A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Wizard of Oz -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[MielR]

Originally Posted by benbess



First, I saw immediately the issue that Eric mentioned with the jump in the early scene where Glinda is heading out in her bubble. I didn't need to pause or go back or do slo-mo, and I wasn't even looking for it.

I was watching TBS tonight, and I guess they are using the new transfer because I saw it as well- very minor to be sure, but still visible to me.

 

They are using the new transfer, because the wires were gone. It is minor, but there was never a problem there. I'm an Oz fanatic so I've seen the film hundreds of times. Of course it would pop out to me right away. Shame.

 

[SomeJoe7777]

Eric,

I was curious regarding the Wizard of Oz frame problem that you have mentioned in this thread (and also over on the forum at IMDB) that occurs at 32:29. I single-stepped through the frames and came to the following conclusion:

1. Everything is normal up through frame 46750 (32:29.865).
2. Frame 46751 (32:29.906) is where the glitch occurs. The right-hand side of the frame looks correct, but the left-hand side of the frame is a duplicate of the following frame (46752).
3. Frame 46752 (32:29.948) is correct. It's left-hand side is the same as frame 46751.

I don't believe this is a "mistake" in the compositing or restoration process. I believe this was done intentionally to cover up irreparable film damage to the left-hand side of frame 46751. The original film from where the scans were made is 70 years old, and this color process they used consisted of 3 separate negatives. Severe damage to just one of the negatives in this frame would render it unusable. Since other DVDs and transfers don't have this problem, I can only assume they were originally made from standard definition intermediate sources, or were made before the damage to this frame occurred.

In short, I don't think you've uncovered a mistake, but simply an artifact of the restoration.

 

Interesting, Joe. But if the frame was damaged, couldn't they have just used the materials stored in the computer from 2005 and fixed it from there?

 

[Douglas Monce]

Typically they would use information from the frame before and or after to repair a torn image. Unless there was too much movement in those frames to provide enough information to fill in the missing details.

Doug

 

[SomeJoe7777]

Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard

Interesting, Joe. But if the frame was damaged, couldn't they have just used the materials stored in the computer from 2005 and fixed it from there?

Maybe, but there may have been problems with that approach. The scans of the original footage done for the Blu-Ray were 4K resolution, I believe. If the scans done in 2005 weren't suitable for HD, then you would have part of the frame dipping to some lower resolution. This might have looked strange, possibly stranger than the skipped 1/2 frame.

Another possibility is that they couldn't properly match the colors to the new scans. The new scans are being done on different equipment, with a different production process. Maybe the inserted 1/2 frame would have been off-color and more noticeable.

Or possibly those original scans from 2005 weren't done from the original film at all, but from some intermediate master. In the interests of purity, maybe they wanted to do everything possible to remain true to the original film and decided on the repeated frame approach, even though the intermediate master exists.

I find it more than coincidence that this damaged frame occurs in this scene. This scene is a composited scene, with the special effect of Glinda's bubble floating away, and with the live action of the Munchkins. The source films would have been run through transfer machines multiple times with mattes and transparencies to produce the final master, so it's no coincidence that the frames in this part of the film might have been more likely to suffer damage.

 

I wonder if the 24fps of the blu ray makes this more apparent? I wonder how the new dvd looks. This means that if a frame is damaged that the damage would have occured after the scanning for the 2005 edition. They used the original negatives then as well.

 

[SomeJoe7777]

Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard

I wonder if the 24fps of the blu ray makes this more apparent? I wonder how the new dvd looks. This means that if a frame is damaged that the damage would have occured after the scanning for the 2005 edition. They used the original negatives then as well.

Yes, it's possible that 24p makes the artifact more apparent. On DVD, 24 fps film is played back at 30 fps using the 3:2 pulldown technique, which involves repeating certain fields of each frame. Thus, the information we're talking about here that's missing in the Blu-Ray frame may not be as noticeable on DVD since some of the frame information is repeated already.

And yes, it's possible this frame was damaged between 2005 and 2009. Even just a slight tear halfway across the frame would probably render it unusable. It would be difficult to get the frame into the scanner, and even if you did the scan would show a large defect that wouldn't be fixable digitally.

 

[TonyD]

^
Umm post 269 back in October......immediately followed by discussion of this anomaly

Originally Posted by TonyD



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.......

 

[SomeJoe7777]

Originally Posted by TonyD


^
Umm post 269 back in October......immediately followed by discussion of this anomaly

Yes, I read the entire thread. The point is that when the issue was first brought up and discussed, the discussion focused on this anomaly being a mistake in the transfer that needed to be fixed.

My new assertion is that this anomaly itself IS a fix. It's not a mistake in the transfer, it's an intentional repair of film damage. Do I have proof of that? No. I just consider it the most likely scenario.

 

Here's another theory: There is a lot of instability in that composite on the previous dvd. The background, in particular, wavers horizontally. Perhaps WB employed a stabilization technique whereby the frames were prevented from shaking, resulting in the Munchkins "jumping" when the image did shift.

 

[Mark-P]

I just got the Emerald Edition (3-disc set). I must say I am surprised that there hasn't been more discussion about the horrendous quality of the TV-movie "The Dreamer of Oz." Only one post (#148) has mentioned it. Sure, I realize the movie itself is the most important thing and it looks spectacular. The John Ritter TV movie is merely a "here you go" tossed-in supplement and nobody appears to care much about it, but really, how could a 1990 TV movie look this bad? It is worse than VHS and actually has videotape drop-outs in the picture! According to IMDB the telefilm was shot on 35mm film, and no I would not expect them to retransfer it for this release, but surely the original telecine transfer from 1990 looked better than this. I'm not kidding when I say the version on the blu-ray had to have been VHS video-taped off an on-air broadcast!

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Mark-P

I just got the Emerald Edition (3-disc set). I must say I am surprised that there hasn't been more discussion about the horrendous quality of the TV-movie "The Dreamer of Oz." Only one post (#148) has mentioned it. Sure, I realize the movie itself is the most important thing and it looks spectacular. The John Ritter TV movie is merely a "here you go" tossed-in supplement and nobody appears to care much about it, but really, how could a 1990 TV movie look this bad? It is worse than VHS and actually has videotape drop-outs in the picture! According to IMDB the telefilm was shot on 35mm film, and no I would not expect them to retransfer it for this release, but surely the original telecine transfer from 1990 looked better than this. I'm not kidding when I say the version on the blu-ray had to have been VHS video-taped off an on-air broadcast!

Check out the first 2 seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation from 1987 and 88. Looks horrible and not much better than VHS. Yes a lot of telecine work from the late 80s and early 90's is pretty bad. Add to that the Dreamer of Oz was probably edited on video (480i), so there is likely no edited film to go back to and re-transfer. The whole film would likely have to be re-scanned and re-edited from scratch. Probably not something Warner was going to spend money on.

Doug

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce




Check out the first 2 seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation from 1987 and 88. Looks horrible and not much better than VHS. Yes a lot of telecine work from the late 80s and early 90's is pretty bad. Add to that the Dreamer of Oz was probably edited on video (480i), so there is likely no edited film to go back to and re-transfer. The whole film would likely have to be re-scanned and re-edited from scratch. Probably not something Warner was going to spend money on.

Doug

No, but they could easily have gone to an earlier generation tape. Or one that wasn't recorded with rabbit ears from a station 100 miles away.

 

[Mark-P]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce




Check out the first 2 seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation from 1987 and 88. Looks horrible and not much better than VHS. Yes a lot of telecine work from the late 80s and early 90's is pretty bad. Add to that the Dreamer of Oz was probably edited on video (480i), so there is likely no edited film to go back to and re-transfer. The whole film would likely have to be re-scanned and re-edited from scratch. Probably not something Warner was going to spend money on.

Doug

Douglas, I'm guessing you haven't looked at "Dreamer of Oz" on this blu-ray. Trust me, Seasons 1 and 2 of Star Trek: The Next Generation look like high definition by comparison.

 

[Ray H]

Agreed the TV movie looks curiously bad - like it's from some fan's poor quality VCR taping. In contrast, the TV movie on the Gone with the Wind set looks pretty good.

 

My copy of The Dreamer of Oz, taped from the original broadcast, still looks better than the version on the blu-ray set. This release has been a disappointment for me, with most of the extras carry overs from the last release, the transfer containing "the glitch", the mono track missing part of a line, and no full-length commentary from John Fricke (just a patchwork commentary from the last release.) Even the transition from sepia to Technicolor looks very dark. You can hardly make out details in the shot. The wire removal is something I'm on the fence about. I'm not devastated over these things, but after purchasing this title several times over the past 23 years, I would like to finally have a "definitive edition." Maybe on the next release they can also focus a bit more on the television legacy of the film by including CBS promos and bumpers (remember the rainbow bumper from the late '70's and early '80's?-it's on youtube.) I would like the next release to maybe have a virtual tour of Oz with extras in each section of the land (i.e. art direction, special effects, casting, deleted scenes, etc.)

 

[Vincent_P]

[/url]

My copy, taped from the original broadcast, still looks better than the version on the blu-ray set...

 

I'm talking about my broadcast tape of The Dreamer of Oz.

 

[TonyD]

phew, that was a little scary there for a minute.