A few words about...™ The Wizard of Oz -- in Blu-ray - Page 2

If it looks good, what difference does it make?

Even though I am one of the gullible who will buy the deluxe set even if both are available, I agree that this is really a marketing error because the extra they will get from people who don't really want the deluxe set will probably not offset the loss of sales of the single disk set.  Its eventual release will probably not benefit from the hype currently being generated, as it will be forgotten in only a few months.

I had a chance to see one of the '98 dye-transfer prints and it was beautiful! It did have the color alignment issue at cuts and a few isolated moments, but the amount of detail and color blew my mind. Even if it's minor stuff like the burlap texture in Ray Bolger's makeup or seeing reflections on floors. I'm excited about the BluRay, even though I opted for the simpler UK edition (again, you can get Oz and GWTW combined for the same price as just one of the US editions).

Good to hear that it's up to quality!

Yes, and Yes.  A special projector 4K projector was loaned to the academy by Sony for the event, as they explained, "Our Christie digital projector we installed four or five years ago is only 2k, and apparently not good enough anymore"  They said all weekend had been spent setting up for the screening-the first 4K screened at that theatre.

The grain was spectacular, though I only noticed that for the opening titles really, the image was so lifelike and filmlike because the 4K retained the integrity of the film grain.  It was actually better than a film print.  I've watched dozens of 35mm academy ratio films in this theatre in pristine prints and the quality of this presentation was every bit as good, better in fact, because it lacks the pops and scratches.  I forgot I was watching digital other than the clarity of the image.

Looking good is way too subjective an argument. WB apparently did a world class job on the 4K master and if they want to keep the quality on that level down to the Blu Ray then a compression job that is state of the art is called for. State of the art means high average bit rates and even higher peaks. Why? Because otherwise you lose detail, accuracy and fidelity. Will it look bad at 17 Mbit/s? No. For many it will not even look bad at 10 Mbit/s. But does that mean WB should use 10 Mbit/s because it will look good to most people? Surely not. Will it look better at 25 Mbit/s average? You bet. It will be closer to the uncompressed original and more faithful, especially concerning grain detail and lack of more or less masked blocking. Will it look better to most people? Surely not. They have neither the equipment nor the experience to see the difference. So is it pointless to use 25 Mbit/s instead of 17? I don't think so. Actually give me 35 Mbit/s (as you easily can on a DB50) and you have used BD's full capability and the best and most accurate rendition of fine detail the 1080p master has and Blu Ray can deliver. That would be the equivalent of the job they did on the 4K master. And asking for it is neither unreasonable nor pointless. Maybe they did go this high. If so, bravo. Do you know? Or did you just want to start a discussion and show how silly people are who are not too excited about the standard WB compression jobs at < 20 Mbit/s, because they look 'good' already?

Of course.  Everyone knows it is far more important to have a high number on the bit rate meter.  That's what Blu-ray is all about.


You pretty well have that covered.

Yes, but you're on the other end of the spectrum here.  You're telling us that that bitrate will determine PQ, 100% of the time.  And you're willing to hammer that point into the ground to the extent that it appears that you will always believe that a bitrate is the only benchmark, up to the point of believing it over "your own lying eyes" for being too subjective in a double-blind type of comparison if it didn't bear out your hypothesis.

There is nothing wrong with having a high mbps bit rate on any release. I do think WB's is the worst of all the major studios when they just kind of go for the bare minimum. I think lately they have gotten better, although from what I understand if a film in standard 4:3 and doesn't require a16:9 anamorphic transfer.

This being said I was kinda feeling when WB's released Casablanca and it featured a startling low average bit rate, and compare it to the the approx same running time of a film like The Third Man released by Criterion. It was astounding how much space they gave the film.

Again I get shot down because there is the crew who go oh well... that type of space isn't needed for the transfer and the minimum is ok.

My feeling is well.. this is NOT DVD and was sort fo created for top notch image and sound quality am I right? So why go cheap on the release or as like to say half-assed.

If isn't that important then why do certain studios give it their all like Criterion and offer films using such strong bot rates? 

I believe if you are gonna release something on BD just do it right from the begining. Otherwise just stick with the standard DVD.

I am sure WB's did Wizard of OZ well... but no harm on going the extra mile right? 

Thanks for that response, I know it just feels better when you notice they utilize maximum disc space etc, so it is good ot hear it from you that it shouldn't be a worry issue so much.

I did notice with Dead Calm on BD WB's did seem to use higher bit rates for that transfer, so that was cool. I felt like BODY HEAT which looked good felt like it could have been bumped up more due to the actual look of the film. The mbps just seemed unhealthy low in the teens. I felt the BD looked better than the DVD, and that grain structure etc was fine and it was shot soft at times, coudl be the best it may be able to look but couldn't help but wonder if it could have used more space to help it out. Again this could be a case of it won't get any better.

Wasn't the Casablanca BD just the same VC-1 encoding that previously appeared on the HD DVD?  We can at least say it had a higher bitrate than any high definition encoding commercially released by Criterion in 2006.   It also looks better than The Third Man for reasons having nothing to do with encoding, of course, which underscores the point that every title is its own animal.

Regards,

I wouldn't say Casablanca looks better than Third Man or vice versa, each film may be in black and white and each transfer may have its own issues based on film stock and how it has been cared for over the years... but I think Third Man looks great.

but I'm afraid I took this train off the tracks....

Anyone else spot any decently written reviews for WIZARD of OZ yet? I am surprised we haven't seen more by now.

Most reviewers just received their copies on Monday, and the set has a seemingly bottomless array of bonus features.  I personally have a couple of titles in front of it in my review queue, but even if I had started it Monday night, I would be hard pressed to be done with it today.  In the mean time, if you have any questions, ask away...

Regards,

Does the BD discs come in a sep BD case? Or is it much like Casablanca in teh BOX that one that looks like fits in a slipcase for standard DVD? 

There is not a regular hard plastic BD case.  The two BDs are in a trifold cardboard digipak case along with a double sided SD DVD that has the MGM: When the Lion Roars documentary series.  Each disc has its own plastic panel/hub, so there is no overlapping of discs.  The DVD with the digital copy is packaged separately in a square cardboard sleeve.

This is from memory, so I will physically verify it this evening and post a correction if necessary.

To Bob Harris...

Forgetting the important bit rate discussion for the moment (mercifully), I'm curious about a digital resoration going back to film.

With the process Warner has used on The Wizard of Oz, can one assume that they printed back to film for preservation purposes from the restored digital files, and what would the quality of a such film elements be compared to the original elements that may have been struck way back when?

In other words, has digital come far enough now that The Wizard of Oz can look as good, or better, on FILM today as it did in '39?

I continue to believe that is NOT the cover of the UK release of the film. 

While I can't be certain, THIS SITE indicates in it's 8-22-09 entry that the "sing-along cover" goes to a special UK disc that's being released of one of the bonus features on the US release.

I cannot wait for this....it is killing me!

I hope you're right, Mike, but here's further evidence:  I put the UK release in my DVD Profiler wish list, and it shows the ugly cover.

I just contributed that DVD Profiler entry on Monday. The cover art was from release information on the site DVDTimes.co.uk, which also matched the cover art on Amazon.co.uk.

LOL kind of circular sources, then.  Well, let's hope the cover really isn't that one, then.

Well, it's the one on WHV's trade information website, so I wouldn't hold your breath!

If worst comes to worst, I'll look for a custom cover online and use that.  It really is an ugly cover.

It sure is.  Makes me think of these:



Which is why I keep thinking that's what it will be.  [fingers crossed.]

I'm saying no such thing and I really would like to see where I made such a claim.
What I'm saying is that bit rate is strongly correlated with accuracy relative to what is encoded keeping the other factors constant. The image quality of the source is a compeletely different issue. We all know the saying "garbage in, garbage out". As such too low an average bit rate for the material in question will inevitable leave quality (as in accuracy, fidelity and lack of compression artifacts) on the table. That is true independent of different encoders and operator skill (two other arguments constantly abused to justify too low bitrates). It's also true that the necessary average bit rate depends on the material. Oz is grainy and has lots of fine detail in the grain, especially since it's coming from a superb 4K master. Oz can use a high average bit rate. Higher than < 20 Mbit/s. That's all. I hope it got it.

Quote:

Here, for starters:
I'm seeing a series of assumptions backed up by arbitrary bitrates, which boils down to evaluating PQ solely on bitrate.
That's a direct contradiction to what you said above, where you explicitly tie bitrate to "detail, accuracy, and fidelity."

I saw the Film last month at Warner Bros' backlot theater - it looked great - almost as if it were filmed yesterday. Should look great on Blu-ray.  On Wed Sept 23 some theaters will screen the print in HD - if you can GO see it you'll be glad you did.

We're going next Weds to see OZ in the theater. Looking forward to it. Will likely buy the blu-ray as well.

A little OT but I just a few minutes ago finished the jaw-droppingly good restoration of The Godfather on blu-ray. I actually had never seen the film before in my whole life, even though I was born in 1964, but I felt like I was in the theater on opening day in 1972 looking at a perfect print. What a great way to be introduced to the film. Amazing performances all around, esp. by Pacino. A bit late perhaps, but I add my congratulations to Mr. Harris and the others involved in this spectacular work.

Anyway, with Wizard of Oz I'm also hoping to be stunned. I think it's a new golden age for movie watching, at least for the select titles that really get restored and properly presented...

 I would skip the FATHOM wizard of oz screenings. I attended the POLTERGEIST screening WB had with FATHOM it was a train wreck. I learned my lesson. They basically projected a DVD copy of the film at the incorrect aspect ratio of near 1.85:1 and the SOUND I can't tell you how bad the sound was it seemed like a mono track. It ruined the experience of the film for me big time. 

I warn you now. I will give FATHOM no more money. You may be able to find boards about the POLTERGEIST Fathom screening. 

Not sure what Robert Harris thinks of the FATHOM event, but if he could have witnessed POLTERGEIST. OUCH.