DVD Review HTF REVIEW: The Wizard Of Oz - Three-Disc Collector's Edition (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED). (1 Viewer)

[Joe Karlosi]

Same here. Are major color changes also supposed to have been previously 'incorrect'? Though screenshots are never 100% reliable, based on what I'm seeing here I prefer the earlier DVD. I like this film a lot, so I'll have to wait it out before deciding whether or not to "upgrade".

 

[Tim Glover]

Another great review Herb.

I posted this in the Robert Harris thread re: Oz in that I thought just based on the screen shots, the older version looked more natural and pleasing.

Looks like I'm not alone in thinking that. I'm certainly not trying to fart here because OZ is one of my top 10 films of all time. I'm also buying the big 3 disc too.

That said, like Kevin I think, my eyes kept going back to the previous version. My guess is that since it's a tad more bluish it appears to be more pleasing than what looks like a more yellowish tone on the new one. I'm no expert and sorry for the laymen terms. :b

Perhaps like RAH and Herb have said that the improvement is seen moreso projected which I will do on my projector next week.

Still a great dvd set to add to the Timobi film vault.

 

[Robert Harris]

As I've been noting in the other Oz thread, any discussion of color and precisely how it will play back on any particular piece of equipment is rather moot.

I've just popped the new DVD into the Apple which I'm now using, pulled up the frame of Dorothy's welcome, and found that her dress, while not as blue as the previous, is not as off-color as represented in the new frames.

Nor is the color saturation as high, which in the sample frame looks wrong.

An inspection of the close up of the tin man also plays back as much less yellow than as represented in the new scan, and like the shot above looking much more correct.

Any discussion of propriety based upon the frame grabs above, will only create a storm in a teacup, where there is no storm on the horizon.

The new disc, based upon scans of original elements, is beautiful and certainly within parameters of what is "correct."

RAH

 

[DaViD Boulet]

OUTSTANDING REVIEW.

Herb, I know what time it takes to do a thorough review of these in-depth special editions. Excellent work!!!




???

No tomatoes here...just want to make sure you understand what your asking and why you're asking for it:

Does your TV lock into "16x9" mode with progressive scan? Is that why you'd prefer the image to be 16x9 encoded? If you can ajust aspect ratio, then you're much better off with a native 4x3 image for 1.33:1 transfers...because 16x9 encoding would *reduce* horizontal resolution by wasting pixels on the pillarboxing bars. If your TV does lock to 16x9 with progressive-scan then get a new DVD player that will do the auto-sizing for you (like my old Panny RP91) which will maintain better image quality as it can preserve the horizontal clarity of the 1.33:1 image when "pillarboxing" for your 16x9 display on the fly.

This is coming from someone with a 16x9 HD projection system...

 

[Doug Schiller]

I know exactly what I'm asking for... a cropped version that was shown in theaters.
I want the original but would like to see what was released in theaters.
Unless it was released in its original aspect ratio.

Again, if it was release 1.85 (16x9) in the theaters, I would like to have that presentation also.

 

[Sergio]

Well, I like the colors, framing and detail in the old Special Edition DVD better. No need to double dip for me. I would wait for Blue Ray or HD DVD to purchase again.

On my way to Best Buy to get another copy of the old DVD in case my daughters ruin my existing title.

Great release by the way!

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Doug,

I saw this projected in theaters a few years back and it was pillarboxed on the 1.85:1 film-stock...it was a literal 1.33:1 movie with "black bars on the sides" on the big-screen...like they did with Blair Witch.

If you have a hankering to see it cropped to fill your 16x9 screen area...hit the zoom... (ducking to avoid a flying tomatoe)...

 

[Damin J Toell]

When The Wizard of Oz was originally released in theatres, there was no such thing as 1.85:1 projection. The film was projected at 1.37:1.

I'm sure some projectionist has shown it at 1.85:1 at some point. But lots of mistakes happen, and there's no reason to memorialize them on DVD...

DJ

 

[rich_d]

Herb,

Perhaps it might be worth doing another screen capture from the new disc just to see if you get the same result you already posted. As you indicated that you used the same software on the same computer (for both DVD screen captures) and got signficantly different capture size it begs the question of whether other parameters changed (somehow). Just to ensure it's apples to apples (no Oz pun intended).

 

[DaViD Boulet]

That's the attitude, and philosphy, that should guide restoration, video presentation, and expectations set by the videophile community.

FOLKS...it's ok to think "hey, I like the cooler look better" but that does NOT mean we should want the DVD to skew in that direction to please our eyes. The goal of film restoration and its presentation on home-distribution formats should be to show us what these films were *meant* to look like...even if our own personal tastes might have done something else had we been in the driver's seat of the director making the movie ourselves.

If Cameron puts film-grain in his ALIENS, then it ought to be there on the DVD.

If the director intentionally modifies color balance in Amilie, then it ought to be there on the DVD.

If Robert Wise filtered the close-ups of Julie Andrews in the sound of music and they look blurry to your eyes, or if the color filteres in South Pacific are annoying, they should still stay just as they are.

The subjective goal of making pictures "pleasing" is fine as long as it's consistent with the look of the original art. But the moment those two goals find themselves in conflict...the integrity of art should take the lead.

I realize that even in such cases of conflict there's room for debate about what the intensions of the original artists really were...but it's important to always keep the goal of faithfully serving those intentions on the front of our radar screen. The minute we start judging subjectively based on our own personal opinions and tastes without regard to authenticity to the source the integrity of art is lost.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

But what happens when the next new format (say Blu-Ray) sees ANOTHER "improved" release of THE WIZARD OF OZ and then the studio has to make some new change, say, back to the cooler colors?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Well...if it can be determined that the color balance is wrong on a video edition *regardless of how pleasing it might look in the abstract* then the studio should be criticized for it, and urged to be more faithful with future releases of that and other titles.

That's just the type of thing that "reviewing" should be about.

It's one of the reasons I pay special attention to the look of projected film prints in the theater...I want to make sure that the DVD versions are properly presenting the film. Had I not see Erin Brokovich (sp?) in the theater, I might not have known that the overly-warm color balance was an intended artifact that SHOULD be there.

The same applies to historic presentation of audio. It's WRONG when historic multi-channel mixes are dumbed-down for "home theater" with everything mixed to center. It's another reason I keep many of my laserdiscs around...often the 2-channel PCM and AC-3 of many laserdiscs more accurately reflected the original mix-presentation than the 5.1 we see on DVD which is all-too-often overhauled to make it "home video friendly". Heck...even when the "mix" isn't modified, the tonal balance and dymanics on 5.1 DVD are often completely screwed up because of "home video" manipulation (like dialog normalization with most DD soundtracks...something I wish would have never been coneived).

And of course the input from historians and film buffs who are familiar with the proper audio and video presentation is the best resource of all.

 

[Richard M S]

Now that really intrigues me - the only outtake I have ever been aware of was the Ray Bolger Scarecrow dance -what other scenes have been found? And do they have sound?

And of course, that was a great review. Thanks!

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Re: Color
I guess then we have to wonder how we can accurately arrive at what is truly "correct"? Sometimes the projection in a theatre can look incorrect, say if the lighting is too dim or what have you. Was Judy Garland's dress in WIZARD truly lilac on the day that screen capture was filmed? Were the actual surroundings cool or warm?

 

[Mark B]

It's interesting to me that those who defend the previous DVD version seem to be ignoring the great number of instances in which the misregistration of the three strips is glaring and highly annoying.

 

[Mark B]

The Jitterbug uses stills and Harold Arlen's on set home movies to recreate a feeling for the original sequence. The others are recreated with stills and soundtrack.

 

[DeeF]

I think there is a very slight audio out-of-sync problem with the 5.1 track. It was heard most in the very beginning scenes of dialogue.

Just something I noted, possibly due to my own equipment.

 

[Kevin M]

I understood all of that before & I agree that this most likely is a more accurate representation of how the film should look.....but I can't help what my eye finds pleasing. I can understand, appreciate and accept the acurate version as the version to watch but what my eye personally finds pleasing while observing in side by side comparison.....that I can't help.

 

[Jay Pennington]

Thanks for the review, Herb! Looking forward to owning the set.

FWIW, I agree with Mr. Harris in the other thread that to make framegrab comparisons at all meaningful, they need to be scaled the same.

 

[Richard M S]

Thanks Mark B.