the time of that Laserdiscs release there was talk of how extensive the transfer process was in terms of color correction from the original negative. It does look quite processed and unnatural to me, but maybe that look is what people are looking for in the remastered version as well.

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

The following screen captures originate from the 1999 non-anamorphic and 2005 anamorphic releases of the Todd-AO version of OKLAHOMA, respectively. The 1999 release has been enlarged to match the proportions of the 2005 anamorphic transfer, and the frames were captured using VLC on a Mac with the closest frames I could manage (VLC is a bit random on what frames it will grab, at least on the newest Mac version).

When I play these two in sync on separate DVD players and switch back and forth, the 2005 is far preferable [to me] because it lacks the excessive edge enhancement, heavy contrast, extreme over-saturation and over-brightness of the 1999 release. Do I think the 2005 release is reference quality or as good as it could be? No. It has very low contrast with dulled whites and is softer than I would expect, but the extreme measures undertaken for the 1999 release is not the answer in my mind.

As far as framing, the 2005 release sometimes shows a bit more on the sides and maybe the bottom, and the 1999 release sometimes show a bit more at the top - but this fluctuates. What IS noticeable when switching between the two is that the 1999 release is squished slightly (or stretched, depending on how one wants to describe it).

I was tempted to record some of the 2005 release to VHS and then make captures from it to show that the claims of it having VHS resolution is a zealous overexaggeration, but I really didn't want to bother. That doesn't mean that I won't, though. :-)

1999 [same transfer as 1995 Laserdisc]

2005

1999 [same transfer as 1995 Laserdisc]

2005

1999 [same transfer as 1995 Laserdisc]

2005

1999 [same transfer as 1995 Laserdisc]

2005

1999 [same transfer as 1995 Laserdisc]

2005

1999 [same transfer as 1995 Laserdisc]

2005

1999 [same transfer as 1995 Laserdisc]

2005

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

I think it's highly probable that neither one of them look the way the movie looked when it was first shown in theaters, but I have a feeling the second one, which so many people hate, is closer to the way it looked.

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

Unfortunately, the way it looked in theaters will never be known as all 70mm prints from that era have faded. The 70mm prints currently circulating to repertory houses were made in 1983 on LPP stock and have a yellowish cast to them, except for parts of "Many a New Day," which were taken from panchromatic separations and do not have the yellowish cast.

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

If anyone is interested, here are screen captures from the same scenes taken from the 2005 CinemaScope version.

Is it sharper than the Todd-AO transfer? Yes. Should it be? No. Does it have better color? I don't think so, though apparently I'm the only person who thinks that.

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

Chuck: Thanks for the screencaps (and for including the CinemaScope 'caps). I think they are quite illuminating.

Even though I've learned not to completely trust screen caps for certain things, I think these go a long way towards showing the differences between the various releases.

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

The 2005 Todd-AO looks softer in these captures than it seems when viewing it (at least on my HDTV), and the ringing brought on by edge enhancement on the 1999 version isn't as apparent in the captures of that version. When switching back and forth in real time it is quite clear that the 2005 version is smoother with more color (no yellow tinge or oversaturation like the 1999 version) and more detail (no crushed shadows or black levels like the 1999 version).

I hope these screen captures will serve for people to re-evaluate the 2005 Todd-AO release, which I feel was unfairly trashed beyond belief. It isn't great, but it's still an improvement, especially when compared to the unrealistic 1999 DVD that people seem to think serves as the definitive release.

Here are some more screen capture comparisons between the three versions, and one of the 2005 Todd-AO images I applied edge enhancement in Photoshop to show how the perceived "sharpness" advantage in the 1999 version is really edge enhancement. Until I got an HDTV and saw true hi-def prograaming without EE, I didn't realize just how detrimental it was to the viewing experience.

1999 DVD

2005 Todd-AO DVD

2005 CinemaScope DVD


1999 DVD

2005 Todd-AO DVD

2005 CinemaScope DVD


1999 DVD

2005 Todd-AO DVD

2005 CinemaScope DVD


1999 DVD

2005 Todd-AO DVD

2005 CinemaScope DVD


1999 DVD

2005 Todd-AO DVD

2005 Todd-AO (with edge enhancement applied in Photoshop)

2005 CinemaScope DVD

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

I think all we can do now is petition Fox and the R&H organization to restore the Todd-AO version so that future versions (think Blu-ray) will be as good as they can be.

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

I don't really think anyone thinks the 1999 DVD is reference quality. One reason people were upset with the new DVD is because they were expecting a HUGE improvement, something that didn't happen.

I'm very happy to have the Cinemascope version, myself, since I think it's the better movie, all around. But I will welcome an HD version of the Todd-AO, if it ever comes to that.

I did see the Todd-AO version in a movie theater, around 1983, when it was being redistributed through Samuel Goldwyn.

It's a terrific show, surprisingly underrated, as these things go. In particular, Charlotte Greenwood was never better, and Rod Steiger too. And Shirley Jones -- well, one knows right away why she became a movie star.

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

I don't know who might be underrating the film.
I spent a good portion of my youth thumbing through people's record collections. Every bleeping one of them had O! and The Sound of Marni Nixon.

Of course, I was too young to "get it".

Now, I put it on and Gordon starts singing and I'm in my happy place.


Surrey, Beautiful Morning, People Will Say We're in Love, Many A New Day.....

Great songs.

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

Dee: I'm not sure exactly what you mean here either...although I'm sure you have a good point--you always do!

But this is, after all, the show that is universally credited with completely changing the face of American musical theater.

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

The movie didn't stand much of a chance for a Best Picture Oscar nomination when Rodgers and Hammerstein made it known that they'd make the movie themselves because they didn't trust Hollywood with it.

And, the very next year, when Hollywood made a Rodgers and Hammerstein show ("The King and I"), it did get a Best Picture nomination, which was their way of saying, "Oh, yeah?"

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

I definitely think Oklahoma! is underrated, by almost everyone of importance to it, including Rodgers and Hammerstein themselves, who were mostly unhappy with it.

Both R&H publicly said they would never personally produce another movie. Rodgers didn't like any of the movies of his stage shows.

I have a big collection of movies, and all the musicals, and I have many friends who like to come and watch them with me (on the 50" plasma I've had for 5 years). I've suggested Oklahoma! about a dozen times, and the reaction is always the same, a condescending sneer. They would rather watch Double Indemnity, or Cries and Whispers, or (here's my condescending sneer) Lord of the Rings.

Plenty of folks I know love Meet Me In St. Louis, but not Oklahoma! I don't understand it, myself.

That's why I said it's underrated.

P.S. I'm speaking of the movie, not the stage show, which is the seminal work of musical theater. The movie of Oklahoma! was the only one of their shows that R&H personally produced. They were also co-producers of South Pacific, and that's another movie that's a bit underrated. Otherwise, their movies were done without their participation at Fox, except for Flower Drum Song, which was done at Universal. Hammerstein died in 1960, and Richard Rodgers did write those extra songs for The Sound of Music (another show that he says he didn't like the movie very much).

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

Well, I see that the 1999 DVD really is superior to the 2005 re-issue. Even when resized to 16x9, the shingles on the roof are fully visible. They're just a big smudge of color on the 2005. Not that either is "great" but it does show that someone knew what they were doing with the old transfer.

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

I see what you're talking about Patrick, but couldn't the details of those shingles simply be a moiré pattern created by overdoing the edge-enhancement? It looks too even and too curvy to be actual shingles, to my eyes.

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

I agree that the apparent sharpness DeeF claims is in the 1999 transfer is from edge enhancement and moire patterning. And what about the yellowed whites on the 1999 transfer, or how horribly contrasty the transfer is from over enhancement? To still cling to this belief that the 1999 DVD sets the standard for how the Todd-AO version should always look is incredulous to me as it is horribly flawed from what I can see. Look at the screen captures - how can anyone claim that the 2005 Todd-AO has no color?!?! And look at all the additional shadow detail that is crushed to solid black in the old transfer! ARGH! :-)

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

The CinemaScope version seems to have the best color. The first sign that the 05 has issues (besides looking borderline out of focus) is the reddish cast to the clouds. The '99 has white clouds. The CS color timing looks great, so it's probably a good reference for now. It doesn't look like moire patterns since all of the 1999 captures show better fine details. Take a look at the foilage and see how you can actually make out the shapes of the plants. Not terribly defined, but grass is just a mass of green in the 2005. If it's edge enhancement, it looks nothing like the EE I've seen on any other afflicted DVDs (like the 5-Star Sound of Music). Maybe the '99 had some contrast boosting, which explains the darker black levels and apparent sharpness, but it's still better than the 2005. I don't think either DVD is accurate, though. It's just that the 1999 DVD is visibly sharper and easier to look at.

Here's a GIF switching back and fourth.



If that doesn't convince you, I give up.

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

No dice, Patrick. What display are you watching these discs on? Don't you see how the whites bloom on the 1999 disc? And none of the releases have white clouds all the time, that I can confirm. You don't seem to want to address the contrast issues with the 1999 release, or how off the color is.

I edge enhancement a frame from the 2005 DVD to show what edge enhancement on it would look like. There is no "detail" in that edge enhanced image that isn't in the 1999 one. Moire patterning isn't detail but a lack thereof due to limitations in the resolution of the transfer. Film doesn't jitter with alaising like the 1999 DVD, and anyone switching between both transfers on a proper HDTV setup couldn't possibly choose the 1999 DVD.

Just look at these! You don't see how yellowed the 1999 transfer is, or edge enhanced?

1999

2005 with edge enhancement


Patrick, I think you have just decided that the 2005 release is garbage and the 1999 is superior and no one can change your mind on that. How can you claim the 1999 transfer is superior to the 2005 in these captures below? I'm afraid more people will mistake edge enhancement for sharpness and detail, enouraging studios to overuse it as they did in the Laserdisc era.

1999

2005


1999

2005

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

The 2005 just looks blurry. It's blurry. It may have better color, but it doesn't look good. And it's not as "watchable" as the 1999. Of all of them, the Cinemascope version is the one that looks acceptable, that is watchable.

I saw the Todd-AO version in the theater, in 1983. It was not blurry, but perfect. I tend to believe Fox's letter, which basically states that in the eleven years since the last transfer was made, the source print seriously deteriorated.

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

I agree with DeeF on this one, too. All of this recent debate has made me watch them again (I didn't get an HDTV until this February and hadn't been able to compare them on it yet.) and the 2005 is just too blurry. I find myself enjoying the 1999 transfer because it is more "watchable." Granted, I watch the 1999 in 4:3 mode and don't zoom it to fill the screen, but even the diminished picture size gives me a better "idea" of the Todd-AO process (right or wrong) than the dull, blurry 2005 image. Although filled with edge enhancement, flicker, color fluctuations and crushed blacks, my mind can correct that far more easily than it can the smeared quality of the 2005.

That being said, I don't think this is a debate any one can win. Chuck, you're just as set in your "2005 is superior to 1999 and nothing will change your mind" ways as DeeF is in his, and the fact is that neither transfer is acceptable. It just comes down to what compromises we're all willing to make.

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

I agree that the CinemaScope seems like the obvious choice of the one to watch...but this all begs the OPs original question: "any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?" While the colors may be fine (as Chuck argues), it is obvious there were problems with the transfer.

Then we could have two good versions to watch!

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

I'll accept that it comes down to a preference, sure, but I had to chime in to dispel the belief that the 2005 Todd-AO version "has the sharpness of a VHS tape and the color of a slightly faded 16mm print," as put forth by Patrick. That just isn't the case at all, and posting such inaccurate statements might stop people from getting the 2005 release when in fact they might find it acceptable.

The argument that the 1999 DVD has better, more accurate color really makes me laugh, especially when one compares the screen captures. If one of the Todd-AO transfers is overprocessed, it is the 1999 DVD release for sure.

I still don't think the 2005 Todd-AO is blurry. It looks far more filmlike and colorful than the 1999 release, and this apparent increase in detail is from edge enhancement and alaising. Can you imagine the stair-stepping effect of the 1999 DVD on the roof was seen as sharpness and detail? LOL I guess to some people such alterations are seen as superior to something more natural, which is probably the philosophy the studios go with when adding edge enhancement to releases. :-(

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

Odd that no one has mentioned the distortion in the 1999 DVD.... Look at the faces in the screen captures and how the image is slightly squished when compared to the 2005 transfer...

Re: "Oklahoma" any plans to correct the Todd-AO disc?

Chuck, you really should post screencaps of the credits from the 1999 and the 2005, and then let's analyze which one looks better.