Wizard of Oz on Blu-ray
Art Velordi
I've been patiently waiting for Oz to be released on Blu-ray, but after
following this NG I have concerns about the picture quality. Can anyone
put my mind at ease (or confirm my fears)? In any case I'm still very
interested in the extras & featurettes.
Art
Scott Dorsey
It'll be fine. It'll be the usual compressed HD video, which will look
great on your TV screen at home.
If you try and blow it up to theatrical size, you'll find it's not a
patch on the 35mm original and the artifacts are painfully obvious in
the front rows. But that's okay, because you aren't going to be doing that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
rjn
This review, as is customary for the site,
includes some full-res screenshots:
<http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/wizard.htm>
Biggest problem seems to be the bundling.
--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:na...@ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
Paul Penna
<acb843d5-99fa-4693...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
rjn <emai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 4:57�pm, Art Velordi <artiewra...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > I've been patiently waiting for Oz to be released on Blu-ray, but after
> > following this NG I have concerns about the picture quality. �Can anyone
> > put my mind at ease (or confirm my fears)? �In any case I'm still very
> > interested in the extras & featurettes.
>
> This review, as is customary for the site,
> includes some full-res screenshots:
> <http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/wizard.htm>
Better (larger, uncompressed) screenshots here:
http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=26649
Art Velordi
Great websites & info. I feel a lot better. Thanks to all who responded.
Art
Art Velordi
Exactly. Well...I can still carp about the disappointing (though
historically accurate) 1.33 A/R can't I?
Art
Scott Dorsey
If you want it wider, sit in the front row....
rjn
> Well...I can still carp about the disappointing (though
> historically accurate) 1.33 A/R can't I?
And what was your preferred outcome?
The 1955 1.85:1 matte hack?
Martin Hart
tter...@sonic.net says...
I worry about the reliability of reviewers who think "The Wizard of Oz"
was one of the first, or even the very first, color motion pictures.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/
Martin Hart
@verizon.net says...
"Historically Accurate?" Do you think that it would be better with the
top and bottom of the picture chopped off? What an idiot!
J. Theakston
wrote:
> In article <pan.2009.09.27.03.01.53.219...@verizon.net>, artiewray74
>
> > >>I've been patiently waiting for Oz to be released on Blu-ray, but after
> > >>following this NG I have concerns about the picture quality. Can anyone
> > >>put my mind at ease (or confirm my fears)? In any case I'm still very
> > >>interested in the extras & featurettes.
>
> > > It'll be fine. It'll be the usual compressed HD video, which will look
> > > great on your TV screen at home.
>
> > > If you try and blow it up to theatrical size, you'll find it's not a patch
> > > on the 35mm original and the artifacts are painfully obvious in the front
> > > rows. But that's okay, because you aren't going to be doing that. --scott
>
> > Exactly. Well...I can still carp about the disappointing (though
> > historically accurate) 1.33 A/R can't I?
>
> > Art
>
> "Historically Accurate?" Do you think that it would be better with the
> top and bottom of the picture chopped off? What an idiot!
I think Art was nagging about how pillarboxing the image can cause
such a significant decrease in screen size.
But of course, so many screens today are much bigger than their
original variants, that after the compromise, an average multiplex cut
down to 1.37 is probably an accurate representation of the screen
sizes in most theaters in 1939. I was surprised when I read that the
Roxy's original screen was only something like 25' wide.
J. Theakston
Art Velordi
> Art Velordi <artiewra...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Well...I can still carp about the disappointing (though historically
>> accurate) 1.33 A/R can't I?
>
> And what was your preferred outcome?
> The 1955 1.85:1 matte hack?
Sheesh...good thing it isn't easy to get bar-b-qued in here. Sorry
guys... I certainly wasn't suggesting a 1.85 matt hack. By "historically
accurate" I simply meant the HD release at 1.33 was the same a/r the film
was shot in. My disappointment is that the picture wasn't widescreen to
begin with (although I believe wider aspect ratios weren't in common use
until years after Oz was released.)
Art
rotoflex...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> Do you think that it would be better with the
> top and bottom of the picture chopped off?
Whoa, hang on Marty! The top & the bottom of the picture don't have
to get chopped off!
Let me just put in the scope lens, that's all we have to do!
For you, always, The Special Treatment.
I looked at the screen caps on one of those sites, and I don't know if
the jpg compression of the captures, or the digital processing of the
image in the chain ending at the disc, or some other thing has
contributed to it, but they just look so flat, flat, flat. Like the
Fleischers did it animating with cels. So un-photographic, so
lacking in depth.
rjn
> Let me just put in the scope lens, that's all we have to do!
Rotate that lens 90 degrees.
Negamorphic.
"Unhanced for narrowscreen"
Wizard of Oz.
Now in Minimascope.
Steve Kraus
as well?
rjn
> Is it only available in the deluxe 4 disk set
> or is there a regular Blu-ray as well?
That was the ding in the 'beaver review.
At present, it's only available as the
you-paid-way-too-much edition.
Once the must-have-at-any price buyers have
been drained, mundane editions may be expected.
Art Velordi
> Steve Kraus <scr...@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote:
>
>> Is it only available in the deluxe 4 disk set or is there a regular
>> Blu-ray as well?
>
> That was the ding in the 'beaver review. At present, it's only available
> as the you-paid-way-too-much edition.
>
> Once the must-have-at-any price buyers have been drained, mundane editions
> may be expected.
-Or somewhere in between. See http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=3480
Art
Martin Hart
@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, tomser...@yahoo.com says...<SNIP>
> >
> > "Historically Accurate?" Do you think that it would be better with the
> > top and bottom of the picture chopped off? What an idiot!
>
> I think Art was nagging about how pillarboxing the image can cause
> such a significant decrease in screen size.
>
> But of course, so many screens today are much bigger than their
> original variants, that after the compromise, an average multiplex cut
> down to 1.37 is probably an accurate representation of the screen
> sizes in most theaters in 1939. I was surprised when I read that the
> Roxy's original screen was only something like 25' wide.
>
> J. Theakston
>
Theatre screens were amazingly small, even in the largest houses in
major cities. In 1953 when Bosley Crowther reviewed "Shane" at the
Radio City Music Hall, he mentioned that he was not impressed with the
new screen and its 1.66:1 "wide" aspect ratio, but he was pleased that a
much larger screen had been installed.
The introduction of CinemaScope in late 1953 and VistaVision in late
1954 provided the impetus for theatres to install substantially larger,
meaning taller and wider, screens. Not all theatres did this, so the new
wider aspect ratios just resulted in the reduction of screen height. I
recall going to our third viewing of "Ben-Hur" in a small neighborhood
theatre. The proscenium was quite small and my friend asked, "Can they
show the whole picture on that screen?" When the curtains opened we saw
that they could show the whole picture, but it wasn't very big. I will
say that this little theatre had a first class magnetic stereo system
and it was really put to use during the storm sequence.
Martin Hart
@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, rotoflex...@yahoo.com says...
I agree. While the images were pleasing, there wasn't a hint of that
"snap" you had with Technicolor prints. A tad more contrast would help
quite a bit. Really good IB prints had an almost 3-D look. The same goes
for Kodachrome slides. Both had fairly high contrast.
Martin Hart
@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, emai...@yahoo.com says...
Now that's a novel idea worth looking into. In fact there was a Soviet
system that used variable anamorphic lenses, automatically operated a
control track on the film. The picture could be virtually any shape. One
film was made with this system. It didn't catch on in the West.
While some scenes might be best served by a tall image rather than a
wide image, altering screen shape during the presentation always becomes
a jarring experience. That can be a good thing, such as when Cinerama
films used a normal 1.37:1 prologue then going to the full three panel
wide screen.
As for "The Wizard of Oz", a presentation in "Minimascope" might be
welcomed by those people that thought Judy Garland was too fat for the
role. (I'm not one of those people, by the way.)
Steve Kraus
> -Or somewhere in between. See http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=3480
The plot thickens. Thanks.
J. Theakston
wrote:
> Theatre screens were amazingly small, even in the largest houses in
> major cities. In 1953 when Bosley Crowther reviewed "Shane" at the
> Radio City Music Hall, he mentioned that he was not impressed with the
> new screen and its 1.66:1 "wide" aspect ratio, but he was pleased that a
> much larger screen had been installed.
>
> The introduction of CinemaScope in late 1953 and VistaVision in late
> 1954 provided the impetus for theatres to install substantially larger,
> meaning taller and wider, screens.
Actually, I'd say that's more the "print the myth" story. The truth
is that the "big screen" turn-around point is actually 1950-1,
especially with "cycloramic screens" being the rage of the pre-
widescreen era. And even before CinemaScope and VistaVision, theaters
just installing regular flat widescreen were putting in the big ones
(such as the aforementioned Radio City, and the Paramount).
I'd be willing to wager that the number of theaters that went
CinemaScope probably already had the silver widescreens waiting
because they had gone Widescreen before that.
J. Theakston
rotoflex...@yahoo.com
> > 1954 provided the impetus for theatres to install substantially larger,
> > meaning taller and wider, screens.
I think Marty's got the right perspective here on what happened. In
all the larger, older Paramount and shadow-Paramount houses, local
newspapers show a VERY big deal was made about the installation of the
Vistavision screen. If the design of these houses included opera
boxes near the prosc, very often the boxes were removed at this time
(hooray monolithic corporate edicts). It's a given for ex-Paramount
theaters that have lost their boxes that they were removed when the
Vistavision screen went in.
RD in Kennesaw
wrote:
> In article <76bb47ce-89d1-4015-b86a-338fa0288740
> @r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, email4...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 28, 5:19 am, rotoflexSPAMT...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Let me just put in the scope lens, that's all we have to do!
>
> > Rotate that lens 90 degrees.
> > Negamorphic.
> > "Unhanced for narrowscreen"
>
> > Wizard of Oz.
> > Now in Minimascope.
>
> > --
> >http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
> > NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
>
> Now that's a novel idea worth looking into. In fact there was a Soviet
> system that used variable anamorphic lenses, automatically operated a
> control track on the film. The picture could be virtually any shape. One
> film was made with this system. It didn't catch on in the West.
>
> While some scenes might be best served by a tall image rather than a
> wide image, altering screen shape during the presentation always becomes
> a jarring experience. That can be a good thing, such as when Cinerama
> films used a normal 1.37:1 prologue then going to the full three panel
> wide screen.
>
> As for "The Wizard of Oz", a presentation in "Minimascope" might be
> welcomed by those people that thought Judy Garland was too fat for the
> role. (I'm not one of those people, by the way.)
>
> Marty
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
Disney also used a variable anamorphic lens when they released the so-
called "SuperScope" version of "Fantasia" in 1956, again using a
control track. See the article by Norman Wasserman, “Special
Projection Process Gives Fantasia New Look,” International
Projectionist, March 1956, p. 14-15.
in Technicolor®
"RD in Kennesaw" <2ndl...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:208f68f4-f4db-4f9c...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Disney also used a variable anamorphic lens when they released the so-
called "SuperScope" version of "Fantasia" in 1956, again using a
control track. See the article by Norman Wasserman, �Special
Projection Process Gives Fantasia New Look,� International
Projectionist, March 1956, p. 14-15.
Any details on how this was accomplished? Was the print a standard sound
aperture release or anamorphic? What were the various ratios during the
presentation? Seems like a very Rube Goldberg kind of thing to do on
Disney's part. Much simpler to have the projectionist set up the anamorphic
lens one time for a specific squeeze for widescreen and print in the various
changes.
Morgan
RD in Kennesaw
> "RD in Kennesaw" <2ndle...@bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:208f68f4-f4db-4f9c...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> Disney also used a variable anamorphic lens when they released the so-
> called "SuperScope" version of "Fantasia" in 1956, again using a
> Projection Process Gives Fantasia New Look,” International
> Projectionist, March 1956, p. 14-15.
>
> Any details on how this was accomplished? Was the print a standard sound
> aperture release or anamorphic? What were the various ratios during the
> presentation? Seems like a very Rube Goldberg kind of thing to do on
> Disney's part. Much simpler to have the projectionist set up the anamorphic
> lens one time for a specific squeeze for widescreen and print in the various
> changes.
>
> Morgan
They used one of the mag stripes to encode the optical changes, much
the way "Fantasound" used one of the optical tracks to steer the other
three tracks to various speakers. They used the original 1.33 ratio
for those portions of Fantasia where a human was on-screen, such as
the Deems Taylor interstitials and Stokowski lead-ins. According to
the article, they then used 2.00 for most of the animation. This
resulted in obviously round objects like the sun, planets, etc. having
an oval shape due to the horizontal stretch (I can state this for a
fact from my own recollections). For "The Sorceror's Apprentice"
number, they used approximately 1.85, as Mickey Mouse was too
identifiable and couldn't tolerate much stretching. Rube Goldberg to
be sure, but optical adjustments weren't too common in 1956. Remember
they still shot most Todd-AO things twice, once for 70mm and once for
35mm at that time. I'll see if I can scan and OCR the article for
posting.
Paul Penna
<b3291d11-2a92-4903...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
RD in Kennesaw <2ndl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> According to
> the article, they then used 2.00 for most of the animation. This
> resulted in obviously round objects like the sun, planets, etc. having
> an oval shape due to the horizontal stretch (I can state this for a
> fact from my own recollections).
That confirms my recollection (which has remained firm to this day) of a
showing I saw c.1962. I'll never forget that egg-shaped sun. I remember
the curtains opening, Cinerama-like, to the 1.33:1 credits and
introductory segement in the center of the wide screen, then the image
expanding to fill it for the animated sections. We were on vacation at
Lake Tahoe, and theater was in Reno, Nevada.
rjn
> Now that's a novel idea worth looking into.
Actually, I was hinting that if there is to be carping about
the 1.33:1 a/r, complaining about inefficient use of the
1920x1080 BD data structure might be expected.
'Oz is using only 1436x1080 pixels.
DVD supports "enhanced for widescreen" 1.33x anamorphic.
One might have expected BD to do likewise, or even support
arbitrary non-square pixels, leaving it up to the player to emit
whatever the display could support (or the user commanded).
Had it, the 'Oz image might have been present at 1920x1080,
requiring a 0.67x squeeze on playback (or playable at 1920x1436
to a display having higher than normal HD res).
Alas, it appears that BD does not even offer DVD's 1.33x.
My guess is that such transforms at HD bit rates would have
required processing power that was instead squandered on HDCP.
On the up side, however, when a transfer doesn't fill the
vertical or horizontal extents of the BD format, that blank data
compresses to near zero storage on digital media, allowing
less compression to be used on the remaining image.
Contrast this with analog tape or LaserDisc, where the
unused lines of a letterbox presentation are fully wasted on
dark, mildly noisy lines.
The uncompressed full-res images linked to in an
earlier response are impressive, and it appears that
'Oz benefited from this trade off.
Steve Kraus
posting that said that Warner Bros. cancelled it.
danshane
wrote:
> Has anyone actually seen the 3 disk Emerald Edition in stores? I saw a web
> posting that said that Warner Bros. cancelled it.
I bought two sets at Target the day after release date, and I could
have purchased many more. It's a Target exclusive, but I'm betting it
will probably show up elsewhere next year.
Steve Kraus
restock. I like the extras but sure don't need the extra crap of the fancy
one. I'd take the Emerald Edition over that even if priced the same.
Steve Kraus
were all concerned.) Of course the in-store price at Tar-jay with tax was
only about 8 dollars cheaper than the El Grandiose version at Amazon with
no tax and free shipping. But I really, really didn't want that stupid box
and extra crap.
Steve Kraus
at 4K when all the talk was that this was done at 8K. Then I saw the
copyright at the end: 2005 The documentary isn't even about this
restoration.
So did they do all that laborious scratch and dirt removal all over again?
Or was it all just hype and this is just based on the 4K scans back then?
Derek Gee
"Steve Kraus" <scr...@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote in message
news:VLidnfo42LDUInrX...@earthlink.com...
They redid the entire restoration from the 8K scans. Even though they could
have released the 2005 restoration on Blu-ray, WHV felt that enough
improvement in the process had occurred to justify the expense of doing it
all again. WHV was either too lazy or too cheap to update or create a new
restoration documentary just for movie nuts like us. It's probably better
they spend the money on the restoration rather than a new documentary.
Derek
Scott Norwood
In article <4ae8da67$0$5099$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
Derek Gee <dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
>
>They redid the entire restoration from the 8K scans. Even though they could
>have released the 2005 restoration on Blu-ray, WHV felt that enough
>improvement in the process had occurred to justify the expense of doing it
>all again.
That is good to hear, but have they made new prints from the new DI? I
have not seen any prints that are newer than the 1998 restoration.
--
Scott Norwood: snor...@nyx.net, snor...@redballoon.net
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
Derek Gee
news:hcckin$rg5$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> In article <4ae8da67$0$5099$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> Derek Gee <dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>They redid the entire restoration from the 8K scans. Even though they
>>could
>>have released the 2005 restoration on Blu-ray, WHV felt that enough
>>improvement in the process had occurred to justify the expense of doing it
>>all again.
>
> That is good to hear, but have they made new prints from the new DI? I
> have not seen any prints that are newer than the 1998 restoration.
None that I'm aware of. As far as I know they didn't make any prints from
the 2005 restoration either. I'd sure like to see one though!
Derek
J. Theakston
wrote:
> "Scott Norwood" <snorw...@redballoon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:hcckin$rg5$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
>
>
> > In article <4ae8da67$0$5099$9a6e1...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > Derek Gee <dgeeSPAMSU...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >>They redid the entire restoration from the 8K scans. Even though they
> >>could
> >>have released the 2005 restoration on Blu-ray, WHV felt that enough
> >>improvement in the process had occurred to justify the expense of doing it
> >>all again.
>
> > That is good to hear, but have they made new prints from the new DI? I
> > have not seen any prints that are newer than the 1998 restoration.
>
> None that I'm aware of. As far as I know they didn't make any prints from
> the 2005 restoration either. I'd sure like to see one though!
>
> Derek
WB apparently has a no-print policy now, but they will rent out a 2k
or 4k master to you if you want the restored version.
J. Theakston
Derek Gee
news:76eed2f7-88c6-4649...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>WB apparently has a no-print policy now, but they will rent out a 2k
>or 4k master to you if you want the restored version.
Hmm, I'll have to hope that the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor decides to
play it now that they've added 4K digital to their booth. I believe they're
the only theater in the Metro Detroit area that plays classic movies and has
digital projection as well. The Redford
Theater will be showing a print of the film in November, so I'm planning on
attending one of those screenings.
Derek
Scott Dorsey
What happened to the IB-tech prints that were struck in the nineties?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Derek Gee
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hcg14b$4q9$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Good question. I'm sure some of them must be around. I was kinda of hoping
that's what the Redford will be showing in November...
Derek
J. Theakston
> Derek Gee <dgeeSPAMSU...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
> >"J. Theakston" <tomservoro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:76eed2f7-88c6-4649...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >>WB apparently has a no-print policy now, but they will rent out a 2k
> >>or 4k master to you if you want the restored version.
>
> >Hmm, I'll have to hope that the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor decides to
> >play it now that they've added 4K digital to their booth. I believe they're
> >the only theater in the Metro Detroit area that plays classic movies and has
> >digital projection as well. The Redford
> >Theater will be showing a print of the film in November, so I'm planning on
> >attending one of those screenings.
>
> What happened to the IB-tech prints that were struck in the nineties?
> --scott
One is still available for booking from WB and will be the one that
the Redford runs in November.
J. Theakston
Scott Dorsey
>Scott wrote:
>> What happened to the IB-tech prints that were struck in the nineties?
>
>the Redford runs in November.
I don't know what it's like now, but I saw one of them when they first
came out, and they were spectacular.
J. Theakston
> J. Theakston <tomservoro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Scott wrote:
> >> What happened to the IB-tech prints that were struck in the nineties?
>
> >One is still available for booking from WB and will be the one that
> >the Redford runs in November.
>
> I don't know what it's like now, but I saw one of them when they first
> came out, and they were spectacular.
Last time I saw it run-- fairly recently-- it was in very good
condition. You have to know the print number in order to book it
specially, and anyone who is actively asking for it will hopefully
take good care of it, too.
J. Theakston
Scott Norwood
In article <1096f306-0e8b-43c3...@w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
You want print #109, unless it has been trashed in the last year or two.
It is (was?) gorgeous.
I've also seen at least one of the 1998 IB prints that is in current
circulation, and which is in excellent physical condition, but is a poor
print (and should have been rejected by the lab). I have no print number
for that one.
Joe Zollner
>
> WB apparently has a no-print policy now, but they will rent out a 2k
> or 4k master to you if you want the restored version.
>
Any idea if these use the original mono soundtrack? I have no desire to
hear a remixed multichannel soundtrack.
- Joe Z.
Derek Gee
You've made my day Mr. Theakston! I can't wait to see what the colors look
like on that print.
Derek
Derek Gee
>
> In article
> <1096f306-0e8b-43c3...@w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> J. Theakston <tomser...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Nov 1, 5:05 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>> J. Theakston <tomservoro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >Scott wrote:
>>> >> What happened to the IB-tech prints that were struck in the nineties?
>>>
>>> >One is still available for booking from WB and will be the one that
>>> >the Redford runs in November.
>>>
>>> I don't know what it's like now, but I saw one of them when they first
>>> came out, and they were spectacular.
>>
>>Last time I saw it run-- fairly recently-- it was in very good
>>condition. You have to know the print number in order to book it
>>specially, and anyone who is actively asking for it will hopefully
>>take good care of it, too.
>
> You want print #109, unless it has been trashed in the last year or two.
> It is (was?) gorgeous.
>
> I've also seen at least one of the 1998 IB prints that is in current
> circulation, and which is in excellent physical condition, but is a poor
> print (and should have been rejected by the lab). I have no print number
> for that one.
Print number 666 perhaps?? ;)
Derek
J. Theakston
> You want print #109, unless it has been trashed in the last year or two.
> It is (was?) gorgeous.
>
> I've also seen at least one of the 1998 IB prints that is in current
> circulation, and which is in excellent physical condition, but is a poor
> print (and should have been rejected by the lab). I have no print number
> for that one.
#109 IS the IB/full ap print.
J. Theakston
J. Theakston
As far as I know, Warners does not make a policy of sending out
anything but the original mono on their digital files (although it
might be spread across the LCRs for a fuller range).
J. Theakston
Scott Norwood
J. Theakston
> >#109 IS the IB/full ap print.
>
> There's only one left?!?
I could be wrong, but the short answer as I know it is-- yes WB has
only one. However, I know of two that are "out there." As I recall,
there were only fifty IB prints struck.
J. Theakston
Derek Gee
>One is still available for booking from WB and will be the one that
>the Redford runs in November.
I finally got to see a real Technicolor IB print of the "Wizard of Oz" at
the Redford Theater on November 21st, and I was astonished at how different
it looks from all the video transfers I've ever seen. The film was more
contrasty and was less sharp and less grainy than all video I've seen. (Even
the 50th Anniversary transfer from the CBS Tech IB print.) The colors
glowed with a radiance that just isn't there on TV.
One thing I noticed is that the whites in the foreground were nearly blown
out in many scenes. This may explain why the backgrounds on the most recent
restoration are so dark. If the telecine operator or colorist brought down
the level of the whites in front, it would drag the background luminance
with it. IMO, the 2005 restoration did a better job handling the difference
between the foreground and background.
Watching the film with an audience is also a different experience, as you'd
expect. It seemed more emotional to me, even though I've seen the "Wizard
of Oz" on TV like 50 times or so. It was a packed house, and it was
interesting to hear the audience reactions, where normally at my house there's
silence. A good time was had by all!
Derek
Martin Hart
dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com says...
I don't have my reference material handy so I can't quote the details
with authority but there was one aspect of IB Tech printing that was
unique, and not in a good way. Great care had to be taken with
highlights as it was easy to burn out the white in IB prints, in other
words there was no dye whatsoever in very light areas. This necessitated
the use of slightly off-white to avoid the burn out. Of course there
were cases where it might be used to advantage. One example that comes
to mind is the titles in Samuel Bronston's "El Cid" which feature
charcoal sketches on a bald white background and brilliant red
lettering. Burning out the white wouldn't pose a great problem other
than maybe the audience would have to put on sunglasses.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/
J. Theakston
wrote:
> I don't have my reference material handy so I can't quote the details
> with authority but there was one aspect of IB Tech printing that was
> unique, and not in a good way. Great care had to be taken with
> highlights as it was easy to burn out the white in IB prints, in other
> words there was no dye whatsoever in very light areas.
And even more than just blown-out highlights. Pure white on the
matrices meant a particularly relieved area, which could form an air
bubble when printing, making the situation even worse than it was.
J. Theakston
Derek Gee
news:MPG.25878f0bd...@news.eternal-september.org...
Then perhaps the problem I saw isn't on the original negatives? It just was
strikingly different than what I'm used to seeing on video. The 50th
Anniversary video transfer from the CBS Tech IB print doesn't show any blown
out whites.
Perhaps what Scott Norwood said about it being a poor print that should have
been rejected is true? Did the non-Tech IB prints from 1998 exhibit the
same problem?
Derek