A Few Words About A few words about...™ Oklahoma! -- in Blu-ray (2 Viewers)

[ROclockCK]

Yes, by design, TT "dodged the retail bullet"...otherwise, we'd be talking about this label in the past tense.

But we're not going to go on about how the limited model works yet again, are we? It's a completely valid response to contracting or niche markets...and has been working just fine for movie soundtracks for decades.

This thread is about the restored Todd-AO Oklahoma...one of the few bright spots in mainstream studio delivery of premium Blu-ray product.

 

[John Maher_289910]

except for the botched dusk scene and the lack of uncompressed sound.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Good to hear that this film has finally been well served. The original DVD of OKLAHOMA! was just atrociously awful and unwatchable, and so far as I know none of the subsequent releases had been much of an improvement.

 

[ROclockCK]

I hadn't even seen this picture since late 80s on Laserdisc, so it was a startling improvement.

Excuse me while I find the other eye that popped out...

 

[Mark Booth]

A friend and I were comparing the Todd-AO Blu-ray, CinemaScope Blu-ray, and THX DVD. The THX DVD lists "CINEMASCOPE" on the back cover but it is, in fact, the Todd-AO version of the film. I don't find Todd-AO listed anywhere on the DVD or its case.

Even though the DVD version has more of dusk feeling in the scene immediately following the Entr'acte, it is VERY obvious that this scene was darkened in post. You can clearly see very strong shadows throughout the scene, proving it was filmed in broad daylight.

For continuity's sake, it would have been nice if Fox had darkened that scene on the Blu-ray versions. But the Todd-AO Blu-ray is so vastly superior to ANY other home video version of the film, it's a mistake I can easily live with.

The DVD presentation is atrocious. No wonder I only watched it a single time way back when. Ugly, ugly, ugly! I think I'll send the DVD through my shredder to eliminate at least one copy from the face of the planet.

Mark

 

[john a hunter]

except for the botched dusk scene and the lack of uncompressed sound.

The sound is very "uncompressed". Just turn your volume up and experience some of the best sound on BD from a vintage film!

 

[moviebuff75]

They should have known better about the day for night shot following the Intermission. No excuses. Should be fixed, along with The King and I.

 

[Noel Aguirre]

RAH-
When you saw it at the Chinese was it actual film projected or computer projection? If film wouldn't an entirely different projection system need to be installed for one night?
When I saw Heaven's Gate last year at Lincoln Center it appeared to be computer and not film projection.
Thank you for the review.

 

[Noel Aguirre]

The sound is very "uncompressed". Just turn your volume up and experience some of the best sound on BD from a vintage film!

Sound recorded at such a low level is problematic in that once you crank a powerful amp up and the music ends the speaking voices are too loud.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

For me the main problem is that if you want to switch audio tracks 'on the fly' between soundtrack and audio commentary, the too-high soundtrack level makes this impossible.

 

[rsmithjr]

If there were portions of the soundtrack that reached to high levels, I might understand this approach. That does not seem to be the case after watching it 3 times: it is always too low.

I also think that the front stereo soundstage has been narrowed and in general it does not sound as exciting. Hard to tell when I am limited because I cannot get the volume I want out of my system. [I went from a normal -4DB to +10DB (the max) on my preamp.]

I have compared this soundtrack to the PCM Dolby Surround 2.0 track that is on the LD. I prefer the LD actually.

This is especially disappointing when I compare to the South Pacific Blu-ray, which has an almost magical soundtrack. I was expecting something like that.

Happily Oklahoma! is still a great experience for me on this Blu-ray, thanks to the largely perfect image (except for the day-for-night section after the intermission that is now firmly in the middle of the day).

 

[Will Krupp]

Sooooooo......

I have a question that I'm sure someone will help me with.

I only realized this the other day and have been trying to figure it out myself but it's kind of driving me crazy so here goes (please bear with me):

I have a 1080p display which means that, no matter what I send to it, it's only going to show me 1080p. If a different resolution or an interlaced picture is sent to it then it has to be scaled or deinterlaced SOMEWHERE along the chain because the display can ONLY output 1080p. Fine.

I usually have my Sony player directly output "Original Resolution" when I'm watching blu-rays (not DVD's as the player is a much better scaler but I digress) so THAT'S the way I watched OKLAHOMA! and it's gorgeous. Since it's 1080i is being sent from the player that means the TV is doing the deinterlacing (just like it does for digital cable) and it's giving me that wonderful "looking out the window" feel with a picture that has amazing depth which I entirely chalked up to the higher frame rate.

Now I don't know WHAT made me decide to play around (so please don't ask!) but the other night (for fun) I decided to change the output on the player to 1080p to see what it looked like if the player itself did the deinterlacing before it even hits the display. Well, imagine my surprise but the picture is now ever so subtly sharper, the colors pop more, and there is more shadow detail. In other words, the picture looks even BETTER than it did, but here's the thing.... that delicious three dimensional look is greatly greatly diminished. It still looks phenomenal but loses the sense of depth it had when outputting 1080i.

Which one is right?

I LIKED the deep look that made me think I could reach out and grab Gordon MaCrae's butt anytime I wanted to but now I'm wondering if that's just a digital side effect of the interlacing. Is it a subtle version of the dreaded "soap opera" effect? There is NO frame interpolation so that's not the issue.

Many people have remarked on the three dimensional feel of the blu-ray but is it right? At what output is everyone watching it? Does anyone know which look is more accurate to 1955? I've never seen 30fps projected on film so I really don't know. The increased sharpness, color, and shadow detail makes me think that's the right way to go but gee whiz the other look is mighty mighty appealing in it's own right.

What does everybody think?

 

[rayman1701]

Basically, yes somewhere in the chain it HAS to be converted to 1080p, and different components do it either better or maybe not as well. It all depends on what looks better to you. Try out a few different sources to see if the processing of the player looks better to you or if you like the TV processing better. Different chips and programming can yield slightly different results.

 

[moviebuff75]

If you can't reach out and grab Gordon's butt, then what is the point really?

 

[Will Krupp]

No, I GET all that Rayman. I'm just hoping to find out which one is right. Which is the INTENDED look and which is more accurate to the 1955 Todd-AO experience?

 

[Will Krupp]

If you can't reach out and grab Gordon's butt, then what is the point really?

TRUTH!!!

 

[Mark-P]

I always have my Blu-ray player do the scaling/deinterlacing by choosing 1080p. I've tried Oklahoma! both ways, 1080p and "original resolution" 1080i. They look identical to me, so I guess my player's and projector's deinterlacers must be equally matched.

 

[ahollis]

Will K - not sure what is right but when we played the 70mm Goldwyn re-release back in the 80's audience members came out remarking how much depth the movie had that it looked 3D. That was the wonder of 30 fps TODD-AO.

 

[john a hunter]

No, I GET all that Rayman. I'm just hoping to find out which one is right. Which is the INTENDED look and which is more accurate to the 1955 Todd-AO experience?

It would seem that the player doing the deinterlacing is better at some things than others. You should get a 3D effect with great colour, etc. You may have to decide what is your priority.

 

[john a hunter]

Sound recorded at such a low level is problematic in that once you crank a powerful amp up and the music ends the speaking voices are too loud.

If you want the sound compressed, then you need to look at your processor to see what options there are. Dolby has a few programmes that could help.