A few words about...™ The Wizard of Oz -- in Blu-ray - Page 9

Dave, the Wizard of Oz was made in 1939 before widescreen was invented. In 1939 all movies were that shape (1:33.1) in cinemas. Widescreen 1.78:1, 1.66:1, or anything with a bigger number than 78 or 66 there, like 2:35.1, all of those are widescreen image sizes, and only came into effect in 1953 with How to Marry a Millionaire and friends.

Imdb lists aspect ratios for films, which is the image size, its down under where the length of the film is on the main page. When you see a film that says 1:33.1, it means it was originally shot the shape of an old TV, and thus the only proper way to put it on home video is to preserve that shape with black bars on the sides.

Had to be a joke post, there's a smiley at the end.

:D

Just so everyone could assume he had never seen (and understood what you were seeing in) a movie made from 1953 in its proper aspect ratio?

Ah.  There's a smiley at the end of his post here. 

Could've used one of them in the Snow White thread. 

That was a lot of effort containing very little humor IMO.

There's no way it was a joke. Just hard to believe. (but nothing to be ashamed of, despite what all the posts would have you believe, rofl)

I think the smiley was referring to his viewing it on a giant screen, not the whole post.  But Zack is correct, nothing to be ashamed of.  When "Gone With the Wind" first came out on DVD, an intelligent, well-educated theater director I know asked me, when I told him I bought it, "Is it in widescreen?"

It may have already run out.  All my local Targets here in the Burbank/Glendale, California area were sold out by noon the first day and have never gotten it back in stock.  They have now removed the tag for the 3-disc "Emereld Edition" from their shelves, and Target online doesn't even list it; only the big boxed set.

The 'Flux Capacitor" and especially the "April 1st" ones being closest to the situation, of course. 


Cees

I finally saw this last night. Just amazing, it was truly like seeing it for the first time. I don't know what else to say about it that hasn't already been said (and better) by others, so I will just offer my sincere thanks to Mr. Feltenstein and the the whole crew at Warners responsible for this unbelievable Blu-ray disc. Thank you so much for going the extra mile to make this the best it can be. Milestone releases like this are what it's all about for the HT enthusiast.

I'm REALLY looking forward to GWTW now!

Of course, Gone with the Wind was re-released in a (disastrous) widescreen version in the mid-1960s. To my knowledge, this version has never surfaced on any home video format, but MGM did go to the trouble for that reissue to crop the top and bottom so it could be blown up and released as a widescreen film. And it did pretty well at the box-office in 1967. Ranked among the twenty most popular releases of the year.

I hope your reply doesn't discourage Robert Ketler from posting again, because I found his contrarian views, from a long-time movie buff, fascinating.  (Mr. Ketler, you'll learn that saying anything positive about HD DVD is akin to casually mentioning in the early 1950s that you just returned from a meeting of a communist cell.)  I appreciate Robert Harris's follow up.  What we are watching is not what the movie's creators saw.  Are we simply overcoming the shortcomings of the technology of the time--just as modern audiophile equipment reveals much more information on audio master tapes than people knew was there when the tapes were created--or are we bastardizing the original works--not only removing grime from the great masters' paintings but actually changing the paintings themselves?  A bit of both, I think.  I'm not among the dozen people on the planet who would like a soft version of Wizard of Oz more faithful to the original, and viewing the glowing colors of Technicolor in the home, as Mr. Ketler would like, would be possible only with a film projector and a Technicolor print.  Still, we've now replaced fanciful flowers in Oz with plastic ones, and we see skull caps on the munchkins and cowardly lion.  I'm not criticizing the detail.  I like it, but it does seem a bit unfair to the movie's creators.  The wires attached to the flying monkeys and the cowardly lion's tail, visible in the 2005 release, have been digitally removed, and this strikes me as definitely the right decision.  Not only are they distracting, but showing them seems a disservice to the movie and its creators, like (if I'm not reaching too far for a metaphor) displaying someone's body at a wake without the wig that he always wore in life.  I realize that this same reasoning applies to all of the magic that's been revealed, but I think it marks that point at which new technology goes too far.

In any case, I love the new disc and am grateful to Warner for creating it, but I hope that those like Mr. Ketler who dissent thoughtfully from the received wisdom will continue to share their views.

 Apparently, Dave isn't the only one bothered by the 4:3 presentation. 

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1NCQHQP6RAI7Z/ref=cm_srch_res_rtr_alt_1

I so lucked out in getting that last copy at the North Hollywood Target then. Wow. I'm glad you were OK with the Wal-Mart 1-disc Ben - you would have been waiting a looooong time still for that 3-disc set!

Jeez! Thank holy moses! I cherish my Wal Mart copy, its so cute!

Hmmm...  I wonder...  Did Dave post that here before he posted similarly in the Snow White thread?  I'd check, but it's a pain to do that in this new HTF format -- and I'm not using this as some sort of agenda for complaining about it.

But if yes, I wonder if it's not his (humorous) response to the earlier WoOz complaints rant post (by some troll? w/ a possible post-format-war axe to grind?) about various mysteriously cut scenes, alterations, etc. (whether fictitious or otherwise).

I don't remember seeing Dave around here between then and this recent post of his, so the timing suggests that much to me as a plausible explanation for his ironic post.

Either that or we really must've entered ...
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) _Man_

Man, I'll save you the trouble of looking.
 

1. Yes, Dave posted the Oz and Snow White observations at almost exactly the same time.
    
2. No, he hasn't been back since then and probably hasn't seen the responses.
    
3. Based on my sense from prior exchanges, I believe these posts were intended seriously. (If I'm mistaken, Dave can correct me whenever he checks back.  )

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) _Man_

The smiley face was in regards to a possible bigger screen later on.  But I honestly didn't know that Wizard Of Oz was not shot in a wide-screen format, I guess I just assumed a little.  Thank you for the information on why it was not released in widescreen, I honestly do not know what I was thinking that the Bluray was going to be in a wide-screen format?  

 Its a nice transfer just the same and can not wait for more classics to be released on Bluray.




Yes Michael Reuben's observation is correct that both where done at the same time and have not been back since and am just now seeing the responses.  It was just a matter of not knowing and that is one of the reasons I love this forum.  And that is it is a great place to learn and I admit there is still alot that I do not know and am still learning every day. 


no axe to grind here, I own both formats and actually was happy when Bluray won.  

QUOTE:
"The real question that has to be asked is whether consumers of HD media want a film reproduction based on a 1930s level of projection quality or do they want the film provided at a level of clarity never seen before?
.... Cleaning up or restoring these films to unheard of levels is more a function of the marketplace and the need to constantly provide consumers a reason to rebuy than it is a transport mechanism.

END QUOTE

I would also add that the filmmakers would have likely been looking at contact prints from the original negative for dailies and then in making their final color timed master. the quality they were looking at would have been much higher than the quality of prints seen around and about the country, which could have been several generations down the line from the original negative.  Getting the film into the best possible shape for presentation to audiences. is something virtually any filmmaker would agree to, in any era.

I'm glad I purchased TWOO in Hi-Def.  I was originally going to skip this release altogether, but after reading comments on some forums, I decided to go get a copy on release day.  I am also glad WB decided to leave the grains intact.  Watching this film the day I bought it was like watching it for the first time.  Well, that may have partially been because I haven't seen TWOO in more than 20 years and had forgotten the details of the story.  Although I opted for the 1-disc BD, it has fascinating bonus features that make this release exciting. I really enjoy listening to the Juke Box rehearsals and the live radio shows.

It's the best purchase for me this year.

I think I am in the same boat you are with this title.  I am also glad they left the grain intact with this movie as I feel it gives it that film like quality.  I have not seen this film ether for many years and also have forgot a lot of the movie and it was really nice to see it after all this time with a great transfer in high definition.  I can not wait for some other titles to come out like Logan's Run, Heat, It's A Wonderful Life and Secondhand Lions.


 

Oh, Dave, I didn't mean *you* had an axe to grind about the format war -- you didn't seem like the type near as I could tell.  I was refering to the troll post from a while back in this thread.  I was just wondering if you meant your comment as a sort of response to that old troll post since I don't recall you being around for some time (and thought maybe you just finally saw that troll post when you posted that comment).  Yeah, it was a bit of a stretch to wonder that, but just about all of us were just speculating anyway -- although Michael Reuben was apparently spot on w/ his comments.

Here's the "troll post" I was refering to:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/292926/a-few-words-about-the-wizard-of-oz-in-blu-ray/150#post_3612499

Hmmm...  Did the mods edit that post to remove the brief, slightly inflammatory comment about that other dead format?  I remember someone else commenting about *that* comment in a subsequent post, but now, I can't find that either.  Oh well...  No big deal...

_Man_

Maybe it's time to properly calibrate the tv.
I have a 73" Mits and Oz and all it's grain look fantastic to me.

That's a strange comment, because overprocessing typically KILLS grain.  I'm happy to see film grain on this title (it sounds like you may not like grain), and any processing doesn't look overdone, just brings out the image quality.  Oh, and the term is "freckles", not "measles" (which would have meant that Judy was sick in bed).

Man, the post you're looking for I believe is #209 and I responded right after it asking what Mr. Harris thought, then someone else made mention of the post ringing up the dead format.

Now I know this is not a big deal but I was bored today so I took a look to see this.
What I see is a repeated partial frame.
Here's what i see when doing a frame advance.
Right towards the end of the 32:29 mark is 1 frame that is split in the middle, there is no visible split but it's there.

the left half of the frame repeats the previous frame but the right half continues to what is apparently the next frame.

I can see it because the Globe Witch is floating up and at this point the left side of the globe doesn't move but the right side moves slightly left and changes the shape of the globe for 1 frame.

Also all the people on the left side of this frame don't move but everyone on the right side moves.

So the easiest way to spot it is frame advancing and watching the people on the left stay still for one frame and the 2 people coming into frame on the fight are still moving.
same with the globe, left side stops and the right side continues for a single frame.
Not very good video but I tried.......




Edited by TonyD - 10/17/09 at 11:24am

 Thanks, Tony. That's very interesting- I wonder how that could have happened? Very difficult to see, though. I had to watch it several times before I spotted it.