WHV Press Release: The Wizard of Oz 70th Anniversary UCE (DVD/Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

According to George Feltenstein and Robert Harris, audiences in 1939 couldn't see the wires. I can see them on every vhs and dvd release. How could they have not seen them in 35mm?

 

According to George Feltenstein and Robert Harris, audiences in 1939 couldn't see the wires. I can see them on every vhs and dvd release. How could they have not seen them in 35mm?

 

[MatthewA]

Apparently the dye-transfer printing process managed to obscure them. How it did so I will leave to the experts.

 

[Worth]

By any chance do you know, or does anyone know, what most digital projectors are like these days in most theaters? Specifically, I've heard that most projectors are "2k." Forgive my ignorance, but I don't really know what that means. I assume (and I may be wrong here) that true hdtv being a bit more than 1000 lines of horizontal resolution is "1k"--which is what I've got on my sony xbr tv at home.

Actually, 1080p is very close to 2K. Most digital cinema projectors are 2K, though some of the newer ones are 4K. But it's a bit of a moot point, as I believe most digital intermediates are still done at 2K.

 

[JediFonger]

benbess&all,

the "2K" references vertical lines of resolution, not horizontal. our current HDTV standard has:
1920 vertical lines and 1080 horizontal lines.

strictly speaking DI (digital intermediates) are:
2K (2048 x 1080)
4K (4096 x 2160)
8K (7680 x 4320)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema

so for our purposes, 2K IS 1080p. it also means:
4k=2160p
8k=4320p

[/url]
Actually, 1080p is very close to 2K. Most digital cinema projectors are 2K, though some of the newer ones are 4K. But it's a bit of a moot point, as I believe most digital intermediates are still done at 2K.

 

[Arnie G]

some new screenshots are supposedly on this site: www.thejudyroom.com/news-oz.html#screenshots

 

Those look great. The color is more muted than the previous release, which is more in line with how Technicolor films looked in 1939 (I think.) The sepia tone also looks more appropriate (some gray scale and not so orangey).

 

[Arnie G]

the screencap on the left is from my 2005 dvd, the right is from the link I posted above.

 

[Arnie G]

my 2005 dvd on the left, blu ray on the right. I'm not an expert on screencaps,
it's just to give you an idea of how they compare.

 

[RobertR]

I have to say I hate the art work on the UK release:

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/the-wizard-of-oz-70th-anniversary-edition.html

"Sing-along" edition? Bleah.

 

[Garysb]

More Oz Hoopla:

http://www.thejudyroom.com/media/dvd/dvds/oznetflixpressrelease.pdf


Basically says the film will be available free on line for one day October 3 from Netflix.

It is free for anyone online but if you are a Netflix member with unlimited access and you have the proper equipment you can stream the film on to your TV. I tried pasting the press release
here but it kept getting cut off.
Anyway there is also a free concert in Central Park in NYC on September 29th featuring the songs from the movie followed by the film itself .

 

[benbess]

Thanks very much, jedifonger, for this tech info!

So, what we are seeing at home on blu with a nice set up is pretty much the same as a theater at 2k. Interesting.

Don't you think theaters should go to 4k asap so that they can say that you're getting something beyond what you're getting in your living room?

 

[RolandL]

Details about the restoration - from http://www.multichannel.com/article/340027-_Oz_Gets_An_HD_Makeover.php

 

[rich_d]

Roland,

Thanks for the link:

"A recently discovered nitrate print manufactured by Technicolor in 1939 also gave them a better insight into the way the film should look. "We had reference Technicolor prints in the past but we weren't sure of their pedigree," Price said.

This print showed that "there was more grey curve in the film, meaning that the mid-range was more open," he explained. "It wasn't so contrasty in places and the colors were more muted. The early Technicolor films were not so much about primary colors. They had more earthy tones, which is not to say that they weren't vivid. It's just that the colors were more complex than previously seen in photo chemical printing. So we went and made the picture less contrast-y and toned down the color palate."

"Toned down the color palate" ... from that and from some of the screenshots that have surfaced, we're getting color changes from the last botched release. That must thrill those that fell on their swords defending the last release.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by RobertR

I have to say I hate the art work on the UK release:

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/the-wizard-of-oz-70th-anniversary-edition.html

"Sing-along" edition? Bleah.

Robert: The way I read the blurb under that post in the thread, it seems like that's NOT the UK release cover art...but a separate release that features just the songs from the film.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Jim_K



Obviously Warner didn't listen to this concern back when Casablanca came out. Either shame on us for not voicing it more strongly or shame on them for dismissing it.

Or the Casablanca set sold well...

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by benbess

Thanks very much, jedifonger, for this tech info!

So, what we are seeing at home on blu with a nice set up is pretty much the same as a theater at 2k. Interesting.

Don't you think theaters should go to 4k asap so that they can say that you're getting something beyond what you're getting in your living room?

4k projectors are VERY expensive. In addition, most 35mm theatrical release prints are at least 4 to 5 generations away from the original camera negative. Add gate weave to that and your average 35mm print seen at the multi-plex, is probably not much more than 2k resolution.



So 2K digital projection is probably pretty close to what most people are used to seeing in theaters with regard to resolution. In addition to that, 2k "digital cinema" has a much wider color space than blu-ray is capable of, giving it the ability to display a far greater pallet of colors.




Doug

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon




Robert: The way I read the blurb under that post in the thread, it seems like that's NOT the UK release cover art...but a separate release that features just the songs from the film.

Mike:

The text above the artwork says:

Warner Home Video has announced the DVD and Blu-ray release of The Wizard of Oz: 70th Anniversary Edition for the 2nd of November, priced at around £12.99 and £22.99 respectively. True to form, Warner's UK press site completely neglects to provide any useful information about the specs, but you can be fairly sure that they'll be similar to the US version (linked below). We'll update this article as soon as we know more, but for now here's the artwork.

That makes it sound as if it definitely is the artwork for the UK release. Of course, I hope that's not true, but it doesn't look good.

 

[MielR]

Originally Posted by MatthewA

Apparently the dye-transfer printing process managed to obscure them. How it did so I will leave to the experts.

I'm no expert, but I think it probably has to do with the fact that they dye-transfer process didn't create the sharpest of prints, due to the fact that they had to align the multiple passes for the separate colors during the process (and they never lined up perfectly).

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Holy Moley just saw the cover for the UK release. My God --
the worst cover I have ever seen for a Blu-ray title. Looks
like something that came out of the VHS era.