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

[Richard Gallagher]

Here are the details:

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content/id/71503/the-wizard-of-oz-70th-ae-r2uk-bd-in-november.html

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertR

Yes, the problem can be dealt with, but it is a problem.

Of course. I never said it wasn't a problem, I said that it shouldn't be a problem that prevents one from purchasing an otherwise decent release.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Originally Posted by Robert George



More than enough.

So what is it?

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Richard Gallagher

Here are the details:

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content/id/71503/the-wizard-of-oz-70th-ae-r2uk-bd-in-november.html

Thanks, Richard! It looks like the UK release is just fine with respect to content. Besides the cover, the only discordant note is the "5.1 Dolby Digital Audio". I assume that's wrong, and it's really lossless. The green cover is gorgeous, and I would try to get that one and replace the UGLY one with it.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Originally Posted by Martin Teller

Not when you know WB is going to release the same thing in the US, probably with a different cover, a few months from now. After they've milked all the suckers they can on this bloated box of lame tchotchkes.

If Warner Brothers follows the same pattern as Casablanca, it will be more than a few months before there will be a disc-only release. It will be a couple of years.

I decided to order the single disc version of this and Gone With The Wind from amazon.uk. I don't care about the cover art -- just the film.

 

Per my initial question, I guess that the "Oh Toto. Don't!" line is still altered. The technicians in 1998 felt this was a mistake and excised it. I wish they would have left it alone. The continuity script contains the entire dialogue. How do they know it was a mistake?

 

[Vegas 1]

I think it is a mistake by WB not to offer a movie only version along with the box set. There will be those who will buy the box set anyway, regardless. WB would sell alot more BR if movie only, same with Casablanca and GWTW. In these economic times it just makes sense to give us more options. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Christian Preischl]

Originally Posted by Richard Gallagher

Here are the details:

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content/id/71503/the-wizard-of-oz-70th-ae-r2uk-bd-in-november.html

If this info is correct than the UK set will have most, but not all of the extras. The 80 minute feature "The Patchwork Girl of Oz" seems to be missing. (Dare I say "rights issue"?)

 

[Richard Gallagher]

Originally Posted by Scott Merryfield




If Warner Brothers follows the same pattern as Casablanca, it will be more than a few months before there will be a disc-only release. It will be a couple of years.

The WB store says that the single-disc BD of Casablanca is available now, so the wait was about nine months.

http://www.wbshop.com/Casablanca-+BD/1000019003,default,pd.html?cgid=

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

The MGM: When The Lion Roars DVD is not there either, but it is available separately and is no loss if you already own it.

Originally Posted by Christian Preischl




If this info is correct than the UK set will have most, but not all of the extras. The 80 minute feature "The Patchwork Girl of Oz" seems to be missing. (Dare I say "rights issue"?)

 

[Robert George]

So what is it?

If it looks good, what difference does it make?

 

[LarryH]

Originally Posted by AL KUENSTER

I think it is a mistake by WB not to offer a movie only version along with the box set. There will be those who will buy the box set anyway, regardless. WB would sell alot more BR if movie only, same with Casablanca and GWTW. In these economic times it just makes sense to give us more options. Just my 2 cents.

Even though I am one of the gullible who will buy the deluxe set even if both are available, I agree that this is really a marketing error because the extra they will get from people who don't really want the deluxe set will probably not offset the loss of sales of the single disk set. Its eventual release will probably not benefit from the hype currently being generated, as it will be forgotten in only a few months.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I had a chance to see one of the '98 dye-transfer prints and it was beautiful! It did have the color alignment issue at cuts and a few isolated moments, but the amount of detail and color blew my mind. Even if it's minor stuff like the burlap texture in Ray Bolger's makeup or seeing reflections on floors. I'm excited about the BluRay, even though I opted for the simpler UK edition (again, you can get Oz and GWTW combined for the same price as just one of the US editions).

Good to hear that it's up to quality!

 

[Adam_S]

Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner




Was it really from a 4K DCP and on a 4K projector (no upsampled 2K)? I would have liked to see that. The grain must have been very interesting to look at.

Yes, and Yes. A special projector 4K projector was loaned to the academy by Sony for the event, as they explained, "Our Christie digital projector we installed four or five years ago is only 2k, and apparently not good enough anymore" They said all weekend had been spent setting up for the screening-the first 4K screened at that theatre.

The grain was spectacular, though I only noticed that for the opening titles really, the image was so lifelike and filmlike because the 4K retained the integrity of the film grain. It was actually better than a film print. I've watched dozens of 35mm academy ratio films in this theatre in pristine prints and the quality of this presentation was every bit as good, better in fact, because it lacks the pops and scratches. I forgot I was watching digital other than the clarity of the image.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Originally Posted by Robert George



If it looks good, what difference does it make?

Looking good is way too subjective an argument. WB apparently did a world class job on the 4K master and if they want to keep the quality on that level down to the Blu Ray then a compression job that is state of the art is called for. State of the art means high average bit rates and even higher peaks. Why? Because otherwise you lose detail, accuracy and fidelity. Will it look bad at 17 Mbit/s? No. For many it will not even look bad at 10 Mbit/s. But does that mean WB should use 10 Mbit/s because it will look good to most people? Surely not. Will it look better at 25 Mbit/s average? You bet. It will be closer to the uncompressed original and more faithful, especially concerning grain detail and lack of more or less masked blocking. Will it look better to most people? Surely not. They have neither the equipment nor the experience to see the difference. So is it pointless to use 25 Mbit/s instead of 17? I don't think so. Actually give me 35 Mbit/s (as you easily can on a DB50) and you have used BD's full capability and the best and most accurate rendition of fine detail the 1080p master has and Blu Ray can deliver. That would be the equivalent of the job they did on the 4K master. And asking for it is neither unreasonable nor pointless. Maybe they did go this high. If so, bravo. Do you know? Or did you just want to start a discussion and show how silly people are who are not too excited about the standard WB compression jobs at < 20 Mbit/s, because they look 'good' already?

 

[Robert George]

Looking good is way too subjective an argument.

Of course. Everyone knows it is far more important to have a high number on the bit rate meter. That's what Blu-ray is all about.

Or did you just want to start a discussion and show how silly people are...

You pretty well have that covered.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner

Looking good is way too subjective an argument.

Yes, but you're on the other end of the spectrum here. You're telling us that that bitrate will determine PQ, 100% of the time. And you're willing to hammer that point into the ground to the extent that it appears that you will always believe that a bitrate is the only benchmark, up to the point of believing it over "your own lying eyes" for being too subjective in a double-blind type of comparison if it didn't bear out your hypothesis.

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

There is nothing wrong with having a high mbps bit rate on any release. I do think WB's is the worst of all the major studios when they just kind of go for the bare minimum. I think lately they have gotten better, although from what I understand if a film in standard 4:3 and doesn't require a16:9 anamorphic transfer.

This being said I was kinda feeling when WB's released Casablanca and it featured a startling low average bit rate, and compare it to the the approx same running time of a film like The Third Man released by Criterion. It was astounding how much space they gave the film.

Again I get shot down because there is the crew who go oh well... that type of space isn't needed for the transfer and the minimum is ok.

My feeling is well.. this is NOT DVD and was sort fo created for top notch image and sound quality am I right? So why go cheap on the release or as like to say half-assed.

If isn't that important then why do certain studios give it their all like Criterion and offer films using such strong bot rates?

I believe if you are gonna release something on BD just do it right from the begining. Otherwise just stick with the standard DVD.

I am sure WB's did Wizard of OZ well... but no harm on going the extra mile right?

 

[Robert Harris]

Every film, and its compression are different. Using additional space above what is perceived as the "sweet spot" doesn't necessarily add any image quality. One would hope that the right spot is found, and that if more space is needed, that extras be dumped toward optimum image quality.

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Every film, and its compression are different. Using additional space above what is perceived as the "sweet spot" doesn't necessarily add any image quality. One would hope that the right spot is found, and that if more space is needed, that extras be dumped toward optimum image quality.

Thanks for that response, I know it just feels better when you notice they utilize maximum disc space etc, so it is good ot hear it from you that it shouldn't be a worry issue so much.

I did notice with Dead Calm on BD WB's did seem to use higher bit rates for that transfer, so that was cool. I felt like BODY HEAT which looked good felt like it could have been bumped up more due to the actual look of the film. The mbps just seemed unhealthy low in the teens. I felt the BD looked better than the DVD, and that grain structure etc was fine and it was shot soft at times, coudl be the best it may be able to look but couldn't help but wonder if it could have used more space to help it out. Again this could be a case of it won't get any better.