A few words about...™ The Wizard of Oz -- in Blu-ray - Page 3

I'll just point out that this screening won't be as good as the bluray because it will only be 1080i and then upconverted (or not) as necessary by different theatres.

So the bottom line seems to be that a blu-ray in your home (1080p) can be better than a digital projection in the theater? Wow. I don't know if that's good news or bad news. I guess it's both....

Can anyone with a preview copy of the disc let me know if the Garland line "Oh Toto, Don't!" is present on this disc or is it the 1998 version where she simply wimpers "Oh Toto" as Uncle Henry is placing the dog in the basket? Thanks!

A real digital projection? No. The satellite events? Possibly. I don't know about their resolution, but at the one I saw there were a few minor glitches early on in the feed.

the satellite feed providing the theatres is only 1080i, so yes.

What picture quality are you talking about? The technical image quality of the source to be compressed? The subjective image quality of the source judged by different people?
And what exactly is your problem with the Oz example and the example bit rates I gave? So you disagree that
- Oz will not look bad at 17 Mbit/s
- will look better (as in more faithful to the source) at 25 Mbit/s
- will not look bad at even 10 Mbit/s to many people
?
 I don't understand where the supposed contradiction is. Bit rate is stronlgy correlated to accuracy and lack of compression artifacts. And accuracy is strongly correlated to the objective technical image quality (not subjective image quality). The arbitrary average bit rates I gave are examples for Oz, but pretty much in the right ballpark. You want to talk about specific encoders or parameter settings in addition to the bit rate? I'm not saying they are irrelevant. But if you discuss bit rates in general and different sources and studios it's pointless to assume WB has better encoders or better compressionists who use more suitable parameters than the rest of the industry. So what applies in general applies to them and Oz as well. And what kind of bit rates work together with what kind of sources to achieve a result that can be called visually lossless relative to specific viewing conditions is not a complete mistery. Experience from many years of using these codecs has given ballpark numbers that describe the situation well.
I'm not saying bit rate is the only relevant factor. But the average bit rate does set upper limits for the kind of accuracy you can achieve. For finely detailed grainy material like Oz an average bit rate of < 20 Mbit/s leaves some quality on the table. You disagree?

Quality is pretty much a subjective term by it's definition.  I have no idea what you mean when you refer to "technical image quality of the source" apart from resolution.

My problem is that you're stating all of the above as fact and using arbitrary numbers.  There's so many other factors in play here (motion on screen, film grain, encoding tool, and codec, just for starters) that it's impossible to say what differences would be noticeable at what point by what people.  To your credit, you do address some of these.

The contradiction is in the assumptions, essentially.  And your insistence on not following assumptions re: Warner further confuses the situation, and the fact that every single PQ discussion you have hinges on bitrates just seems misplaced.

Again, there are so many factors that I can't say that, and I don't think anyone can, even the people responsible.  I'd hazard a guess that on even high-end calibrated system, a double-blind style of testing with unbiased observers wouldn't be likely to reveal any difference between your 17-25Mbps range, and possibly lower.  But if you've got the bitrate meter on, already have a bias towards look for problems regardless of whether they exist, and some sort of arbitrary measurement, I'm sure you'll find something wrong with it.

I'm not reading your reviews anymore Mr. Harris.  I was quite content to skip this since I was happy with the previous DVD edition.  Now this is a must buy for me!  darn you!  :P

dvdbeaver has a comparison - http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/wizard.htm

 Well, I'm hoping those screencaps are not indicative of the step-up in quality, color, and sharpness because in the screencaps I don't see all that much difference between the last DVD release and this new Blu-Ray - but then again, his screencaps never tell the story and therefore I don't really see what purpose they serve.  I like the idea of having the comparisons, but I've bought too many DVDs and Blu-Rays where the difference between what I'm seeing and what's on those screencaps is huge.  Wizard will be here next week and we'll all know.

Good to see I'm not the only one that feels this way...

if the screencaps aren't convincing then I would trust the people who have seen it in motion. 

So, is anyone going to any of the 440 theaters showing the 4K version tonight?  I only just learned about the theatrical showings about and hour ago and am debating the matter.  (I had a little outpatient foot surgery yesterday and I'm not sure I'll be up for a long film plus the intro.  Wish I'd heard about this sooner, I would have rescheduled the doc and gone to the movie.  You have to have your priorities straight in this life. )

Later,

Joe

these theatres are receiving a satellite feed that is 1080i and are projecting it on their screens.  It's not a 4K screening, though it may be shown through a 4K projector at some venues, the source is definitely not 4K

Regarding the whole bit-rate debate, wouldn't a 1.33:1 title like THE WIZARD OF OZ theoretically require LESS bit-rate since a large portion of the image is taken up by those unmoving and unchanging solid black bars at the sides? 

Vincent

Well, if they're less obvious at four inches (and they must be way less obvious at four inches), then what it the point of having the captures.  To my eye, the difference in the caps on his site are anything but immense and obvious.  I've seen some caps on his site where there is a much more obvious difference between SD and Blu-Ray counterparts, but nothing to compare to the obvious difference of actually viewing the Blu-Ray.  I'm very much looking forward to the Blu-Ray but the only eyes I trust are mine own - and yes, I've seen IB Technicolor prints of this film my whole life.

QUOTE
Quality is pretty much a subjective term by it's definition.  I have no idea what you mean when you refer to "technical image quality of the source" apart from resolution.
QUOTE

That's why we go in circles. It seems you don't understand what the job of compression is. And what image quality of the compressed image means if we don't talk about the image quality of the source per se. Image quality in the compression context is compression quality, e.g. delivering a compressed image that after decompression looks as close to the original uncompressed image as possible, whether that image has a quality you would call good or bad, pleasing or ugly, sharp or fuzzy, film like or not. It means lack of visible compression artifacts. It means don't take anything away from the original image and don't add anything to it, ideally, and if you do take and add make it so that humans can't see it under certain viewing conditions (such as real time and sitting 2 screen heights away), either with access to the original at the same time or without.

QUOTE
My problem is that you're stating all of the above as fact and using arbitrary numbers.

QUOTE

They are ballpark numbers that apply here in my experience. If you think they are wrong then suggest better ones and explain why, please.

QUOTE

The contradiction is in the assumptions, essentially.  And your insistence on not following assumptions re: Warner further confuses the situation, and the fact that every single PQ discussion you have hinges on bitrates just seems misplaced.
QUOTE

There are no contradictions. Bit rate is THE relevant parameter here. All other parameters are either a given (such as the quality of the source, the use of AVC or VC-1) or it makes little sense to speculate on them as they are the same for all studios and we can assume all studios know how to use them properly (encoder settings, operator skill). I'm not saying a high bit rate encoding means a great looking disc, because there is no such connection. A high bit rate only gives the means to compress the source accurately. How 'good' the source looks is an entirely different issue. And so is the possibility someone uses the high bit rate very inefficiently and produces worse results than a more skilled person. But it would be silly to assume WB has all the skilled people and the other studios don't, so they need 50% higher bit rates to achieve what WB achieves. Makes no sense. What I'm saying is that the average bit rate sets hard upper limits for the accuracy of the compression and WB often uses lower average bit rates than other studios. While it's true that with variable bit rates they still can go all the way up at times. But if they do they also have to go below the average to compensate. Win some, lose some.
It is known from working with these codecs that the bit rates where things start to become visually lossless under critical viewing conditions is not 10 Mbit/s or 15 Mbit/s average with grainy detailed material. It's above 20 Mbit/s and requires peaks into the 40s and beyond. That's just how it is.
And no, with me it's not all the time about bit rates when I talk about BD quality. It's always about the proper film look and various digital artifacts eating away at it. Compression is only part of that, for many BDs not the quality bottleneck. For WB titles though it is sometimes clearly the weakest aspect. Why they are so in love with medium to low average bit rates, who knows.
For Oz they used 23 Mbit/s average which is high enough that obvious compression issues should not be visible.
For people interested in this stuff (and more):
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=147300
Edited by Michel_Hafner - 10/2/09 at 11:37am

I just got back from the theater event.

The projector definitely could have been brighter as the picture was pretty muddy.  The sepia scenes were noticably sharper than most of the technicolor scenes.  There was also noticable image stuttering during shots with large amounts of motion.

I still was able to enjoy the event due to the size of the screen and the community experience.  I would prefer in the future that if theater events aren't of something live, they distribute it either by a hard drive or by a blu-ray disc authored for the presentation.

The biggest laugh happened after the end credits when the windows 'start button' appeared at the bottom of the screen.

Does anyone know if they did wire removal on the Lion's tail?  I did not notice it tonight and it was very obvious in previous DVD releases.

Just came back.

It was great! I still *love* that film. Picture quality was a mixed bag, imho, but the movie itself is wonderful and it was great to see it with an audience. I was transported away. I didn't even think that often "I'm watching a movie." Obviously I was aware of it, but I was really wrapped up in it more than I thought I would be....Laughed and cried. And we all applauded at the end...

I'm guessing the pq will be better on my home system.

Still disappointed about Judy's "Oh Toto, Don't:" line being altered, but the big screen event was good.. The colors and print looked a lot like the 1989 version.

Yes Eric, I agree. I saw it in 89 in the theaters as well. And this was better, but it was less of a jump than I thought it would be. And frankly, it was watching a video rather than a film. I could tell that sometimes, esp. I think when the camera was panning and I saw a few telltale video lines, or whatever they're called. Film is still sometimes superior. I think they should have mastered new 35mm prints from 4k scans.

What's the altered line you mention?

Still, wonderful movie. And there were parts where the PQ was definitely better than any version I had ever seen before--including in 89. The sound was much better, I thought, although maybe a little too loud in places?

Originally, when Uncle Henry is putting Toto in the basket for Miss Gulch, Judy says "Oh, Toto! Don't." It's a very emotional line of dialogue and she sounds very distraught. In 1998 when the restoration was occuring for the re-release in theatres, the audio mixers thought that the last part of the line was a repeated "Oh Tot." and they deleted either the first or last part of the line. They said that they found no correspondence in the script and Ned Price okayed the deletion. However, the continuity script shows the entire line and it has been this way since the rough cut. Now if those restoration experts have better ears than I do, or if they were able to tell that it was a stutter edit, I am okay with that. But it sounds to me when I listen to it that they were wrong. And the reason I bring it up is now Dorothy just sort of whimpers. A small change? Yeah. However, it is just as important as an actor nodding or gesturing...it is a part of their performance. No lines or frames of film should be deleted from this treasure.

Just wanted to share my experience. Loved the film on the big screen even though it was a complete mess in regards to the method of distribution.

Just got back from the showing in Naples, FL at the Hollywood 20. Seemed sold out, so that was good. We sat at approx. 6:40 PM for the 7PM showing. I notice a DISH Network HD logo on the screen, didn't think much of it while we continued to wait for the preview to the movie that was mentioned. At approx. 7PM up on the screen is a DISH Network DVR list of programs. I noticed Wizard of Oz and they press play. Up comes another DISH Network HD logo so the person in the projector booth thinks it didn't start and goes through the process two or three times until he/she realized it was the start of the DVRed event. So, rather than letting it play, he/she started to fast forward through the anticipated preview (DVD like discussion/history of the movie) stopping at times, then fast forwarding again, then went to far and had to rewind it. Okay, by this time, there are loud grumbles throughout the theater - "Hey!" "Stop it", "What?!" Many of these people were in the theater before 6:30. The theater was to play the preview at a certain time that timed the start of the movie around the 7PM start time.

So, now it's approx. 7:05 and the movie starts. You'll never guess? The lip sync is off, and bad. More grumblings but this time softer as the movie had started. So, enter the color scene. I said to my brother-in-law the reports were that the yellow brick road "popped" and "this should be good!". Not! He leans in and say, "the yellow brick road looks red". I agreed, we discussed but continued to watch and wonder. The audio was still off but we tried to make the best of it. So, while in Munchkin Land, the movie skipped forward to "live" if you know how the DISH DVR works, but it was only like three seconds behind. Then onto the screen is "Stretch", "Full", "Zoom", "Normal", etc. This is now driving a lot of people crazy. They should have really stopped and taken care of all then started again. (Well, they should have screened and tested prior to 7PM). This is no joke - so, earlier when we saw the red washed out YBR, I said to BIL that I bet they don't have the component cables in correctly or one cable is not connected correctly. So, a lady behind us gets up and says this is ridicules. We could tell she was going to go and tell someone. Within 3 minutes of her getting up, whoa-la, Dorothy's dress became a  beautiful bright checked white and blue and the YBR became the YBR.

So, we finally were able to enjoy the movie. Oh, somehow the lip sync finally fixed itself. So, one more time did they scroll through the DISH format settings and they left it on stretch for a few minutes then changed it back to normal and left it alone the rest of the way.

This was not DISH 1080i. I'm going to go back to the theater and ask to look at the machine since I have the DISH Hi-Def box I know what I'm looking for. I will promptly complain during business hours on Thursday and ask for a free movie ticket.

There was a Dorothy and wicked witch sighting in the theater in full costume.

Can't wait to experience in blu-ray.

Glenn,

It sounds like you had a traumatic experience.  Yes, there was an OZ related pre-show slide show that started about 30 minutes before show time.  Right at 7PM Robert Osbourne gave a special introduction for this event which was followed by the old Angela Lansbury documentary on the making of the film.

Looks like this and Gremlins will be out early minus the extras
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/dvd-bargains/561981-target-media-prices-september-26-october-2-2009-a.html

And the price for the bare bones Oz at Target is still expensive enough so that they probably includes most of the video based content.

Just got back from my Fathom screening of Oz.  NEVER AGAIN.

The theater was showing it zoomed to 1.85:1.  When I asked the projectionist about this, I was told "it looks right".  I told him it was wrong.  He replied "It'd be too small...like watching it on TV."  I finally told him to get his manager and he said "if you wanted to watch it on TV you should have stayed home."  The manager admits that the REGIONAL AMC manager (this is AMC Mazza Gallerie in Chevy Chase Maryland, if anyone else was there) had informed everyone to show the film zoomed - apparently they were worried about people complaining because the film wasn't filling the screen.  Of course, this was regardless of the title card at the beginning saying "This has been formatted to show the original film presentation."  Guess that's not important anymore. 

So if anyone has addresses so I can contact the appropriate people at Warner/TCM, Fathom, or AMC and complain, I would greatly appreciate it.

What a terrible thing for them to say! And what a rude way to say it. "You should have stayed at home." I would tell them that I will stay at home from now on or go to another theatre. Fortunately, our theatre showed it in the correct ratio, although midway through, the projector shifted resulting in bigger bars on the left and the picture off center.

I've searched Target.com in hopes I could order online, I'm based in Australia, but can't locate a page to buy the stripped-down Oz. Does anyone know how I can do this? And also any specs for the release, if its single disc or 3-disc like the UK version coming later in the year?

PS, Swearingen, that is atrocious; the ignorance of zooming in The Wizard of Oz is maddening.