A Few Words About A few words about... Oklahoma! (1 Viewer)

[Mark B]

The Goldwyn logo has been on OKLAHOMA! and SOUTH PACIFIC home video releases as far back as the early eighties. It was even cut into the opening titles of SP, replacing the Distributed by Twentieth-Century-Fox logo (a shot of a native diving into the water) with the Golwyn (over a shot of Bali Ha'i. In OK it followed the Overture.

 

[SteveJKo]

As the first film shot in my favorite wide screen format, I'll have to pick it up. But I'll have to keep in mind that this is still a work in progress.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

I know there is such a thing as a decent 65/70mm film-to-video transfer, because NHK used 70mm film for all of their early experiments with HDTV, printing out to it and scanning back from it [at 30fps, I guess, and with multichannel sound]. At the time there was no videotape format which would store a tri-component signal with 30 MHz per channel bandwidth, and of course the MTF of 35mm film wasn't flat enough at high spatial frequencies to guarantee good reproduction. They must have evolved some pretty sophisticated equipment and techniques. Why, then, does nobody use them?

 

[TedD]

Thats one way.

The other way (which I consider the "Right" way) is to invest in a 4K transfer (which would have to be non-real time) while there is still a reasonable element left to transfer from.

Granted, this would be very expensive. Then apply color correction and defect removal in the digital domain. Now, use the 4K master to generate a new 35mm ultra fine grain (or 65mm) preservation master that could also be used as a starting point to strike new prints for theatrical exibition. Then, create new DVD and HD masters for video fromthe 4K scans..

Thats what I would do if it were my call. Alas, it's not....

Ted

 

[Patrick McCart]

I expected better from Fox. They seem to have a bad habit of releasing DVD's right before restorations are underway. Patton and The Sound of Music were apparently restored not that long after their original 2-disc DVD's. Now they're doing Oklahoma! right after releasing a new DVD. I guess I'll still buy it (it's one of the few musicals I can call one of my favorite movies).

This is just backwards... For example, WB performs restorations and then releases the DVD.

 

[Joe Caps]

I'm sure we'll still see some of that light flickering that happens in certain shots of the Todd Oklahoma, a fault of something wrong with one of the original cameras.

 

[Stephen PI]

If I recall on the THX laserdisc they took single frames from each of the titles and re-created the titles with video dissolves which looked horrible and the timing of the dissolves was off with the music. Is this a result of what you are describing above, Robert? If the original titles are unsteady then I would rather have that than this mess.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Christopher,
The Agony and The Ecstasy is also billed as being shot in Todd-AO. The present DVD doesn't look too bad but I don't have source material to compare it with.

 

[Ken Horowitz]

The CBS/Fox Video joint-venture had licensed the video distribution rights to "Oklahoma!" and "South Pacific" (I don't recall whether those rights originated via CBS, or whether the venture made the acquisition). When the venture was finally dissolved, the video distribution rights to these two R&H titles went to Fox Video.

The "ownership" of the R&H films is rather complex. The reason that it took so long for "Carousel" to come out on video (this was many many years ago) was that while Fox owned rights to the film, the R&H estate owned the rights to the underlying music. To a greater or lesser extent, such intertwined rights are involved in all the R&H titles.

 

[Jo_C]

Thanks for answering some questions. I think I can help you with the rest, Ken...see http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=244890 for the details on the R & H rights issue.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

There are a number of 24fps Todd-AO films, but the original system was not used after the first two productions. Since film shot at 30fps could not be used for 24fps projections, the whole movie had to be shot twice. Given that the number of theatres able to handle 70mm was never very large to begin with, and the number willing to make the necessary modifications for Todd-AO smaller yet, most of the public viewed the CinemaScope versions; and apparently not enough theatres were willing to modify their projectors for dual-speed operation to make 30fps CinemaScope reduction prints viable. Contrariwise, there was no problem making reduction prints from 24fps sources, which basically cut the expense of the movie in half.

 

[Paul_Scott]

maybe fox needs some revenue on a particular title to subsidize costs of restoration- although they have already incurred some expense to go back and make new anamorphic transfers here- i believe they commented in a chat a few years back that new issues of the R&H films would not be forthcoming anytime soon because their limited appeal vs remastering costs didn't equate.
(if subsidize a title with revenue from it self is the main reason for these current releases, then Fox looks like its the business equivilent of lower income households stuck in 'rent to own' cycles, where they can only afford to spend $2000 for a $400 couch because they have no alternative but to spread costs out over a long period)

and if there is currently a problem (prohibitive cost mainly) getting a decently resolved image off of anything over 35mm- why on earth do these studios continue to do it?
the whole point of a large frame, i assumed, was finer resolved detail (w/out getting into subject of fps).
it makes no sense to tout "remastered from 70mm!... 65mm! ...Todd-AO!" if the end product is less resolved than the standard 35 mm anamorphic elements.
it ends up just being ass-backward marketing BS.

if the studios knew they would get a far less than state of the art transfer going with the Todd-AO version, why didn't they just make a copy print onto 35 mm and take it from there?
obviously i have only a microscopic awareness of the technological issues ionvolved here, but i would believe that even given the nature of copying film onto more film, that there must exist some kind of fine grain stock that can minimize the adverse effects of copying, and that then being able to use an up to the minute, state of the art 35 mm based (telecine?) , that the end result would still trump getting a decent native transfer off of archaic technology.

if i am totally off base, do set me straight

 

[DaViD Boulet]

IMO,

the ideal solution (difficulty/costs not withstanding) is to scan all large-format elements at 4K and then decimate down to HD and SD resolutions after "digital restoration".

This way you always have the raw 4K unprocessed files if you realize later you screwed up the image during "restoration processing"...and you don't have to do any hi-pass filtering for your HD copy since you're scanning far above its spec so the final 1920 x 1080 image can preserve more apparent detail (use good algorithms to dither down to HD from the 4K source to preserve more image details than a "straight" HD transfer).

The more optimizing you can do upstream now, the more long-term use that transfer can provide.

A properly optimized transfer today could provide a stunning DVD product along with an even more stunning future HD blu-ray disc. That's 2 for the price of 1. What sense does it make to derive a DVD from inferior sources now only to do a proper transfer/restoration a few short months/years later for HD? Also, if the 4k scan was done with the proper equipment and the best of care, it could serve the goal of preservation as it could be printed back to (new) film with minimal loss. I think one of the worst things a studio can do is add additional wear and tear to historic elements and only do an SD or 1080 HD transfer when we all know that's only a temporary solution. I know that due to cost and equipment right now 1080P is the best that is often practical, but we still need to set our sights on where we *ought* to go even if we can't ensure we get there with every title at the present time.

In any case...to slap bad elements on DVD now and *then* to restore the film is an insult to the HT community. Restore first...then print to DVD. We'll buy the HD version too...have no worries about that.

It would be better to wait and NOT RELEASE a DVD at all than to release an inferior DVD product that is not able to utilize a restoration effort that's already under way/on the schedule.


BTW, Fox isn't alone in doing this. MGM's Fiddler on the Roof DVD is a nightmare of horrible image artifacts when compared against the beautiful fine-grain print I saw projected at the Silver Screen in Silver Spring MD. Had they just used this newly restored print for the DVD... Back on track.


RAH, is the 35mm presentation good enough to warrant a disc purchase?

 

[Robert Harris]

The 35mm presentation looks and sounds fine.

RAH

 

[TedD]

David, thought I already said as much earlier (but in fewer words)

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...43#post2839543

Ted

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Ted,

you most certainly did.

Seems we're 100% on the same wavelength...



appolgies if I duplicated your sentiments...take it as a compliment!

dave

 

[TedD]

It's too bad we don't have any say or influence with the industry, though.

Ted

 

[DaViD Boulet]

If only I were king of the world...alas...



What always perplexes me is when studios don't do a proper hi-res scan/film restoration because "they can't afford it" and so release a title on DVD in sub-optimal manner...and then just a year or two later manage to crack the vault open and spend $$$ doing it again.

 

[DeeF]

I've got both disks in, watching the two movies simultaneously...

YEEHAW!

I must say, the Cinemascope version is a far superior DVD, though the sound isn't as good! I also think (watch out, unpopular opinion) that this one is the better movie. It has more angles, and more contrast between shadow and light.

And the actors are more relaxed.

But oy! One can't really tell here -- the Todd-AO disk looks quite miserable, to me. I wouldn't necessarily say it's even superior to the old disk.

I'm happy to have all these comparisons, though.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Two simultaneously? You go!



I'm tempted to get this for the cinemascope version...though I also want to be strong and "hold out" for blu-ray...