We can't confirm the correct color by assuming that a "white" house should look "white". That's only true if the film-makers wanted the house to look white in the projected print.
Very often filmmakers adjust color timing and use filters to modify color presentation in a number of ways. In fact, it's more the rule than the exception.
Actually...I never said we should be happy with either version because it "looks more pleasing to the eye"...
..My hope is that we could be happy because folks who have some familiarity with actual prints of this film say that the new version gets the color more like what the projected image is supposed to be.
hehe.
Yes...I get how stupid it sounds to say that a white house shouldn't necessarily be white. What I mean is that if any color balance modification had been intended by the director at all...that white would most certainly no longer be "white", and so one can't just watch movies and use an "is white stuff really white?" rule to evaluate the transfer.
As an example...
Watching Erin Brokovich, I don't think there's a single instance of true-white in the entire film. Everything that is "white" in real life is an orange-cream-pink in the movie...and that's the way the director wanted it...it's as if all the colors have been filtered to look like the sun is setting with light bouncing off the cloud cover. That film is an extreme example but even minor color balance modification is common for many movies and in all cases it shifts "white" away from true-white.
I know exactly what you mean, David. The night scenes in Terminator 2 have a distinct blue look to them. It wouldn't make sense to try to fix them to acheive a "neutral" black.
Remember that Judy Garland's "white" shirt under the pinafore was in reality a shade of yellow in order to come off as white through the Technicolor process, so...
But isn't it perfectly possible that some prints (in 1939) were bluer and some were pinker and some were yellower? I think... we may be demanding an actual standard that doesn't exist (at least on these older movies).
Yes I know filters and I know intent but I also know we have two different color tints here of the intire film (not just a piticular scene). I'm assuming the Director was not involved with restorations as I doubt he would have stated the blue tint was correct for the first release and the Red was ok for the new.
I never said you Dave that stated it was more pleasing, it was another Pro new restoration advocate on here that said that!
Or how about The Matrix which is green, Payback which is blue, and S1m0ne which the cinematographer used a broad spectrum of various color filter lenses.
That said, the use of colored filters for these types of dramatic artistic effect is a relatively new practice or at least it hasn't been as popular as it is today. Personally, I don't believe this new transfer or Warner's latest transfer of Ben-Hur represent the original presentations as accurately as they could have been.
I'm surprised no one seems terribly bothered by the cropping on this new Oz edition.
As a loyal fan of Warner bros, while I am disappointed in these latest releases, part of the problem is that they have set a high standard. In addition, considering the previous editions were done not long ago, one might have hopped for a significant improvement with greater attention to the finer details of the presentation.
On the bright side, these are both titles that would look marvelous in 1080p, and thus I am still holding out hope that Warner will address the issues and release editions worthy of these great classic films.
I saw a dye-transfer print of Oz in a theater and the new DVD looks extremely close to it. So what if different restorations are not identical? If the original photochemical restoration couldn't get the colors just right because of technology issues, does it mean we're stuck with it forever?
Knowing how WB used an original 1939 dye-transfer print of Gone with the Wind for its digital restoration, they probably did the same for Oz. I don't want what's pleasing to the eye, I want what it's supposed to look like.
Mmm, according to the documentary on the new disk, this Oz was taken directly from the original negatives. No print was brought in.
They actually show what a composite made from the onegs would look like. It looks ridiculous -- saturated with so much color that Judy's face is practically pure magenta.
At some point in the process, somebody is choosing the saturation levels, the hues, etc. Somebody is *choosing* what this film will look like.
Something I meant to comment on first thing this morning but forgot to. After reading this thread yesterday and Mr. Harris' thread I decided to pop in the Warner Bros disc last night. Looks pretty dang good. They really did a nice job on it then. I think the improvements might be less obvious since the older dvd looks great too.
Got to say, I don't have a lot of pity for people who flog their DVDs on e-bay the minute they hear of a new release. Anyone who reads this forum regularly should know that's a risky business.
Obviously what's happening here is that some people prefer the colour on the last release, be it "right" or "wrong". So watch your old one. For me, the presentation and extras are enough to justify a double-dip.
Of course, here in the UK, we've given up using our teeth to measure whites. The Yellow Brick Road is another story . . .