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

[Ken_McAlinden]

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.

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.

Regards,

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

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.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

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,

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

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?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

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.

Originally Posted by Powell&Pressburger

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?

 

[Robert George]

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?

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Robert George

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?

All elements produced should be full resolution, replicating the original. Whether wire fixes, etc. are included I have no idea.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by RobertR




Only problem is, have you seen the cover of the UK release? It looks godawful! "Sing Along edition"...blech!

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!

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon




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 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.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Originally Posted by RobertR




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.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Scott Merryfield




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.

 

[JulianK]

Originally Posted by RobertR

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!

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by JulianK




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.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by RobertR

It really is an ugly cover.

It sure is. Makes me think of these:

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Originally Posted by Jesse Blacklow


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.

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.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner

I'm saying no such thing and I really would like to see where I made such a claim.

Here, for starters:

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.

I'm seeing a series of assumptions backed up by arbitrary bitrates, which boils down to evaluating PQ solely on bitrate.

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.

That's a direct contradiction to what you said above, where you explicitly tie bitrate to "detail, accuracy, and fidelity."

 

[Greg_M]

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.

 

[benbess]

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...

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

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.