A few words about…™ The Wizard of Oz — in 4k UHD Blu-ray

If one never bought a copy of WoZ, this is certainly the way to go, but it's not the film to sell 4k hardware. 4 Stars

The problem with the new 4k Blu-ray of The Wizard of Oz, if there is one, is that the previous HD Blu-ray was as good as it was.

And because of that, and the myriad of previous releases, whether one ponies up for the new 4k will probably revolve around whether one has the Blu-ray, or the 3D release, or is a blatant 4k fan.

Is there a difference in overall resolution between the Blu-ray and the 4k?

Absolutely.

It’s obvious, when examining details such as Judy Garland’s freckles when during her first color close-up.

Will it make a difference to the casual viewer?

I think not.

I certainly appreciate it, along with the more natural appearance to grain.

Blacks are a bit blacker.

Colors a bit more vibrant.

It’s all good.

If one never bought a copy of WoZ, this is certainly the way to go, but it’s not the film to sell 4k hardware.

It all comes down to personal desires.

I happen to love the look, but it may not be for everyone.

Image – 5 (Dolby Vision)

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 5.1)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Upgrade from Blu-ray – Depends

Extremely Highly Recommended

RAH

Published by

Robert Harris

editor,member

210 Comments

  1. Robert Harris

    Understand, please, that I'm referencing this to the more casual viewer. As noted, there is a definite difference, which I appreciate.

    RAH, I think the casual viewer will see a major difference as it will be eye-popping to him/her from previous viewings.

  2. I think the gist of Robert's comments is that the previous Blu-ray is so darn good the margin for glaring improvement with the 4K version is diminished compared to what we normally see with 4K upgrades. He doesn't seem disappointed, he's just commenting that the room for improvement is less than we are used to.

    Mark

  3. Mark Booth

    I think the gist of Robert's comments is that the previous Blu-ray is so darn good the margin for glaring improvement with the 4K version is diminished compared to what we normally see with 4K upgrades. He doesn't seem disappointed, he's just commenting that the room for improvement is less than we are used to.

    Mark

    That's probably true, but non-hardcore viewers will most likely not remembered what the previous Blu-ray looks like as they will be astonish to how this current 4K disc looks on their 4K display. Of course, it depends on whether they have their 4K equipment hooked up properly.:)

  4. Mark Booth

    I think the gist of Robert's comments is that the previous Blu-ray is so darn good the margin for glaring improvement with the 4K version is diminished compared to what we normally see with 4K upgrades. He doesn't seem disappointed, he's just commenting that the room for improvement is less than we are used to.

    And that's where I differ.

    I watched the 4 Bond 4Ks over the weekend and felt those offered only moderate improvements – I wouldn't endorse those as being obvious upgrades.

    IMO, "Oz" is. I flipped back and forth between the 2013 BD and the 4K and the difference was major…

  5. Robert Crawford

    RAH, I think the casual viewer will see a major difference as it will be eye-popping to him/her from previous viewings.

    Are there really many "casual viewers" who're a) gonna read reviews and/or b) buy it at all? 4K is a niche of a niche that appeals overwhelmingly toward those serious about quality.

    The "casual viewer" is probably still happy with his circa 1990s DVD! 😀

  6. Colin Jacobson

    And that's where I differ.

    I watched the 4 Bond 4Ks over the weekend and felt those offered only moderate improvements – I wouldn't endorse those as being obvious upgrades.

    IMO, "Oz" is. I flipped back and forth between the 2013 BD and the 4K and the difference was major…

    Then again, you have to take into consideration that the 4K Bond films are modern films where you likely won't see much difference between the Blu-ray and UHD, due to the fact that these movies were made with modern production technology and methodology and were expressly mastered to look good on primarily 2K digital cinema projectors. The Wizard of Oz was produced in 1939 and it's only now, with the power of computers, that work can be done on the original elements that rivals that which was performed even a decade ago that allows the viewer to watch the film with a clarity that couldn't have been imagined back in 1939. Add to that, the potential benefits of HDR on a film with as vibrant a color palate as Oz and you have a result that, according to those who have the disc, rivals the experience available on the Blu-ray. As Mr. Harris pointed out, it isn't a dramatic boost over the Blu-ray, but it is something that will likely make an appreciable increase in quality for those who care about such things. At the current price point, I'm excited for it. If for no other reason, I'm going to buy it to show WB that there is a market for older films in UHD. I know it isn't going to open the flood gates or anything, but we might see a few more 4K releases of older films, which would be great.

  7. "The Wizard of Oz" (1939) is now the oldest film on 4K.
    Now, if that's not exciting news then I don't know what is;
    especially since RAH's review has confirmed its balanced success.
    Echoing Brian Kidd, Warner's will see my support, as well. Can't wait.:thumbs-up-smiley:

  8. warnerbro

    The whole point is that 4k is not for the casual viewer, right? I've seen samples of the 4k and it is like nothing my eyes have ever seen before. Stunning.

    Definitely stunning.
    But to the befuddled shaking of my head, I know a few people who remain satisfied with viewing a film on their laptop;
    and, before my eyes, they just literally shrug their shoulders over these advancements that astound so many others.
    As it is, even a 10% improvement over the prior BD; which was already as perfect as one could imagine; is something I look more than forward to experiencing.:thumbs-up-smiley:

  9. Brian Kidd

    Then again, you have to take into consideration that the 4K Bond films are modern films where you likely won't see much difference between the Blu-ray and UHD, due to the fact that these movies were made with modern production technology and methodology and were expressly mastered to look good on primarily 2K digital cinema projectors. The Wizard of Oz was produced in 1939 and it's only now, with the power of computers, that work can be done on the original elements that rivals that which was performed even a decade ago that allows the viewer to watch the film with a clarity that couldn't have been imagined back in 1939. Add to that, the potential benefits of HDR on a film with as vibrant a color palate as Oz and you have a result that, according to those who have the disc, rivals the experience available on the Blu-ray. As Mr. Harris pointed out, it isn't a dramatic boost over the Blu-ray, but it is something that will likely make an appreciable increase in quality for those who care about such things. At the current price point, I'm excited for it. If for no other reason, I'm going to buy it to show WB that there is a market for older films in UHD. I know it isn't going to open the flood gates or anything, but we might see a few more 4K releases of older films, which would be great.

    I brought up the Bonds simply to point out I don't always – or often – go "MASSIVE improvement!!!" for 4K releases.

    And I've seen other modern movies that looked way better on 4K than on BD – "Guardians 2" comes to mind – so new movies benefit from the format.

    I'm confused about your point, as on one hand, you seem to indicate that "Oz" 4K is a big improvement, but then you say it's not..,

  10. Colin Jacobson

    I brought up the Bonds simply to point out I don't always – or often – go "MASSIVE improvement!!!" for 4K releases.

    And I've seen other modern movies that looked way better on 4K than on BD – "Guardians 2" comes to mind – so new movies benefit from the format.

    I'm confused about your point, as on one hand, you seem to indicate that "Oz" 4K is a big improvement, but then you say it's not..,

    I think you misunderstood me. It will absolutely be an improvement on the old Blu-ray, especially for those of us who are enthusiasts. My post was inferring that an increase in clarity and judicious use of HDR on an eighty-year-old film will typically have more of an impact on the viewer than a 4K transfer of a modern film, where one already expects that the film will look good on Blu-ray. In quantifiable terms, the difference between the Blu-ray and UHD for Oz is undoubtedly nothing Earth-shattering, but in terms of perceptual impact, I believe it has a much-higher potential to please fans of the film than does a UHD upscale of a typical modern, 2K, digitally shot and mastered film. Of course there will be modern films that, for one reason or another, offer notable benefits from their 4K version in comparison to the Blu-ray version, but I honestly feel that, in many cases, these are exceptions rather than the norm.

    Everyone's personal appreciation of the benefits of a particular film's UHD vs. Blu-ray release is different depending upon their individual preferences and that's fine. Sometimes there are huge benefits of one over the other and sometimes not. In the case of Oz, I expect that the factors that have been mentioned by others are ones that are of interest to me and I've stated my reasons why I feel this is the case. I apologize that I misread your last point in your post to which I was responding. I just realized that. That's what I get for reading too quickly.

  11. Robert Harris

    The problem with the new 4k Blu-ray of The Wizard of Oz, if there is one, is that the previous HD Blu-ray was as good as it was.

    And because of that, and the myriad of previous releases, whether one ponies up for the new 4k will probably revolve around whether one has the Blu-ray, or the 3D release, or is a blatant 4k fan.

    Is there a difference in overall resolution between the Blu-ray and the 4k?

    Absolutely.

    It's obvious, when examining details such as Judy Garland's freckles when during her first color close-up.

    Will it make a difference to the casual viewer?

    I think not.

    I certainly appreciate it, along with the more natural appearance to grain.

    Blacks are a bit blacker.

    Colors a bit more vibrant.

    It's all good.

    If one never bought a copy of WoZ, this is certainly the way to go, but it's not the film to sell 4k hardware.

    It all comes down to personal desires.

    I happen to love the look, but it may not be for everyone.

    Image – 5 (Dolby Vision)

    Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 5.1)

    Pass / Fail – Pass

    Upgrade from Blu-ray – Depends

    Extremely Highly Recommended

    RAH

    The thing is, everyone seems to think that a movie consists only of a picture; what about the sound! Maybe the picture cannot be improved upon, but advancements in audio technology are such that noticeable improvements could be made. I'd be every bit as excited about that, but no one seems to have anything at all to say about the sound portion of this great classic.

  12. Robert Crawford

    RAH, I think the casual viewer will see a major difference as it will be eye-popping to him/her from previous viewings.[/QUOTE

    Timothy A Goldich

    The thing is, everyone seems to think that a movie consists only of a picture; what about the sound! Maybe the picture cannot be improved upon, but advancements in audio technology are such that noticeable improvements could be made. I'd be every bit as excited about that, but no one seems to have anything at all to say about the sound portion of this great classic.

    The audio has been beautifully rendered, but image takes precedence here.

  13. Timothy A Goldich

    The thing is, everyone seems to think that a movie consists only of a picture; what about the sound! Maybe the picture cannot be improved upon, but advancements in audio technology are such that noticeable improvements could be made. I'd be every bit as excited about that, but no one seems to have anything at all to say about the sound portion of this great classic.

    It's the same 5.1 mix as the Blu-ray, so there's nothing new to say.

    The 4K drops the BD's mono track as well…

  14. The Wizard of Oz is probably a good film to use as a benchmark since it's one of those films that seems to consistently get high quality video releases, with only the advances of technology being the difference. I've had the '96 VHS, '99 and '04 DVDs, caught a 35mm dye-transfer print in 2003, got the '09 Blu-ray, and waiting for the UHD next week.

    It almost makes sense that such a timeless, endlessly beloved film has been so consistently pleasant on video (at least since the '89 remasters).

  15. Colin Jacobson

    It's the same 5.1 mix as the Blu-ray, so there's nothing new to say.

    The 4K drops the BD's mono track as well…

    Well, if some new effort had been put into the sound (Dolby Atmos, or something), they certainly would have advertised it. Too bad. It would have been fun to hear it in a new way. I hope the picture is noticeably improved. Word is that it is.

  16. Timothy A Goldich

    Really, why? It's a musical.
    Has the audio been more beautifully rendered in the 4K version?

    The audio has been well handled for years. Antique optical density tracks. How much should one change an 80 year-old film?

    It looks very different from its initial release, and sounds as good, or better than it did in 1939.

  17. Robert Harris

    The audio has been well handled for years. Antique optical density tracks. How much should one change an 80 year-old film?

    I agree that an Atmos track would be overkill. Going 5.1 seems like a stretch as it is.

    But the 4K should include the original mono mix – and that side of the release has been poorly-handled for years. The mono track on the BD is lossy and not very good quality.

    It's a real missed opportunity that WB didn't use mono on the 4K and also give it the restoration it needs…

  18. I have both 2D and 3D latest BD and they are both fantastic blown to 120".
    Since I'm a pixel- peeper I may buy the 4K when it's under $15.
    I suppose other than 'our types' will buy it on display at Target for Thanksgiving and Christmas, if they hadn't upgraded their VHS or DVD. Just fun speculation….

  19. Colin Jacobson

    I agree that an Atmos track would be overkill. Going 5.1 seems like a stretch as it is.

    But the 4K should include the original mono mix – and that side of the release has been poorly-handled for years. The mono track on the BD is lossy and not very good quality.

    It's a real missed opportunity that WB didn't use mono on the 4K and also give it the restoration it needs…

    I’m guessing here, but the original optical composite would probably not sound nearly as good as what has been created – presumably from earlier gen optical stems. Keep in mind that the original comp track, as printed, would have gone through Academy filter in projection.

  20. It was created in mono and as such should at least have a new mono soundtrack not a fake 5.1 soundtrack. That just as bad as converting it to fake 3D if not worse. Criterion needs to do this film right as it did on laser disc many years ago.

  21. noel aguirre

    It was created in mono and as such should at least have a new mono soundtrack not a fake 5.1 soundtrack. That just as bad as converting it to fake 3D if not worse. Criterion needs to do this film right as it did on laser disc many years ago.

    The comparison to 3D would only hold if 2D were not available.
    I don't see what Criterion would have to add now, they don't even do UHD.
    I agree the original mix should always be available on the disc. It's bonkers to not have it….

  22. Neil S. Bulk

    We're really lucky Superman has the original six-track mix on the 4k. Batman and now Wizard of Oz only have re-done 5.1 tracks while omitting their original mixes.

    And The Shining.

  23. Deleting one of Judy's lines is not taking care of the audio. Sorry, but they messed up back in 1998 by tampering with the track. They made a bad choice when they cut it, and also made an edit to the music in a later scene. The mono track on the bd us just the folded down stereo track.

  24. Dave Moritz

    I do have the blu-ray release but want to pick up the 4K release and feel it will look very good on my Sony XDR55A9F 4K OLED.

    As I had mentioned on the other thread, this 4K purchase is a first time buy of WoOZ for me. For some odd reason, never got around to buying the VHS, DVD or Blu-ray. And I never owned a LaserDisc player.

  25. Colin Jacobson

    But the 4K should include the original mono mix – and that side of the release has been poorly-handled for years. The mono track on the BD is lossy and not very good quality.

    It's a real missed opportunity that WB didn't use mono on the 4K and also give it the restoration it needs…

    This.

    I've had this discussion before on this forum, but just because a film is older it doesn't make sense NOT to offer its soundtrack in a lossless format. The best material that exists should be presented in the best format that exists–as long as it makes sense financially to do so.

  26. They left off the music only track on CAMELOT that was so awesome. For some reason, they forget about audio on so many releases. Did they at least include the music only track on THE WIZARD OF OZ 4k?

  27. Mike Frezon

    The best material that exists should be presented in the best format that exists–as long as it makes sense financially to do so.

    That's probably the issue. This will be the umpteenth release of this film on home video, on another new format that has limited penetration in homes, in a physical media market that's already shrunk considerably. I'd imagine every time you include another feature to be mastered onto a disc, it costs extra money.

    While you can argue that the inclusion of the mono soundtrack is a feature that these niche collectors would want, I'd imagine WB has done the cost/benefit analysis and decided that most people that are buying 4K discs will not refuse because of the lack of mono, and may even question if anyone watching on a 75" 4K display would even want mono sound? So if they can save a few dollars by leaving it off the disc, that's probably what they decided to do.

  28. Malcolm R

    That's probably the issue. This will be the umpteenth release of this film on home video, on another new format that has limited penetration in homes, in a physical media market that's already shrunk considerably. I'd imagine every time you include another feature to be mastered onto a disc, it costs extra money.

    While you can argue that the inclusion of the mono soundtrack is a feature that these niche collectors would want, I'd imagine WB has done the cost/benefit analysis and decided that most people that are buying 4K discs will not refuse because of the lack of mono, and may even question if anyone watching on a 75" 4K display would even want mono sound? So if they can save a few dollars by leaving it off the disc, that's probably what they decided to do.

    I get all that.

    My argument has more to do with releasing an older soundtrack only in a lossy format when the video is HD (such as on the Bu-ray release). I've been told that soundtracks with limitations don't need/deserve lossless presentations and I think that's bunk.

  29. Malcolm R

    That's probably the issue. This will be the umpteenth release of this film on home video, on another new format that has limited penetration in homes, in a physical media market that's already shrunk considerably. I'd imagine every time you include another feature to be mastered onto a disc, it costs extra money.

    While you can argue that the inclusion of the mono soundtrack is a feature that these niche collectors would want, I'd imagine WB has done the cost/benefit analysis and decided that most people that are buying 4K discs will not refuse because of the lack of mono, and may even question if anyone watching on a 55" 4K display would even want mono sound? So if they can save a few dollars by leaving it off the disc, that's probably what they decided to do.

    RAH can better discuss costs of such a thing, but I can't imagine doing a restoration of the mono would be very expensive. It just needs a little clean-up, nothing extreme, IMO.

    Also, they already had a mono track on the Blu-ray. It's not very good, but it's better than the zilch on the 4K.

    Also also, 4K UHD will appeal more to the "serious film buff" audience, so it's more likely many potential buyers will be turned off by the lack of mono than the more general audience for DVD or BD.

    Both of which had mono! 😳

  30. Robert Harris

    I’m guessing here, but the original optical composite would probably not sound nearly as good as what has been created – presumably from earlier gen optical stems. Keep in mind that the original comp track, as printed, would have gone through Academy filter in projection.

    Maybe a restored mono track wouldn't sound as good as the 5.1 – it should still be there. Let the viewer decide.

    I don't get arguments against the inclusion of the original audio, whether here or for any other movie.

    If they want to remix soundtracks, I'm A-OK with that, but the original should always be an option as well…

  31. The audio has been well handled for years. Antique optical density tracks. How much should one change an 80 year-old film?

    I have to agree with Robert Harris on this!

    I am planning on getting the 4K release but I am very disappointed that the mono mix was dropped from this 80th anniversary release. I do love my surround sound but is a 5.1 track really needed for a movie that never had one to begin with? I have upgraded so much of my system to be state of the art and raising the level of quality but with this movie I would have been fine with them only including a mono audio track!

  32. Mike Frezon

    This.

    I've had this discussion before on this forum, but just because a film is older it doesn't make sense NOT to offer its soundtrack in a lossless format. The best material that exists should be presented in the best format that exists–as long as it makes sense financially to do so.

    It does, and takes up minimal space

  33. So, I can see how some folks would like to have the original mono soundtrack, but I'd love for someone to explain to me how a lossless encode would make a bit of difference in comparison to a lossy one. As RAH said, the original mono release soundtrack (not a new mono track created from optical stems) would only sound as good as the limitations of the original format will allow, which in this case is pretty low fidelity. An optical track doesn't have nearly the range of frequency reproduction that a magnetic recording would have. Even with some judiciously-applied equalization applied to improve the track as much as possible, the result could be more than adequately handled by a standard Dolby Digital track. Using lossless would be like keeping a guppy in a giant aquarium. Sure, you could do it, but why?

    Don't get me wrong: I'm all for including an original sound mix if it exists and there is space; however, every addition to a release costs at least some money and there no doubt has to be an acceptable justification made by those who are producing the release to those who control the budget for the release as to why the expenditure makes financial sense. Boutique labels know that their customer base is primarily film fans, so bells and whistles are a valid expenditure that might help move more units. Warner Home Video, especially with a release of a mass-market film that has already been released on home video a gazillion times over the decades, isn't going to be concerned with the inclusion of an audio track that will only appeal to a miniscule percentage of potential customers. The selling point of this release is the image. They've thrown in the old SD "Making Of" program on the 4K disc, since an encode already exists and it's more of a selling point than the mono soundtrack. They've also thrown in the previously-released Blu-ray that already contains all the other supplements. They've created a package that will appeal to whatever general audience is going to potentially buy a UHD disc with production costs kept to a minimum. This also allows them to offer the release at a low enough price point that it's enticing to those who might not otherwise consider a purchase.

    We have to be realistic. Film buffs are not the target audience for this release. The days of major studios catering to us are over. They ended when DVD became the dominant format and studios realized that the general public don't give a hoot about detailed and thoughtful supplements and whether or not an original sound mix is present on a release. We still have the small labels, thank goodness (for now.)

  34. Brian Kidd

    We have to be realistic. Film buffs are not the target audience for this release. The days of major studios catering to us are over. They ended when DVD became the dominant format and studios realized that the general public don't give a hoot about detailed and thoughtful supplements and whether or not an original sound mix is present on a release. We still have the small labels, thank goodness (for now.)

    Good points, but I would argue that film buffs ARE the target for this kind of release. 4K disc is not a mainstream format even now, so why would WB bother to put it out like this at all? In addition, Joe Sixpack likely already owns this film on DVD/Blu-ray, or figures it can be watched for free any day of the week, so why fork out $20? The guy with the $300 Walmart TV and $40 Blu-ray player is not the target customer for a 4K UHD disc version of The Wizard of Oz.

  35. dpippel

    Good points, but I would argue that film buffs ARE the target for this kind of release. 4K disc is not a mainstream format even now, so why would WB bother to put it out like this at all? In addition, Joe Sixpack likely already owns this film on DVD/Blu-ray, or figures it can be watched for free any day of the week, so why fork out $20? The guy with the $300 Walmart TV and $40 Blu-ray player is not the target customer for a 4K UHD disc version of The Wizard of Oz.

    This!

  36. I am captivated by the charms of 4k and look forward to seeing this in UHD. Regarding music formats, I cannot tell the difference between:
    Dolby Digital
    DTS
    THX
    Dolby TrueHD
    Lossless
    Dolby Digital Plus
    Dolby Digital EX
    Dolby Pro Logic
    Dolby Atmos
    Dolby Surround
    IMAX Enhanced

    and I doubt anybody else can unless they are a sound engineer.

  37. Keith Cobby

    I am captivated by the charms of 4k and look forward to seeing this in UHD. Regarding music formats, I cannot tell the difference between:
    Dolby Digital
    DTS
    THX
    Dolby TrueHD
    Lossless
    Dolby Digital Plus
    Dolby Digital EX
    Dolby Pro Logic
    Dolby Atmos
    Dolby Surround
    IMAX Enhanced

    and I doubt anybody else can unless they are a sound engineer.

    Aside from Atmos, and its height channels, most of the processes noted are merely slightly different products, ending with non-unique sound.

  38. moviebuff75

    And what is that spooky voice after the altered line of "O, Don't…" It sounds like "Hold him!" It wasn't there before the remix.

    It just sounded like garbled noise to me, but I've not analyzed it as closely as you have! 😀

  39. Keith Cobby

    I am captivated by the charms of 4k and look forward to seeing this in UHD. Regarding music formats, I cannot tell the difference between:
    Dolby Digital
    DTS
    THX
    Dolby TrueHD
    Lossless
    Dolby Digital Plus
    Dolby Digital EX
    Dolby Pro Logic
    Dolby Atmos
    Dolby Surround
    IMAX Enhanced

    and I doubt anybody else can unless they are a sound engineer.

    Plenty of people can tell the difference between lossy and lossless audio. Just because you can't doesn't mean no one else can…

  40. moviebuff75

    And what is that spooky voice after the altered line of "O, Don't…" It sounds like "Hold him!" It wasn't there before the remix.

    With that as its exception, what were your overall impressions of this 4K/UHD presentation?

  41. dpippel

    Good points, but I would argue that film buffs ARE the target for this kind of release. 4K disc is not a mainstream format even now, so why would WB bother to put it out like this at all? In addition, Joe Sixpack likely already owns this film on DVD/Blu-ray, or figures it can be watched for free any day of the week, so why fork out $20? The guy with the $300 Walmart TV and $40 Blu-ray player is not the target customer for a 4K UHD disc version of The Wizard of Oz.

    Well, that $300 TV from Walmart is more likely than ever to be 4K, even if it isn't the best product on the market. 4K TV's have been far more successful than 3D ones were and the tech involved has fallen in price to the point where it has become rare to find TV's over a certain size that are just 1080p, so a ton of 4K sets are in the wild. 4K UHD discs are still being marketed widely in the hopes that more people will start buying them. Yes, they are certainly geared toward those with the money to afford a 4K TV and are still interested in physical media, but while film buffs often fall into that category, we are still only a portion of it. If only film buffs were buying 4K TV's and UHD players, 4K disc releases would be on their way out instead of (slowly) increasing in number and we'd see more releases of the kinds of films that film buffs tend to be attracted to, rather than the majority of releases, which tend to skew toward modern, mainstream films. They will never see the kind of success that we saw with DVD, but I think anyone who believes that they are only being geared toward film buffs is mistaken. That would make no financial sense whatsoever for the companies releasing them. We just aren't as great in number as we'd like to think we are.

  42. Brian Kidd

    Well, that $300 TV from Walmart is more likely than ever to be 4K, even if it isn't the best product on the market. 4K TV's have been far more successful than 3D ones were and the tech involved has fallen in price to the point where it has become rare to find TV's over a certain size that are just 1080p, so a ton of 4K sets are in the wild. 4K UHD discs are still being marketed widely in the hopes that more people will start buying them. Yes, they are certainly geared toward those with the money to afford a 4K TV and are still interested in physical media, but while film buffs often fall into that category, we are still only a portion of it. If only film buffs were buying 4K TV's and UHD players, 4K disc releases would be on their way out instead of (slowly) increasing in number and we'd see more releases of the kinds of films that film buffs tend to be attracted to, rather than the majority of releases, which tend to skew toward modern, mainstream films. They will never see the kind of success that we saw with DVD, but I think anyone who believes that they are only being geared toward film buffs is mistaken. That would make no financial sense whatsoever for the companies releasing them. We just aren't as great in number as we'd like to think we are.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree. I can tell you that, outside of this forum, I don't know a single person that's even aware that the TWoO is being released on 4K disc, much less planning on buying it.

  43. dpippel

    We'll just have to agree to disagree. I can tell you that, outside of this forum, I don't know a single person that's even aware that the TWoO is being released on 4K disc, much less planning on buying it.

    I'd be very surprised if the overwhelming majority of people were aware that a 4K disc format even exists.

  44. Worth

    I'd be very surprised if the overwhelming majority of people were aware that a 4K disc format even exists.

    If they are available at Walmart in Cross Lanes, WV, I can guarantee that most folks have at least seen them in a store, even if they haven't bought one.

  45. Robert Harris

    The audio has been well handled for years. Antique optical density tracks. How much should one change an 80 year-old film?

    It looks very different from its initial release, and sounds as good, or better than it did in 1939.

    Is this in the category of "has to be seen to be believed", or are you able to expound further on how it looks. I think we're in agreement that most current masters of early Technicolor titles look very different from their initial releases.It sounds like a careful hand was on the tiller when applying HDR.

  46. noel aguirre

    No original mono? No sale
    Unless one owns a 72” screen I really don’t see the need for this as an uprez on the blu is beautiful enough

    Yay, I'm in luck, my screen is 75"! Thank you, Noel, for granting me permission to enjoy the upgrade.

    🙄

    Mark

  47. I'll be enjoying the upgrade (through my final model Oppo) because I have a 150-inch projector screen in my living room, which is about 30 feet long. We sit a bit more than halfway back in that room … maybe 16 feet from the screen. It seems perfect … especially since cataract operations on both eyes!

  48. I am for film preservation. They deleted a line of dialogue, and that is not okay. It is supposed to be there. I know I have repeated myself, but I am one of few who care enough about the film to want it re-instated. I don't care if it is the word "I." It should never have been taken out. They have had 21 years now to put it back in. WB, you have done a tremendous job with it, except for this. Someone who is there, please listen to me. 🙁

  49. moviebuff75

    I am for film preservation. They deleted a line of dialogue, and that is not okay. It is supposed to be there. I know I have repeated myself, but I am one of few who care enough about the film to want it re-instated. I don't care if it is the word "I." It should never have been taken out. They have had 21 years now to put it back in. They said the change was temporary and wouldn't replace the original, but it has. WB, you have done a tremendous job with it, except for this. Someone who is there, please listen to me. 🙁

    Can you supply a time code, please?

  50. Robert Harris

    Can you supply a time code, please?

    It's around the 9.45-9.55 mark as they're placing Toto in Miss Gulch's basket. I'm all for film preservation, but to me it's an insignificant few seconds that has been a major issue for some people. IMO, it has little bearing on the film sequence.

  51. Robert Harris

    Can you supply a time code, please?

    It's around the 9.45-9.55 mark as they're placing Toto in Miss Gulch's basket. I'm all for film preservation, but to me it's an insignificant second of dialogue that has been a major issue for some people. IMO, it has little bearing on the film sequence.

    The earlier discussion about that line of dialogue is here.

  52. Robert Crawford

    It's around the 9.45-9.55 mark as they're placing Toto in Miss Gulch's basket. I'm all for film preservation, but to me it's an insignificant second of dialogue with a missing "Toto" that has been a major issue for some people around here. IMO, it has little bearing on the film sequence.

    The earlier discussion about that line of dialogue is here.

    Appreciated

  53. moviebuff75

    Deleting one of Judy's lines is not taking care of the audio. Sorry, but they messed up back in 1998 by tampering with the track. They made a bad choice when they cut it, and also made an edit to the music in a later scene. The mono track on the bd is just the folded down stereo track.

    Hi what is the line? I’d like to search my Criterion disc to see if it’s on there. And that soundtrack quality was fine if I recall

  54. moviebuff75

    I am for film preservation. They deleted a line of dialogue, and that is not okay. It is supposed to be there. I know I have repeated myself, but I am one of few who care enough about the film to want it re-instated. I don't care if it is the word "I." It should never have been taken out. They have had 21 years now to put it back in. They said the change was temporary and wouldn't replace the original, but it has. WB, you have done a tremendous job with it, except for this. Someone who is there, please listen to me. 🙁

    I do not have a cutting cont. from the time code, it appears that this dia came at the cut between reel 1A and B.

    If this is the case, there may have been repeated words on the track, that would be properly lost in positive print conformation, but would be retained at that cutting point in all other track elements, where audio continues for a certain number of frames, 18 as I recall.

  55. The cutting continuity script has the line as "Oh, Toto! Don't…" They took the last part of the first line and the second part of the next line to make "Oh, Don't" and it actually changes her line reading from exasperation to a whimper.

  56. Worth

    I'd be very surprised if the overwhelming majority of people were aware that a 4K disc format even exists.

    Well they might be aware, if they weren't so quick in returning their newly purchased 75" displays, straight after the football game.:roll:

    Colin Jacobson

    Pretty sure @moviebuff75 doesn't have the 4K yet…

    Yes, this would need to be confirmed; as we must also give credit to studios for a product that also bears other advancements.

    moviebuff75

    I am for film preservation. They deleted a line of dialogue, and that is not okay. It is supposed to be there. I know I have repeated myself, but I am one of few who care enough about the film to want it re-instated. I don't care if it is the word "I." It should never have been taken out. They have had 21 years now to put it back in. They said the change was temporary and wouldn't replace the original, but it has. WB, you have done a tremendous job with it, except for this. Someone who is there, please listen to me. 🙁

    I trust RAH's review on "The Wizard of Oz" 4K/UHD and look forward to seeing these next steps of visual advancements;
    and would hate to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater or have others miss out on something finer due to a missing word or even its original mono track. Now with that said, I have always found the missing word observations of moviebuff75 to be impressive and well warranted within his question to Warner's. The same holds true for those who caught the fade-out and cut moment in "2001: A Space Odyssey". And, even more disconcerting was the missing of an entire Overture and Entr'acte to "Sweet Charity". We all have these things that we find jarring; depending on our passions for either a specific film or for the integrity of a restoration. My question here is simple, but maybe its answer is not. If a studio has established that they have the files; post-restoration(s); then why is the information that already exists only get used in a DVD, but then omitted come time for the release of a Blu Ray or 4K/UHD? Again, a word like "Toto", or a Fade/Cut, or even an entire Overture did, at one time, exist in their files; so how does one in a lab or sound booth manage to overlook these moments when prepping a newer transfer? I've got "Sweet Charity" and it looks and sounds stupendous; but this, of course, makes the musical omissions stand out all the more jarringly. And I've also got "2001"; which is a drop-dead beauty; but would have always had this Fade/Cut thing in the back of my mind, were I not lucky enough to have waited out its correction. As for "The Wizard of Oz"? Well, I'll live over a missing word; especially with all of the other overriding benefits that I have read about. Still, though, every word and frame of the original should be intact. And this, too, overwhelmingly includes our options for its mono track. Was the omission of the mono track due to WB keeping this 4K/UHD edition down to an accessible price? I, for one, do not have that answer; but since the files are in existence then why not include and utilize it? Nonetheless, while these important points of "Charity", "Oz" and the now resolved "2001" gets its valid platform, I must still support these efforts and releases that offer so many other noticeable advances and gains. But due note, it does leave me with the question as to who it is that's actually performing the work. Is it a researcher who isn't fully attuned to a film and its history; or is it about the necessary needs for a studio to be pragmatic within the uses of its own monies?

  57. Weird. My copy of the continuity script has additional information about camera angles and says specifically: Oh, Toto! Don't!
    Also, if it were repeated, it sounds like a different reading of the line. And what is that strange voice in the background that wasn't there before the remix?

  58. moviebuff75

    Weird. My copy of the continuity script has additional information about camera angles and says specifically: Oh, Toto! Don't!
    Also, if it were repeated, it sounds like a different reading of the line. And what is that strange voice in the background that wasn't there before the remix?

    What is date and origin of cont? Something published?

  59. Robert Harris

    I do not have a cutting cont. from the time code, it appears that this dia came at the cut between reel 1A and B.

    If this is the case, there may have been repeated words on the track, that would be properly lost in positive print conformation, but would be retained at that cutting point in all other track elements, where audio continues for a certain number of frames, 18 as I recall.

    Camper

    Why am I not surprised that did this did not settle the matter?

    Only the CAV Criterion WIzard of Oz might solve this matter as it is genuinely frame by frame and from the early 80’s

  60. moviebuff75

    I am now leaning toward two takes of the line, with the second one correct. They should have cut the first take but left it in by mistake.

    This reads like a possible conversation that could've taken place during the cutting of "Groundhog Day".;)

  61. I really enjoyed that article. However, it did make me wish I'd kept my 1999 DVD so I could check out the sepia tone in that one. I wonder how the sepia looks in the new UHD … have they made it revert to how it appears it was originally intended? Perhaps Robert can tell us….

  62. AnthonyClarke

    I really enjoyed that article. However, it did make me wish I'd kept my 1999 DVD so I could check out the sepia tone in that one. I wonder how the sepia looks in the new UHD … have they made it revert to how it appears it was originally intended? Perhaps Robert can tell us….

    I kept my 1999 Deluxe Edition DVD release along with the 10-25-05 3-Disc DVD Release. I have three Blu-rays of it and whom am I kidding, I will most likely pick up this 4K/UHD release too.

  63. moviebuff75

    Here is my copy.

    I had asked the source, not the date, of your continuity, because the extra that came with a WoO special set would be a non-original copy – re-typed from the pages I offered – with dialogue “confirmed” from the latest video release at that time.

    The release with the incorrect/extra words.

    Who ever said these things were easy? An earlier video product is generally not a reference.

  64. The story that I heard is that when doing the restoration it was discovered that this was a mistake that had been baked in and they have now corrected it. But people were used to and in love with the mistake of “Oh, Toto, Toto!” and are now sad it’s gone.

  65. Robert Harris

    I had asked the source, not the date, of your continuity, because the extra that came with a WoO special set would be a non-original copy – re-typed from the pages I offered – with dialogue “confirmed” from the latest video release at that time.

    The release with the incorrect/extra words.

    Who ever said these things were easy? An earlier video product is generally not a reference.

    Thank you for clearing that up. It is an obvious reel change on the pre-50th anniversary laser and VHS edition, and I always suspected the script was created from the video master since any other script I have ever read is not word for word like this one was.

  66. AnthonyClarke

    I really enjoyed that article. However, it did make me wish I'd kept my 1999 DVD so I could check out the sepia tone in that one. I wonder how the sepia looks in the new UHD … have they made it revert to how it appears it was originally intended? Perhaps Robert can tell us….

    The 4K disc looks more correct to me (sepia wise) in this screen capture comparison:

    https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=437&y=259&d1=13509&d2=13508&s1=135811&s2=135792&l=0&i=0&go=1

    Mark

  67. Mark Booth

    The 4K disc looks more correct to me (sepia wise) in this screen capture comparison:

    https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=437&y=259&d1=13509&d2=13508&s1=135811&s2=135792&l=0&i=0&go=1

    Mark

    I'm not so sure about that, Mark (at least not based on those screen caps, especially the second one featuring Dorothy with Professor Marvel) Weren't the Kansas scenes supposed to have been sepia toned rather than sepia tinted? In toning, (to make a long story short) a chemical is introduced to turn the silver in the release print to a silver sulfide, which replaces the gray scale with a sepia scale but leaves the whites of the image unaffected. It makes a brown and white image (like the blu-ray screen caps) which differs from a tinted print, which simply washes the whole image with dye and turns the whites a (in this case) sepia color as well (like the 4k screen caps.)

    Unless I'm mistaken about the original prints, the whites should be whiter and not look dyed or tinted.

  68. Will Krupp

    I'm not so sure about that, Mark (at least not based on those screen caps, especially the second one featuring Dorothy with Professor Marvel) Weren't the Kansas scenes supposed to have been sepia toned rather than sepia tinted? In toning, (to make a long story short) a chemical is introduced to turn the silver in the release print to a silver sulfide, which replaces the gray scale with a sepia scale but leaves the whites of the image unaffected. It makes a brown and white image (like the blu-ray screen caps) which differs from a tinted print, which simply washes the whole image with dye and turns the whites a (in this case) sepia color as well (like the 4k screen caps.)

    Unless I'm mistaken about the original prints, the whites should be whiter and not look dyed or tinted.

    One would be best to reference the original printing instructions, or examine a 1939 print, I’ve not seen one. I do recall a print of Mighty Joe Young (nitrate) that was sepia tinted, as I recall, and not toned.

  69. moviebuff75

    The framing is slightly different. The new version crops more at the bottom and left. But in both cases, it is extra image that wouldn't have been seen originally. Correct?

    Remove at least 5% , and then all add’l info that would be lost by cutting a plate to make a trapezoid appear to be rectangular. Figure 15-20% loss all around

  70. moviebuff75

    The framing is slightly different. The new version crops more at the bottom and left. But in both cases, it is extra image that wouldn't have been seen originally. Correct?

    If you're concern about framing then don't see it at a Dolby Cinema theater like I just got back from.;)

  71. Thanks Mark and Will for the comments on the sepia … I must admit that based on the screen shots I do like the look of the new UHD sepia even if it's not authentic. Maybe I'll set both discs running at the same time on my two Oppos and switch between in real-time to see which I prefer. Yes, I'm that mad….. I'll wait till I'm home alone.

  72. haineshisway

    Wait a minute – are you saying they did a brand new transfer of this film for 4K and didn't use THAT for the included Blu-ray? Are you serious?

    You act like that's unusual. 😮

  73. haineshisway

    Wait a minute – are you saying they did a brand new transfer of this film for 4K and didn't use THAT for the included Blu-ray? Are you serious?

    You don't buy 4K discs, right?

  74. haineshisway

    Wait a minute – are you saying they did a brand new transfer of this film for 4K and didn't use THAT for the included Blu-ray? Are you serious?

    That's is what is being reported and has been the case for a number of 4K/UHD releases.

  75. Mark-P

    You act like that's unusual. 😮

    Unfortunately it’s not unusual, and it’s why I always try to find out. I do wonder how much it would cost to master a new Blu-ray in tandem with the UHD disc.

  76. Robert Harris

    BD has windowboxed titles

    Why would that be necessary? I know it was commonplace back in the days of SD television when overscan was a common issue and they wanted to make sure none of the credits were cut off, but surely that shouldn't even be a factor with modern HD televisions. Makes no sense whatsoever, even on a disc from 2013.

  77. The picture may be state of the art but that cover has to be The WORST cover ever for any The Wizard of Oz release. It’s ugly godawful. Oh let’s cram in every possible image including the tornado dancing down the yellow brick road!

  78. noel aguirre

    The picture may be state of the art but that cover has to be The WORST cover ever for any The Wizard of Oz release. It’s ugly godawful. Oh let’s cram in every possible image including the tornado dancing down the yellow brick road!

    You know, I'm not really a Steelbook case for more $ kind of guy…but yes the standard 4K case cover art is so bad that I went ahead and ordered the Best Buy Steelbook Case edition since it's better. It's not awesome, but it's not anywhere near as bad as the standard 4K cover art.

  79. Carlo Medina

    You know, I'm not really a Steelbook case for more $ kind of guy…but yes the standard 4K case cover art is so bad that I went ahead and ordered the Best Buy Steelbook Case edition since it's better. It's not awesome, but it's not anywhere near as bad as the standard 4K cover art.

    Thanks for this tip-I just preferred and will pick up today- much much better cover. So I will now have 2 steel books including the 3D version- which by the way is a fantastic disc as you feel like you’re on the sets. I hope this version blows me away as much as the 3D version did. Looking forward to the new commentary though.

  80. Stephen_J_H

    I think the only title so far from WB where a remastered BD was included with the 4K disc was 2001, where the original master dated back to the dawn of BD and had several baked-in issues.

    I think both Goodfellas and Unforgiven also contained blu-rays utilizing the new transfers.

  81. Stephen_J_H

    I think the only title so far from WB where a remastered BD was included with the 4K disc was 2001, where the original master dated back to the dawn of BD and had several baked-in issues.

    Warner is hit-and-miss when it comes to including remastered blu-rays, but there are a number of them:

    -2001
    -Batman
    -Batman Returns
    -Batman Forever
    -Batman & Robin
    -Batman Begins
    -The Dark Knight
    -The Shining
    -Goodfellas
    -The Matrix
    -The Matrix Reloaded
    -Matrix Revolutions
    -Unforgiven

  82. Carlo Medina

    That’s such a bittersweet statement. :laugh:

    In a way, but, I'm an AMC A-Lister so it really didn't mind seeing it again on the big screen as it didn't really cost me any additional money. It was my 3rd or 4th time doing so over the last 40 years or so, the last time being on an IMAX screen in 3-D. It's funny, I sat down just to sample the 4K digital again as I watched the entire movie a couple of months back when iTunes mistakenly had the 4K/DV up for playback for a day or so. Anyhow, I ended up watching the movie again in its entirety for probably the 60th time.:)

  83. Mark Booth

    I noticed that the copy of 'The Wizard of Oz' on iTunes is (once again) the new 4K Dolby Vision version. Those of you that purchased the digital copy on iTunes should be all set.

    Mark

    Hasn't upgraded in the Canadian store yet…

  84. Rob W

    Hasn't upgraded in the Canadian store yet…

    When I checked in the U.S. iTunes store this morning (about 9am Pacific) it hasn't been upgraded from HD yet. But when I checked again about 2 hours ago it finally showed it available in 4K.

    I hope the Canadian version hits soon.

    Mark

  85. Mark Booth

    When I checked in the U.S. iTunes store this morning (about 9am Pacific) it hasn't been upgraded from HD yet. But when I checked again about 2 hours ago it finally showed it available in 4K.

    I hope the Canadian version hits soon.

    Mark

    Same here, I checked first thing this morning and it was still in HD. I almost bought the 4K disc afterwards, but, decided if I'm going to buy it again on disc, it would be more prudent to wait another month until the Black Friday sales. Anyhow, I checked again around Noon and there it was in 4K.

  86. Mark Booth

    I noticed that the copy of 'The Wizard of Oz' on iTunes is (once again) the new 4K Dolby Vision version. Those of you that purchased the digital copy on iTunes should be all set.

    Mark

    Oh wow- is this yet another time when the digital copy I received from a 3D purchase yielding a 4K version? 🙂 Apple is certainly generous. And I may cancel my order now as I didn’t get to pick it up yesterday.

  87. Yesterday, Amazon's page for 'The Wizard of Oz' 4K showed that if I purchased the film (within the next x hours) the film would be delivered TODAY (Oct 30). Yet, the copy that I ordered in early Sept hadn't even shipped yet. Amazon was showing that it wouldn't be delivered until Thursday, Oct 31.

    I was feeling pretty miffed about that. Why should someone that purchased it AFTER me get it BEFORE me. I initiated a call with an Amazon support rep. You won't believe what he told me.. He said because I paid $3 less (I ordered it at $19.96, it is now $22.96) I was getting slower shipping.

    HORSE MANURE! Prime is prime.

    When I received the "how did we do" survey email (after the support call), I gave a scathing review. That led to me eventually chatting (text) with a supervisor. He apologized for the poor customer service and assured me that my copy would arrive TODAY (Oct 30). He was so confident that it would arrive today, he promised me that if it didn't, Amazon would refund the entire purchase price and let me keep the 4K Blu-ray. I have his promise in a copy of the text chat.

    Amazon shipped it last night. Amazon's site says it is arriving Thursday. Maybe it will show up today anyway? But, at this point, I'm rooting for it to show up tomorrow! 🙂

    Mark

  88. My order from Amazon was delivered yesterday and I must say, the cover art is even more horrible in-person. Absolutely FUGLY! WB should fire the genius(es) in the marketing department that produced and approved this garbage. It's like something from a middle school Photoshop seminar gone bad.

  89. I own the 70th Anniversary Edition. I think I'm going to remove the DVD from that set and replace it with the 4K disc. The standard Blu-ray is the same between the 70th, 75th and 4K packages. So only the 4K disc needs to be added to a previous set. And nobody around here would ever watch the DVD at all (zero chance of that).

    When we pair Oz with 'Judy' in the Booth Bijou Garage Theater in a couple of months, the 70th Anniversary cover art will look much more attractive on my little "Now Playing" stand.

    Mark

  90. Mark Booth

    Yesterday, Amazon's page for 'The Wizard of Oz' 4K showed that if I purchased the film (within the next x hours) the film would be delivered TODAY (Oct 30). Yet, the copy that I ordered in early Sept hadn't even shipped yet. Amazon was showing that it wouldn't be delivered until Thursday, Oct 31.

    I was feeling pretty miffed about that. Why should someone that purchased it AFTER me get it BEFORE me. I initiated a call with an Amazon support rep. You won't believe what he told me.. He said because I paid $3 less (I ordered it at $19.96, it is now $22.96) I was getting slower shipping.

    HORSE MANURE! Prime is prime.

    When I received the "how did we do" survey email (after the support call), I gave a scathing review. That led to me eventually chatting (text) with a supervisor. He apologized for the poor customer service and assured me that my copy would arrive TODAY (Oct 30). He was so confident that it would arrive today, he promised me that if it didn't, Amazon would refund the entire purchase price and let me keep the 4K Blu-ray. I have his promise in a copy of the text chat.

    Amazon shipped it last night. The email and my orders page at Amazon's site say it is arriving Thursday. Maybe it will show up today anyway? But, at this point, I'm rooting for it to show up tomorrow! 🙂

    Mark

    I hope you didn't watch that Last Week Tonight with John Oliver episode on Amazon…or that you thoroughly wear gloves and thoroughly clean your items when you receive them. :rolling-smiley:

    Found it:

  91. Mark Booth

    Yesterday, Amazon's page for 'The Wizard of Oz' 4K showed that if I purchased the film (within the next x hours) the film would be delivered TODAY (Oct 30). Yet, the copy that I ordered in early Sept hadn't even shipped yet. Amazon was showing that it wouldn't be delivered until Thursday, Oct 31.

    I was feeling pretty miffed about that. Why should someone that purchased it AFTER me get it BEFORE me. I initiated a call with an Amazon support rep. You won't believe what he told me.. He said because I paid $3 less (I ordered it at $19.96, it is now $22.96) I was getting slower shipping.

    HORSE MANURE! Prime is prime.

    When I received the "how did we do" survey email (after the support call), I gave a scathing review. That led to me eventually chatting (text) with a supervisor. He apologized for the poor customer service and assured me that my copy would arrive TODAY (Oct 30). He was so confident that it would arrive today, he promised me that if it didn't, Amazon would refund the entire purchase price and let me keep the 4K Blu-ray. I have his promise in a copy of the text chat.

    Amazon shipped it last night. The email and my orders page at Amazon's site say it is arriving Thursday. Maybe it will show up today anyway? But, at this point, I'm rooting for it to show up tomorrow! 🙂

    Mark

    Gonna offer my typical disclaimer that I use: I no longer work for Amazon and am not speaking on behalf of them. The info below is just educated guessing based upon my experience there.

    As someone who used to be in leadership at Amazon Customer Service, you are correct in saying "Horse Manure," in that what the first associate told you was a complete lie. Customer Service Associates have no direct knowledge whatsoever about how shipping is scheduled so they were pulling that answer out of their butt. They are only provided information about policies and general info regarding how shipping should work. They deserved the "No" on the "Did you solve my problem?" survey. This time of year, you were very likely speaking to someone who was just hired in for the "Peak" period around Christmas and who had very little experience or knowledge. This will be a learning experience for them, I can assure you. Too many "no's" on those surveys and you can lose your job.

    As for why your original order had a later delivery date: honestly, it's hard to say. It could have had to do with a number of factors such as what the expected inventory was when you placed the order, demand for that expected inventory, etc. If they ended up later ordering a larger number of units than was originally ordered and more of those units were shipped to a Fulfillment Center nearer to you, that would explain why you suddenly saw super-fast delivery as an option. If you pre-ordered it some time ago, your original delivery date would have most likely been based upon the original circumstances surrounding availability at that time and, for some reason about which I have no idea, that didn't change when the availability and shipping speed circumstances did. I wish I could provide a better explanation, but like I said, I'm basing my conjecture on outdated experience and knowledge of a company that changes policies and procedures on an almost-daily basis. A lot of folks have no idea exactly how complex an operation Amazon is. It truly boggles the mind. It does speak well of the company that they have been able to grow at such an exponential rate and yet shorten delivery time on most orders. I'd never consider working there again due to the crushing stress and (in my view) often-toxic corporate culture, but I absolutely still admire their ability to function as well as they do, given their complexity and size.

  92. Mark Booth

    Yesterday, Amazon's page for 'The Wizard of Oz' 4K showed that if I purchased the film (within the next x hours) the film would be delivered TODAY (Oct 30). Yet, the copy that I ordered in early Sept hadn't even shipped yet. Amazon was showing that it wouldn't be delivered until Thursday, Oct 31.

    I was feeling pretty miffed about that. Why should someone that purchased it AFTER me get it BEFORE me.

    That is SO strange you say that, Mark. I had a very similar experience yesterday as well, but with another title. I placed a pre-order for THE DEVIL RIDES OUT and it always had an expected delivery date of October 29th. I checked it again on Tuesday and amazon told me it wouldn't be here until Thursday. I was a little disappointed but thought, oh well them's the breaks, these things happen. I don't know what made me check the website but there it was with a "free one day shipping" notice on the title telling me if I ordered it within blah blah blah I could get it tomorrow (Wednesday.) The price hadn't changed so I just ordered it again and cancelled my pre-order which hadn't even prepared to ship yet.

    Can we expect some sort of new trend for the future?

  93. noel aguirre

    Oh wow- is this yet another time when the digital copy I received from a 3D purchase yielding a 4K version? 🙂 Apple is certainly generous. And I may cancel my order now as I didn’t get to pick it up yesterday.

    That would be a negative. The digital copy that came with the 3D disc was Ultraviolet (I know because I have it) and therefore not eligible for a free 4K upgrade. iTunes updated the artwork but you won't get 4K unless you actually bought it at iTunes.

  94. Mark-P

    That would be a negative. The digital copy that came with the 3D disc was Ultraviolet (I know because I have it) and therefore not eligible for a free 4K upgrade. iTunes updated the artwork but you won't get 4K unless you actually bought it at iTunes.

    Exactly. I also redeemed my copy from the 3D Blu-ray. Still HD. NOT 4K

    From my iPhone 11 Pro Max
    View attachment 64646

  95. Ah so no one is able to get 4K Oz yet on iTunes then as it’s not available yet. Not my worry.
    However I must say my copy streaming on my iPhone 11 Pro Max 256gb looks damn impressive. Can’t see any room for improvement.
    And I will pick up that gorgeous 4K steel book anyway for that great cover.
    So the digital copy in the new 4K only gives an HD file as iTunes doesn’t have a 4K Oz? Is that what I’m to believe?

  96. dpippel

    My order from Amazon was delivered yesterday and I must say, the cover art is even more horrible in-person. Absolutely FUGLY! WB should fire the genius(es) in the marketing department that produced and approved this garbage. It's like something from a middle school Photoshop seminar gone bad.

    it’s so sad what drek these studios put out to sell their products. The days of great graphic artists is truly dead. Or these conglomerates just go for the cheap. Disgraceful. What is that tornado doing on the Yellow Brick Road???? The illustration is worse than Journey Back to Oz w Liza Minnelli and reminds me of Oz The Great and Powerful and not in a good way.

  97. noel aguirre

    Ah so no one is able to get 4K Oz yet on iTunes then as it’s not available yet. Not my worry.
    However I must say my copy streaming on my iPhone 11 Pro Max 256gb looks damn impressive. Can’t see any room for improvement.
    And I will pick up that gorgeous 4K steel book anyway for that great cover.
    So the digital copy in the new 4K only gives an HD file as iTunes doesn’t have a 4K Oz? Is that what I’m to believe?

    No. If you purchase the 4K OZ the digital code will redeem in 4K on iTunes and other MA partners where available.

  98. Robert Crawford

    Is this Groundhog Day?:)

    You tell me-people keep contradicting themselves on here. If I own the HD version in iTunes then why don’t I see that I can buy a 4K version?

    but wait it not switched and now says I own it. Not arguing this anymore. Happy Halloween.

  99. Robert Crawford

    Is this Groundhog Day?:)

    I ask myself that repeatedly.:D

    noel aguirre

    You tell me-people keep contradicting themselves on here. […]

    I always go back and forth on statements like these.:roll:

  100. Robert Crawford

    Is this Groundhog Day?:)

    I ask myself that repeatedly.:D

    noel aguirre

    You tell me-people keep contradicting themselves on here. […]

    I always go back and forth on statements like these.:roll:

  101. The 4k WoO is available as part of a "Get 3 for the price of 2" deal on Amazon. But you have to hunt and peck for the other titles which are eligible for the deal.

    I just pulled the trigger on this title (along with 4k copies of Alita: Battle Angel and Disney's new live-action Aladdin).

    The only way I found to see the deal is to go to the general 4k/UHD listing of titles on Amazon and then scroll through all the pages of titles looking for the mention on each one. And when you click the link to see the product info on a title and add it to your car there is no mention of it at all and you won't even know the deal is real until you add three eligible titles to your cart and then click on the link to order.

    Hope this helps somebody.

  102. Mike Frezon

    The 4k WoO is available as part of a "Get 3 for the price of 2" deal on Amazon. But you have to hunt and peck for the other titles which are eligible for the deal.

    I just pulled the trigger on this title (along with 4k copies of Alita: Battle Angel and Disney's new live-action Aladdin).

    The only way I found to see the deal is to go to the general 4k/UHD listing of titles on Amazon and then scroll through all the pages of titles looking for the mention on each one. And when you click the link to see the product info on a title and add it to your car there is no mention of it at all and you won't even know the deal is real until you add three eligible titles to your cart and then click on the link to order.

    Hope this helps somebody.

    It's also available at Target for a buy 2 and get 1 free.

  103. noel aguirre

    Wrong and I posted proof from my phone. Not going down your rabbit hole again. You need to learn how iTunes works.

    You have got to be kidding. How absurd. :rolling-smiley:You obviously don’t know how it works and you’ve shown that time and time again to all of us here in multiple threads with uninformed ridiculous statements. I’m done trying to help you.

  104. Tino

    You have got to be kidding. How absurd. You obviously don’t know how it works and you’ve shown that time and time again to all of us here in multiple threads with ridiculous statements. Get a clue dude. I’m done trying to help you.

    You refuse to look at the proof I posted from the screenshot off my iPhone yet I need to get a clue? May I suggest you go to the Genius Bar ASAP. Happy Halloween.

  105. noel aguirre

    You refuse to look at the proof I posted from the screenshot off my iPhone yet I need to get a clue? May I suggest you go to the Genius Bar ASAP. Happy Halloween.

    Noel, there are multiple threads about Apple TV, iTunes, and Movies Anywhere that explain exactly why a digital copy gets redeemed in HD and therefore has the 4K version blocked from purchase in iTunes. That’s what has happened to many of us with WoO. Solution? Redeem a new 4K code, Buy the 4K Version at Vudu, or use the “gift it to yourself’ trick on iTunes. Happy Groundhog Day!

  106. Mark-P

    Noel, there are multiple threads about Apple TV, iTunes, and Movies Anywhere that explain exactly why a digital copy gets redeemed in HD and therefore has the 4K version blocked from purchase in iTunes. That’s what has happened to many of us with WoO. Solution? Redeem a new 4K code, Buy the 4K Version at Vudu, or use the “gift it to yourself’ trick on iTunes. Happy Groundhog Day!

    No need for multiple threads to figure out something so basic when I have the Apple store across the street and had it verified.

  107. noel aguirre

    No need for multiple threads to figure out something so basic when I have the Apple store across the street and had it verified.

    Two guys walk into a Genius Bar together. The first guy who bought The Wizard of Oz on iTunes shows his phone to the bartender. "Look it says The Wizard of Oz is in 4K, but for my friend here, who got the movie from a code redemption, his phone says the movie is only HD. Which of our phones is correct?" The Bartender has a puzzled look as he examines both phones. "This is impossible. I've never seen such a thing!"

  108. noel aguirre

    No need for multiple threads to figure out something so basic when I have the Apple store across the street and had it verified.

    Two guys walk into a Genius Bar together. The first guy who bought The Wizard of Oz on iTunes shows his phone to the bartender. "Look it says The Wizard of Oz is in 4K, but for my friend here, who got the movie from a code redemption, his phone says the movie is only HD. Which of our phones is correct?" The Bartender has a puzzled look as he examines both phones. "This is impossible. I've never seen such a thing!"

  109. Mike Frezon

    The 4k WoO is available as part of a "Get 3 for the price of 2" deal on Amazon. But you have to hunt and peck for the other titles which are eligible for the deal.

    I just pulled the trigger on this title (along with 4k copies of Alita: Battle Angel and Disney's new live-action Aladdin).

    The only way I found to see the deal is to go to the general 4k/UHD listing of titles on Amazon and then scroll through all the pages of titles looking for the mention on each one. And when you click the link to see the product info on a title and add it to your car there is no mention of it at all and you won't even know the deal is real until you add three eligible titles to your cart and then click on the link to order.

    Hope this helps somebody.

    This doesn't seem to work at all. I've tried several times and all I get is a big $0.20 discount!

  110. LarryH

    This doesn't seem to work at all. I've tried several times and all I get is a big $0.20 discount!

    You've got to make sure you're picking two other titles that are part of that promotion. I just tried it with Yesterday and Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald as the other two titles and it worked.

  111. Robert Crawford

    You've got to make sure you're picking two other titles that are part of that promotion. I just tried it with Yesterday and Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald as the other two titles and it worked.

    I put the following in my cart

    2001
    Guardians of the Galaxy
    Wizard of Oz

    They each show the 3 for 2 note, but the total comes up as $77.71 with the aforementioned $0.20 discount.

    They were listed under the "see all" link of the "Featured 4K UHD Movies" page.

  112. LarryH

    I put the following in my cart

    2001
    Guardians of the Galaxy
    Wizard of Oz

    They each show the 3 for 2 note, but the total comes up as $77.71 with the aforementioned $0.20 discount.

    They were listed under the "see all" link of the "Featured 4K UHD Movies" page.

    Update: Actually 2001 was shown as 3 for $49.99 or less. Apparently there are several
    "deals" in play and you have to match all three choices from the same deal.

    I changed 2001 to Iron Man and the price dropped to $59.75 — so the 2 selected are the
    two most expensive titles, no surprise.

    Update 2: 2001, Inception, and Ready Player One (all 3 for $49.99 or less) came out to $49.38!

    I think I earned the discounts with all my work (whew!).

    Yes, there are more deals than just the "buy 2 get 1 free" and all titles have to be specific to a particular deal for you to get that discounted pricing.

  113. It was a no-brainer purchase for me, and having watched it last night, I’m not at all sorry. I suppose I should put in my old BD for confirmation, but I actually found the 4K edition to be a significant improvement (it could be some kind of visual bias confirmation though). But even if there were no other improvements the fact that the credits are no longer underscanned would be enough to get to buy this!

  114. Timothy A Goldich

    Really, why? It's a musical.
    Has the audio been more beautifully rendered in the 4K version?

    Robert Harris

    The audio has been well handled for years. Antique optical density tracks. How much should one change an 80 year-old film?

    It looks very different from its initial release, and sounds as good, or better than it did in 1939.

    Actually, the sound *has* been improved a bit. Probably the same tweaks to the audio that were made for the 3D version: "There are a few subtle differences on this new 4K disc. The most obvious are boosted channels in several key scenes, including the Wicked Witch's "Surrender Dorothy" warning and the flying monkey attack, as well as stronger amounts of LFE during the pre-Oz tornado touchdown. Additionally, several animal sounds during the opening farmhouse sequence seem to be more pronounced."

    I'm glad not EVERYONE is adamantly against improvement.
    Preserve the original as is, it will always be the most authentic version of the film. But that means offering a version of the film that's cleaned up, but nothing more. No digitally aligning the three strips of film, no drawing the sound from the first-generation sources and remixing into stereo, just the original muddy mono sound and slightly blurry image. That's what they managed to accomplish back in 1939 and that's what should be available to the purists.

    But I'm ecstatic that the picture and sound have been radically improved from what people saw and heard 80 years ago. Some of us get tired of seeing and hearing the exact same thing endless times. Others can't get past the limitations of the past and, without modern improvements, will turn their noses up such an old movie. Like it or not, it's the trend of the future, and I'm delighted! If they decide to synthesize strips of image that go on either end of the 4X3 image to transform the aspect ratio into widescreen, I would LOVE to check it out. "How much should one change an 80-year-old film?" I say, keep those tweaks coming boys. Change it as necessary. Let the Wizard of Oz be an ongoing living thing. Keep Oz alive on into the far future!

  115. I don't consider a better alignment of the 3 strips of negative an alteration. The other things you are describing, especially creating fake widescreen, are.

    "Limitations of the past"? The 1925 version didn't even have sound or Technicolor!

  116. Robert Harris

    I’m guessing here, but the original optical composite would probably not sound nearly as good as what has been created – presumably from earlier gen optical stems. Keep in mind that the original comp track, as printed, would have gone through Academy filter in projection.

    That's right. The reason Wizard can be mixed into stereo is that most of the original "stems" or "angles" were preserved there in the vaults all this time. The original mono mix, mixed using primitive mixing boards, is at least one generation removed from the these first-generation sources. Moreover, each stem can be individually sound shaped in a way that the complex mono mix cannot. So, "sadly" we don't get to hear that original muddy mono mix. Instead, we have to "suffer" a sound unimaginably more detailed with far less frequency response distortion and far greater separation, sound stage, bass response and dynamic range.

    By all means, the unadulterated original should be preserved for the purists and should have been included. But don't make me have to listen to it that way.

  117. MatthewA

    I don't consider a better alignment of the 3 strips of negative an alteration. The other things you are describing, especially creating fake widescreen, are.

    "Limitations of the past"? The 1925 version didn't even have sound or Technicolor!

    That's your opinion, but they weren't able to digitally align the strips in 1939 and therefore doing so could be considered an alteration (but I understand what you're saying). Creating a widescreen version is definitely an alteration, and you would presumably refuse to see it (you might even protest to prevent anyone from seeing it). But I would be happy to check it out and form my own opinion about it. If it were done perfectly enough, I would LOVE it! And so would millions of others who find the 4X3 practically square aspect ratio annoying.

    It's bean counters that would order the work done, but it would be Wizard of Oz besotted movie obsessives, with extraordinary skills and dedication that would perform the task with love. I'll see what they come up with. I'll give it a chance. If it doesn't pan out, I won't watch again. No harm done.

    The 1925 version is 99% forgotten; few have ever even heard of it, even fewer have actually watched it all the way through. That's exactly what I don't want to see happen to the 1939 version.

  118. Timothy A Goldich

    If it were done perfectly enough, I would LOVE it! And so would millions of others who find the 4X3 practically square aspect ratio annoying.

    I don't know if widescreen is the future anymore. If anything, 4×3 is closer to the square Instagram frame, as the smartphone increasingly becomes the screen of choice for most people.

  119. Mark Booth

    Yesterday, Amazon's page for 'The Wizard of Oz' 4K showed that if I purchased the film (within the next x hours) the film would be delivered TODAY (Oct 30). Yet, the copy that I ordered in early Sept hadn't even shipped yet. Amazon was showing that it wouldn't be delivered until Thursday, Oct 31.

    I was feeling pretty miffed about that. Why should someone that purchased it AFTER me get it BEFORE me. I initiated a call with an Amazon support rep. You won't believe what he told me.. He said because I paid $3 less (I ordered it at $19.96, it is now $22.96) I was getting slower shipping.

    HORSE MANURE! Prime is prime.

    When I received the "how did we do" survey email (after the support call), I gave a scathing review. That led to me eventually chatting (text) with a supervisor. He apologized for the poor customer service and assured me that my copy would arrive TODAY (Oct 30). He was so confident that it would arrive today, he promised me that if it didn't, Amazon would refund the entire purchase price and let me keep the 4K Blu-ray. I have his promise in a copy of the text chat.

    Amazon shipped it last night. The email and my orders page at Amazon's site say it is arriving Thursday. Maybe it will show up today anyway? But, at this point, I'm rooting for it to show up tomorrow! 🙂

    Mark

    It didn’t arrive Weds as promised, it arrived on Thurs. True to his word, the Amazon rep refunded my money on Friday and told me to keep the 4K Blu-ray anyway. Sweet.

    Mark

  120. Mark Booth

    Yesterday, Amazon's page for 'The Wizard of Oz' 4K showed that if I purchased the film (within the next x hours) the film would be delivered TODAY (Oct 30). Yet, the copy that I ordered in early Sept hadn't even shipped yet. Amazon was showing that it wouldn't be delivered until Thursday, Oct 31.

    I was feeling pretty miffed about that. Why should someone that purchased it AFTER me get it BEFORE me. I initiated a call with an Amazon support rep. You won't believe what he told me.. He said because I paid $3 less (I ordered it at $19.96, it is now $22.96) I was getting slower shipping.

    HORSE MANURE! Prime is prime.

    When I received the "how did we do" survey email (after the support call), I gave a scathing review. That led to me eventually chatting (text) with a supervisor. He apologized for the poor customer service and assured me that my copy would arrive TODAY (Oct 30). He was so confident that it would arrive today, he promised me that if it didn't, Amazon would refund the entire purchase price and let me keep the 4K Blu-ray. I have his promise in a copy of the text chat.

    Amazon shipped it last night. The email and my orders page at Amazon's site say it is arriving Thursday. Maybe it will show up today anyway? But, at this point, I'm rooting for it to show up tomorrow! 🙂

    Mark

    It didn’t arrive Weds as promised, it arrived on Thurs. True to his word, the Amazon rep refunded my money on Friday and told me to keep the 4K Blu-ray anyway. Sweet.

    Mark

  121. Mark Booth

    It didn’t arrive Weds as promised, it arrived on Thurs. True to his word, the Amazon rep refunded my money on Friday and told me to keep the 4K Blu-ray anyway. Sweet.

    Gotta love screw-ups that result in FREE! 😀

  122. Got my copy, and for sure the 4K is much improved over the included Blu-ray. But the sepia seems to me to be more natural/brown on the Blu-ray and more reddish on the 4K. The 4K also has a cooler white balance overall. Seems consistent with the grabs from caps-a-holic.com, but not sure which is the "correct" one. I know that my HDR input it perfectly calibrated, but for the 4K/UHD, I have to trust my TV's controls. Hard to say which is "better", just interesting to note.

  123. We watched the 4K disc today. Fantastic!

    I redeemed my digital code directly at Vudu. Vudu’s My Movies page shows I own the UHD. However, when I play it using the Vudu app on my Apple TV 4K it plays in HD only.

    Conversely, the digital copy that showed up in iTunes (thanks to Movies Anywhere) DOES play back in 4K (Dolby Vision) on my Apple TV 4K. That surprised me.

    Mark

  124. I noticed that at the end of the film, after the cast list title, a document appears from the Government of India stating that the film has been passed as a children's film. Has anyone else noticed this? How odd.

  125. usrunnr

    I noticed that at the end of the film, after the cast list title, a document appears from the Government of India stating that the film has been passed as a children's film. Has anyone else noticed this? How odd.

    Why is that odd??

  126. Ronald Epstein

    I am the last person on earth to see this 4k UHD.

    Been actually waiting for about two weeks for a promised arrival.

    Going to have to go to BestBuy and pick up a copy tomorrow.

    It is beautiful from start to finish.

  127. Timothy A Goldich

    That's your opinion, but they weren't able to digitally align the strips in 1939 and therefore doing so could be considered an alteration (but I understand what you're saying). Creating a widescreen version is definitely an alteration, and you would presumably refuse to see it (you might even protest to prevent anyone from seeing it). But I would be happy to check it out and form my own opinion about it. If it were done perfectly enough, I would LOVE it! And so would millions of others who find the 4X3 practically square aspect ratio annoying.

    It's bean counters that would order the work done, but it would be Wizard of Oz besotted movie obsessives, with extraordinary skills and dedication that would perform the task with love. I'll see what they come up with. I'll give it a chance. If it doesn't pan out, I won't watch again. No harm done.

    The 1925 version is 99% forgotten; few have ever even heard of it, even fewer have actually watched it all the way through. That's exactly what I don't want to see happen to the 1939 version.

    If they could fake info on the left and right side, why couldn't they recreate the lost "Jitterbug" footage?

  128. Ronald Epstein

    I am the last person on earth to see this 4k UHD.

    Been actually waiting for about two weeks for a promised arrival.

    Going to have to go to BestBuy and pick up a copy tomorrow.

    From whom? I ordered it from Amazon on October 31st and received it on November 2nd.

  129. Timothy A Goldich

    Creating a widescreen version is definitely an alteration, and you would presumably refuse to see it (you might even protest to prevent anyone from seeing it). But I would be happy to check it out and form my own opinion about it. If it were done perfectly enough, I would LOVE it! And so would millions of others who find the 4X3 practically square aspect ratio annoying.

    As long as the original ratio is available for those who want it (myself included), I don't know why I would even care how you watched it, let alone take the time and energy to somehow prevent you from seeing it?

    Same thing with the 3D version. It's not for me but if it's your thing then that's great.

  130. Timothy A Goldich

    Actually, the sound *has* been improved a bit. Probably the same tweaks to the audio that were made for the 3D version: "There are a few subtle differences on this new 4K disc. The most obvious are boosted channels in several key scenes, including the Wicked Witch's "Surrender Dorothy" warning and the flying monkey attack, as well as stronger amounts of LFE during the pre-Oz tornado touchdown. Additionally, several animal sounds during the opening farmhouse sequence seem to be more pronounced."

    I'm glad not EVERYONE is adamantly against improvement.
    Preserve the original as is, it will always be the most authentic version of the film. But that means offering a version of the film that's cleaned up, but nothing more. No digitally aligning the three strips of film, no drawing the sound from the first-generation sources and remixing into stereo, just the original muddy mono sound and slightly blurry image. That's what they managed to accomplish back in 1939 and that's what should be available to the purists.

    But I'm ecstatic that the picture and sound have been radically improved from what people saw and heard 80 years ago. Some of us get tired of seeing and hearing the exact same thing endless times. Others can't get past the limitations of the past and, without modern improvements, will turn their noses up such an old movie. Like it or not, it's the trend of the future, and I'm delighted! If they decide to synthesize strips of image that go on either end of the 4X3 image to transform the aspect ratio into widescreen, I would LOVE to check it out. "How much should one change an 80-year-old film?" I say, keep those tweaks coming boys. Change it as necessary. Let the Wizard of Oz be an ongoing living thing. Keep Oz alive on into the far future!

    Alignment of the matrices in 1939 was perfect, within the exigencies of the dye transfer imbibition system at that time, inclusive of the slightly soft bi-pack record.

    There is no difference between analogue alignment and digital, which is helpful in correcting shrinkage, and thereby attaining the original alignment.

    The only difference between a 1939 print and a 4k presentation is the increased resolution, which creates its own set of problems, that must be addressed.

  131. MatthewA

    If they could fake info on the left and right side, why couldn't they recreate the lost "Jitterbug" footage?

    I don't see a smiley here, so I'm wondering: Is this a joke post?

  132. Robert Harris

    Alignment of the matrices in 1939 was perfect, within the exigencies of the dye transfer imbibition system at that time, inclusive of the slightly soft bi-pack record.

    There is no difference between analogue alignment and digital, which is helpful in correcting shrinkage, and thereby attaining the original alignment.

    The only difference between a 1939 print and a 4k presentation is the increased resolution, which creates its own set of problems, that must be addressed.

    The digital alignment is more perfect than a mechanical alignment could ever be. Wires have been digitally removed from the flying monkeys and lion's tail etc. Color, contrast, etc. have been adjusted to micro perfection. Every blemish, every scratch, every hair has been removed—no print of the film, not even a print that had never been played, could be as absolutely perfect as what we're seeing now.

  133. MatthewA

    If they could fake info on the left and right side, why couldn't they recreate the lost "Jitterbug" footage?

    Well, of course, they could. In fact, they have. Using that home footage that exists and various surviving still photos, there is a recreation of the lost sequence. If brilliant enthusiasts chose to go all out with it and truly fully reproduce the sequence, I'd be happy to see what they managed to create. It might even be fun to have the option of seeing it reinserted in the film. But it was cut for a reason. It messed up the pace of the film and the song wasn't very good and they correctly surmised that its reference to the "Jitterbug" dance would date the movie.

    Widening the film, if it was done well enough, would present no such issues.

  134. Timothy A Goldich

    The digital alignment is more perfect than a mechanical alignment could ever be. Wires have been digitally removed from the flying monkeys and lion's tail etc. Color, contrast, etc. have been adjusted to micro perfection. Every blemish, every scratch, every hair has been removed—no print of the film, not even a print that had never been played, could be as absolutely perfect as what we're seeing now.

    We are discussing different technologies. Original prints were perfect. There were no wires to remove. Nor were there blemishes, scratches, or other detritus.

  135. Robert Harris

    We are discussing different technologies. Original prints were perfect. There were no wires to remove. Nor were there blemishes, scratches, or other detritus.

    Huh, elsewhere one hears about the digital restoration revealing a level of detail never seen before. Did some light from heaven materialize these flawless original prints you imagine? How is there no wires to remove? Did the monkeys fly and the tail wave by magic?

  136. Timothy A Goldich

    Huh, elsewhere one hears about the digital restoration revealing a level of detail never seen before. Did some light from heaven materialize these flawless original prints you imagine? How is there no wires to remove? Did the monkeys fly and the tail wave by magic?

    Have you ever seen an original print?

    You seem to be conflating two worlds.

  137. Robert Harris

    Have you ever seen an original print?

    You seem to be conflating two worlds.

    Indeed. I believe the appropriate descriptive word for a flawless IB print is “velvety”. A perfectly registered IB print could cover a multitude of technical flaws, and reduce apparent grain. This was why part of the Techniscope package was IB printing, since reducing frame height by half, then squeezing or vertically stretching that element to produce an anamorphic print would increase the size of apparent grain.

Leave a Reply