A Few Words About A few words about...™ Oklahoma! -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[JoshZ]

I have a 1080p display which means that, no matter what I send to it, it's only going to show me 1080p. If a different resolution or an interlaced picture is sent to it then it has to be scaled or deinterlaced SOMEWHERE along the chain because the display can ONLY output 1080p. Fine.

I usually have my Sony player directly output "Original Resolution" when I'm watching blu-rays (not DVD's as the player is a much better scaler but I digress) so THAT'S the way I watched OKLAHOMA! and it's gorgeous. Since it's 1080i is being sent from the player that means the TV is doing the deinterlacing (just like it does for digital cable) and it's giving me that wonderful "looking out the window" feel with a picture that has amazing depth which I entirely chalked up to the higher frame rate.

Now I don't know WHAT made me decide to play around (so please don't ask!) but the other night (for fun) I decided to change the output on the player to 1080p to see what it looked like if the player itself did the deinterlacing before it even hits the display. Well, imagine my surprise but the picture is now ever so subtly sharper, the colors pop more, and there is more shadow detail. In other words, the picture looks even BETTER than it did, but here's the thing.... that delicious three dimensional look is greatly greatly diminished. It still looks phenomenal but loses the sense of depth it had when outputting 1080i.

Which one is right?

I LIKED the deep look that made me think I could reach out and grab Gordon MaCrae's butt anytime I wanted to but now I'm wondering if that's just a digital side effect of the interlacing. Is it a subtle version of the dreaded "soap opera" effect? There is NO frame interpolation so that's not the issue.

Many people have remarked on the three dimensional feel of the blu-ray but is it right? At what output is everyone watching it? Does anyone know which look is more accurate to 1955? I've never seen 30fps projected on film so I really don't know. The increased sharpness, color, and shadow detail makes me think that's the right way to go but gee whiz the other look is mighty mighty appealing in it's own right.

The only thing that changes when you switch from 1080i to 1080p output on the Blu-ray player is where the deinterlacing takes place - in the player or in the TV. It's possible that one device may have a better processing chip than the other. However, the 30 fps rate on Oklahoma has a very straightforward 2:2 cadence that should be no effort at all for any deinterlacer to handle. If one chip detected the cadence incorrectly and screwed up the deinterlacing, it would likely be immediately noticeable in jaggie and aliasing artifacts all over the place.

Deinterlacing will have no effect at all on color or contrast.

I suspect that what you're experiencing here is pure Placebo Effect. You expected to see a difference when you changed the setting, so your brain perceived one.

 

[bigshot]

You're talking about adding *additional* interlacing to increase the frame rate higher. Your monitor is capable of refresh rates much higher than the blu-ray standard. That interlacing setting is intended for football games to make it easier to see the action. It looks very strange with 24 fps material. I agree with you on Oklahoma though... I tried that on my Espon projector and it made the film look amazing, especially during the dream ballet sequence.

 

[JoshZ]

You're talking about adding *additional* interlacing to increase the frame rate higher. Your monitor is capable of refresh rates much higher than the blu-ray standard. That interlacing setting is intended for football games to make it easier to see the action. It looks very strange with 24 fps material. I agree with you on Oklahoma though... I tried that on my Espon projector and it made the film look amazing, especially during the dream ballet sequence.

He specifically said that he's not using frame interpolation.

 

[Will Krupp]

I suspect that what you're experiencing here is pure Placebo Effect. You expected to see a difference when you changed the setting, so your brain perceived one.

Well thanks, I can't TELL you how much I appreciate being dismissed as too stupid to know what I'm actually seeing with my own eyes.

It would really have been better had you said nothing.

 

[FoxyMulder]

No, I GET all that Rayman. I'm just hoping to find out which one is right. Which is the INTENDED look and which is more accurate to the 1955 Todd-AO experience?

Get yourself the Spears and Munsil 2nd Edition calibration disc, it will tell you what you need to know, every test under the sun on that disc, maybe your player is doing something right or maybe your television is doing it right ( or wrong ), that disc will tell you.

 

[Will Krupp]

Get yourself the Spears and Munsil 2nd Edition calibration disc, it will tell you what you need to know, every test under the sun on that disc, maybe your player is doing something right or maybe your television is doing it right ( or wrong ), that disc will tell you.

I have it, Foxy, thanks.

 

[Matt Hough]

Will, I don't know which Sony model player you have, but I remember reading reviews of Sony models from a couple of years ago that didn't get top marks in video processing of anything except 1080p/24 material (which Oklahoma! is not), so I'd think possibly your TV might do a better job than a Sony player.

No offense to those who have Sony players (I have one and use it alternately with a PS3 on occasion, another Sony product), but I'm just trying to relate what I remember reading.

 

[Will Krupp]

Thanks Matt. I'm in the office and can't think of the model, but it's a 2013.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

What should my settings be on a PS3?

 

[Mark Booth]

Since watching 'Oklahoma!' in the Booth Bijou last weekend, I've not been able to get the tunes out of my head. I keep catching myself humming one number or another. So, I gave up and spent $6.99 to buy the soundtrack album from iTunes. Both of my cars have the ability to sync to my iPhone so I've been playing it while driving. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

And the land we belong to is grand....

Mark

 

[AnthonyClarke]

I've owned the soundtrack in various forms ... LP and different CD versions -- for as long as I can remember.
But recently I purchased a great addition to my 'Oklahoma!' collection . the original 1943 cast album, in its original presentation album .. all six original 78 records in perfect almost-unplayed condition. And since I use a brand-new steel needle for every play on my windup Columbia gramophone, the records sound fantastic.
It's good to be able to sample the original cast 78s and then switch over to the Blu ray of the movie .. both of them representing perfect technologies for their time.

 

[bujaki]

Anthony,
I also own the Oklahoma! 78s, a windup gramophone and steel needles. I find a lot of very well preserved 78s down here in Texas for next to nothing.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

You're fortunate, Jose. For us Australians the killer is the postaqe. The album cost me about $10. Postage from the States was, from memory, around $40!
Blu rays are a lot cheaper to ship..... and PS .. I also have the original 78 album of South Pacific with Mary Martin and Ezio Pinza.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

So is this release going to be exclusive to the Rodgers and Hammerstein box set? I'd love to have it, but I can't justify the purchasing the box set when I already have a third of the movies on Blu-Ray.

 

[David Weicker]

Supposedly Oklahoma and The King And I will be released in October (although the press release mentioned their respective anniversaries, so that could be 2015 and 2016 . )

 

[rsmithjr]

Supposedly Oklahoma and The King And I will be released in October (although the press release mentioned their respective anniversaries, so that could be 2015 and 2016 . )

Well, I am hoping that they will both be reworked. Oklahoma! has some flaws (the day for night buggy ride and the sound), and The King and I is not watchable. If they are fixed, I will buy them both again.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Thanks David. Sounds like it's just a matter of waiting, then.

 

[Mark Booth]

Well, I am hoping that they will both be reworked. Oklahoma! has some flaws (the day for night buggy ride and the sound), and The King and I is not watchable. If they are fixed, I will buy them both again.

If they are fixed, I will be petitioning Fox for a free replacement for 'The King and I'!Mark

 

[JoshZ]

Well thanks, I can't TELL you how much I appreciate being dismissed as too stupid to know what I'm actually seeing with my own eyes.

It would really have been better had you said nothing.

I didn't mean to insult you, but you're describing seeing picture quality differences that cannot be the result of simply switching between 1080i and 1080p in your Blu-ray player. That setting does not have any effect at all on color or contrast.

Either something else is going on with your equipment (perhaps your TV defaults to different calibration presets when it receives different input resolutions, and you weren't aware of it?) or it's Placebo.

Placebo Effect is a very real and very powerful force. Our brains are wired to perceive things based on what we expect to perceive, and they're very easy to fool.

I'd suggest that a double-blind viewing comparison is in order. Have a friend or family member randomly switch between 1080i and 1080p settings for you without telling you which you're seeing. He/she should wait the same amount of time between each viewing regardless of whether they actually change the setting or not. If you can consistently identify the difference between one and the other without any external hints, then it's time to investigate what else your TV or Blu-ray player might be doing to alter the video signal beyond the simple deinterlacing that it's supposed to do.

 

[Will Krupp]

I didn't mean to insult you, but you're describing seeing picture quality differences that cannot be the result of simply switching between 1080i and 1080p in your Blu-ray player. That setting does not have any effect at all on color or contrast.

But that's just it, I'm not really just switching between 1080i and 1080p. I'm switching between "original resolution" which, in this case just happens to be 1080i, and the blanket "1080p" setting. I discovered some time ago that using 1080p as an output bizarrely seems to add an unnecessary layer of processing to the image, which is why I only ever use it for DVD viewing. "Original" delivers a clean, seemingly unmolested image from player to display. OKLAHOMA! is an odd case of the original resolution being 1080i (the only other discs in my collection that I can think of at this resolution are the first two seasons of DOWNTON ABBEY and NPH in COMPANY) which is the only reason I even tried to have the player do the de-interlacing at the source.

I was surprised that there was a marked difference between the settings and my original question wasn't related to my equipment but what the film, in terms of perceived depth, would have looked like in 1955 to determine which setting was closer to it. Based upon what people have said here and continuing to watch it both ways I have come to the conclusion that "original resolution" is still the best setting.