The Wizard of Oz 4K UHD (1939) (80th, 85th Anniversary Edition)

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Blu Cider

Looking at the caps it looks like most of the poor compression has been fixed but not all of it. It's probably baked into the source. This is a 10 year old restoration after all (I think?)

Yeah, there are some shots that look like that...but my guess, in motion it won't be a problem.

The UHD BD looks cleaner (but in a very good non-DNR way) compared to the VC-1 encode which is truly adds noise in the form of dark artifacts. Dorthy's face shows this crap on the BD.

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...135789&i=4&l=0

[MEB]

I'll be watching this as soon as my 4K disc arrives next week. But we will also be showing it in the Booth Bijou Garage Theater in a few months when we pair it with 'Judy' as the main feature.

What a combo!

Mark

[MEB]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Yeah, there are some shots that look like that...but my guess, in motion it won't be a problem.

The UHD BD looks cleaner (but in a very good non-DNR way) compared to the VC-1 encode which is truly adds noise in the form of dark artifacts. Dorthy's face shows this crap on the BD.

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...135789&i=4&l=0

OMG, look at the blown out highlights in the ribbons in her hair on the standard Blu-ray.

And check out the colors of her gingham dress. The 4K version shows a nice baby blue (as I believe it should be) while the standard Blu-ray is verging toward a purple-blue.

Mark

[SpinDoctor]

Originally Posted by Dsneybuf

Best Buy sent my copy here a few days early, as well as the remastered Blu-ray of It's a Wonderful Life. If I redeem the Wizard of Oz digital copy today, will iTunes upgrade it to 4K on Tuesday?

If you redeem through Movies Anywhere it gives you the rights to the 4K, just redeemed mine and confirmed that. And that will give you the iTunes 4K when it becomes available, assuming you have linked accounts. Just keep in mind that any code you redeem directly through iTunes will get an automatic upgrade when the 4K becomes available, but it won’t carry over to MA or any other linked streaming platform.

[moviebuff75]

Her dress was a bright blue, almost royal. Anyway, I don't trust those screencaps.

[bradnoyes]

This looks very nice indeed. The opening black and white scenes are stunning, with incredible detail and clarity. Things look a bit softer to me once color is introduced but it retains a wonderfully filmic haze and it doesn’t lose any sense of depth or texture. Fine detail on make up, costumes, and backdrops was hard for my eyes to keep up with. Greens, reds, and pinks were particularly striking and Toto is frickin’ mesmerizing. I couldn’t take my eyes of that mutt if he was on screen. Grain resolves finely and consistently throughout.

I saw this a lot on TV as a kid but I’ve never seen it on home video so definitely wait for other impressions in terms of how it compares. Looked great to me, though.

[CarlosMeat]

Originally Posted by PowellPressburger

Why do my eyes keep telling me that I am seeing less detail?

At least in this example.

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x...&l=0&i=10&go=1

There is no doubt, having been an avid darkroom guy back in the day,that pumping the contrast (in those days push processing) increases perceived resolution.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PowellPressburger

Why do my eyes keep telling me that I am seeing less detail?

At least in this example.

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x...&l=0&i=10&go=1

How is there "less detail"? In fact, if you follow the little folds on the socks all the way down they're actually resolved BETTER on the 4K whereas on the BD they break up owing to the compression and/or lower resolution.

As Carlos said, you're seeing more contrast for sure in the BD cap and it's doing what contrast usually does, fooling the eye into seeing more apparent "sharpness". But the 4K is the more finely resolved of the two for actual spatial information, and there's no guarantee of course that it'll be so relatively lacking in contrast during actual 4K HDR playback, rather than a SDR-converted screencap that's been compressed into 150 nits which can dull colour and contrast as well as range.

[flyry]

Pissed i didn't order at $19.96 now it went up $3 in my amazon cart

[pikachufan1336]

Can't wait any longer!!!!!!!!!!!!

Does anyone know if there is an unboxing for the steelbook yet?

[singhcr]

Based on these screenshots, this title is definitely grain reduced compared to the IB Tech print I've seen a few times over the years in my local theater. That print was made in 1997 when Warner had re-built a Technicolor printer along with the dye process. Unfortunately those morons destroyed it just a few years afterwards, but at least we have a new print of Oz as a result. I just saw it last year for the third time.

When I first saw it I was not prepared for how intensely bright and saturated the color was, along with the strong grain field. That print was most likely as low a generation print as one could get from this process , as it went like this I imagine:

3 strip B&W negatives->positive dyed matrices, optically printed->mechanically pressed into a gelatin coated piece of film (blank carrier) with soundtrack to allow the dyes to imbibe into the carrier. Technicolor is a combination of optical and mechanical printing so it's hard to call this an IP or IN or whatever. It's like a mechanical offset print of an IP for each color record.

I would think the fact that the final print here has grain from three B&W negatives and the three optically printed positive matrices (optical printing will increase visible grain) really makes the final print quite heavy in terms of how visible the grain is. It looked much like an early Sony UHD like Starship Troopers where it is visible throughout, especially when we get to Oz and the film is in color. Saturation and contrast are strong. So perhaps going off a scan of the negatives directly would be less grainy than the print I saw because of the lack of an optical printing step on the source of the UHD scan. That being said, I'd still expect more than what some of those caps show. On the plus side, the colors seem more or less how the IB Tech print does, although I'd have to see it in HDR to say for sure. The one thing I can say is that the HDR grade should not be subtle. Technicolor is intensely saturated and doesn't look at all like you expect modern Eastman prints to look like. I really enjoy it, honestly.

Perhaps the increased contrast and brightness of the HDR grade will increase the visible grain over these caps, but the caps are usually a good indication of grain despite the different color space. I don't want to sound like a party pooper but many of those caps are disappointing to be honest. I would still like to give the disc a spin to judge it accurately.

Some of the shots like this and this look much like I remember but this is definitely not. I remember the yellow brick road and the Emerald City to be especially dense grain wise as it's a bright flat color as compared to something more dense like a tree trunk.

[bradnoyes]

I think it's advisable to watch the disc for any release before making judgements. For an all-time classic like Oz, it makes sense that there are going to be some very high expectations and I'm sure it's tempting to read a lot into those caps. I didn't really have a horse (any color horse, for that matter) in this race so I just went into this hoping for a nice presentation and I wasn't disappointed.

Colors are saturated but I didn't think overly so. Some of the munchkin costumes felt a little cartoonish but I think they found nice balance where the colors have impact but don't ever appear garish. The highlights and standout moments feel appropriate and effective. Definitely do not expect Starship Troopers style of grain here. The grain field is comparatively fine and *I think* that's fine. As I mentioned earlier, there is a softer, hazy look to most of the transfer (though some closeups are sharp as a tack) and it works. It feels organic to me and plenty of detail comes through and there's still a sense of immediacy to things like specular highlights, explosions (of which there are quite a few more than I expected to see in this movie), and especially Toto, who just steals the damn show.

[singhcr]

Fair enough. The proof is in the pudding (or disc, hehe). Thanks for your feedback! Your description of the color makes me happy as IB Tech isn't garish at least in my opinion.

I hope mine was interesting to read as I imagine relatively few people have gotten to see this in genuine Technicolor.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Based on these screenshots, this title is definitely grain reduced compared to the IB Tech print I've seen a few times over the years in my local theater. That print was made in 1997 when Warner had re-built a Technicolor printer along with the dye process. Unfortunately those morons destroyed it just a few years afterwards, but at least we have a new print of Oz as a result. I just saw it last year for the third time.

When I first saw it I was not prepared for how intensely bright and saturated the color was, along with the strong grain field. That print was most likely as low a generation print as one could get from this process , as it went like this I imagine:

3 strip B&W negatives->positive dyed matrices, optically printed->mechanically pressed into a gelatin coated piece of film (blank carrier) with soundtrack to allow the dyes to imbibe into the carrier. Technicolor is a combination of optical and mechanical printing so it's hard to call this an IP or IN or whatever. It's like a mechanical offset print of an IP for each color record.

I would think the fact that the final print here has grain from three B&W negatives and the three optically printed positive matrices (optical printing will increase visible grain) really makes the final print quite heavy in terms of how visible the grain is. It looked much like an early Sony UHD like Starship Troopers where it is visible throughout, especially when we get to Oz and the film is in color. Saturation and contrast are strong. So perhaps going off a scan of the negatives directly would be less grainy than the print I saw because of the lack of an optical printing step on the source of the UHD scan. That being said, I'd still expect more than what some of those caps show. On the plus side, the colors seem more or less how the IB Tech print does, although I'd have to see it in HDR to say for sure. The one thing I can say is that the HDR grade should not be subtle. Technicolor is intensely saturated and doesn't look at all like you expect modern Eastman prints to look like. I really enjoy it, honestly.

Perhaps the increased contrast and brightness of the HDR grade will increase the visible grain over these caps, but the caps are usually a good indication of grain despite the different color space. I don't want to sound like a party pooper but many of those caps are disappointing to be honest. I would still like to give the disc a spin to judge it accurately.

Some of the shots like this and this look much like I remember but this is definitely not. I remember the yellow brick road and the Emerald City to be especially dense grain wise as it's a bright flat color as compared to something more dense like a tree trunk.

I'm not sure what you mean by "optically printed" in this context, Chris. The word "optical" to me implies a printing which doesn't involve any direct contact between the base stock and the receiver stock, i.e. the image is refracted via other means, but here everything is still contact printed. The matrix films were gelatin 'reliefs' directly printed from the three negatives, these matrices were coated with the respective dyes and then contact printed in succession to the receiver stock which absorbed the dyes accordingly.

There is no such IP/IN nomenclature used with this tech, yes (similar to how a positive single-strand B&W record is referred to as a "fine grain master" rather than an IP) but those matrices are essentially the second generation and the IB Tech print the third. Grain will always change throughout successive printing, making it softer and yet coarser at the same time, and when combined with the dazzling colour and contrast of the Technicolor process it's no wonder it looked as jacked up as it did.

With that in mind, I'd keep your powder dry until you've actually seen the UHD disc in action. Not that it'll make grain magically appear where there is none, but in changing the brightness and saturation of these images for their SDR-converted appearance then the effect can certainly be lessened (I do it myself to combat the harshness of Sony Grain™ on my TV). If it still doesn't look awash with the stuff then, well, this isn't an IB Tech print you're actually looking at here but the original camera negative(s) which were incredibly fine-grained to begin with (25 ASA) and have been meticulously re-aligned digitally. The old BD is "grainier" for sure despite having been harvested from those same negatives but the higher apparent contrast plus the shitty old VC-1 compression is what's making it look as coarse as it does in comparison.

[singhcr]

Hi Geoff,

I assumed the OCN->IP process was contact printed too, but not according to what I've read on the process.

"THE TECHNICOLOR PROCESS
OF THREE-COLOR CINEMATOGRAPHY"
(Published in the Journal of Motion Picture Engineers,
Vol. XXV (Aug, 1935), No.2 pp 127-138)

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/ball.htm

The Technicolor three-color camera photographs the three primary aspects of a scene (red, green, and blue) upon three separate film strips, simultaneously, at normal speed, without fringe or parallax, in balance, and in proper register with each other. These separate strips are developed to negatives of equal contrast and must always be considered and handled as a group.

From these color-separation negatives, we print by projection through the celluloid upon a specially prepared stock, which is then developed and processed in such a manner as to produce positive relief images in hardened gelatin. These three hardened gelatin reliefs are then used as printing matrices which absorb dye. This dye is then transferred by imbibition printing to another film strip which, when it has received all three transfers, becomes the final completed print ready for projection. To carry on the process of imbibition, it is necessary merely to press the matrix film into close contact with a properly prepared blank film and hold it there for several minutes. Matrices, of course, can be used over and over again.

Another article says the same thing:

Fabulous Technicolor!
A History of Low Fade Color Print Stocks
Written by: Les Paul Robley, Film & Video Critic, Los Angeles, USA and proofed by Tom Kuhn and Chris Regan of Deluxe Labs

https://www.in70mm.com/news/2010/technicolor/

After processing, each negative, in turn, was optically printed onto a matrix-type film which resulted in three positive relief’s containing varying components of a gelatin image—the more the exposure, the greater the residual gelatin. To obtain a 3-color print, the matrix resulting from the blue-sensitive negative was passed through a solution of yellow (blue-light absorbing) dye. The higher the amount of gelatin, the more the dye was absorbed. Next, this matrix was placed into contact with a blank black-and-white print film and the yellow dye was transferred. All three complementary yellow (blue-light absorbing), magenta (green-absorbing) and cyan (red-absorbing) dyes were transferred onto this single film emulsion, reproducing the full spectrum of color. (This dye-transfer technique was similar to Kodak’s still photographic method for making prints from a Kodachrome slide original.) Kalmus convinced Walt Disney to film one of his popular Silly Symphony cartoons in this 3-strip process and a true three-color system debuted in 1932 with “Flowers and Trees”.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

There is no such IP/IN nomenclature used with this tech, yes (similar to how a positive single-strand B&W record is referred to as a "fine grain master" rather than an IP) but those matrices are essentially the second generation and the IB Tech print the third. Grain will always change throughout successive printing, making it softer and yet coarser at the same time, and when combined with the dazzling colour and contrast of the Technicolor process it's no wonder it looked as jacked up as it did.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks. The one thing I do find strange is why the print would be so grainy considering how slow the negative stock is (for the 1930s anyway) and how much light was being used to light these sets. That normally would damp down grain, not exaggerate it. The only thing I can think of is the optical step in making the final print. I'm still learning about optical projection and the three strip process, but what I've gathered seems to back up my theory.

https://nitrateville.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6391

Three strip negs always have to be optically printed, since the Blue record is oriented emulsion-in. The key to Technicolor's vivid color was the optical printing of the matrices because optical printing increases contrast, and therefore chroma.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

With that in mind, I'd keep your powder dry until you've actually seen the UHD disc in action. Not that it'll make grain magically appear where there is none, but in changing the brightness and saturation of these images for their SDR-converted appearance then the effect can certainly be lessened (I do it myself to combat the harshness of Sony Grain™ on my TV). If it still doesn't look awash with the stuff then, well, this isn't an IB Tech print you're actually looking at here but the original camera negative(s) which were incredibly fine-grained to begin with (25 ASA) and have been meticulously re-aligned digitally. The old BD is "grainier" for sure despite having been harvested from those same negatives but the higher apparent contrast plus the shitty old VC-1 compression is what's making it look as coarse as it does in comparison.

I'm not using the old Blu-ray as a reference for grain as there's a lot of compression artifacts baked in there as you said. It is contrast boosted compared to the UHD but that look is closer to what the print looked like compared to the UHD caps but I know that they shouldn't be used as color/contrast references so I need to see the disc on my TV to really compare. Times like this I wish I had a better way to know what the untouched scans of these negatives look like other than what amounts to an educated guess. The only reference I have for what this film looks like is the IB Tech print and while I know the UHD won't look exactly like that due to skipping the printing process, etc I really loved the way that print looked and it's personally just frustrating that people who get the UHD won't be able to see what I did in the theater.

[Geoff D]

Thanks for the clarification! But my points still stand re: the UHD looking like it does in the caps vs seeing it in an actual HDR viewing environment and how that relates or not to what you saw in the print, which will always be its own unique animal.

[ncraft]

I watched this tonight and I thought the movie looked great. Detail is the highlight for me. I was able to discern the different fabrics of the costumes, suits, jackets and faux fur. Skin detail, particularly on Judy Garland was impressive(I also kept looking at her hair and thought the color really stood out). As Brad mentioned, colors were perfectly saturated, lush without being overkill.
I've always thought this movie looked great, but this is the best I've ever seen it look. It was exactly what I was hoping for: Greater clarity, detail, and even better colors.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Thanks for the clarification! But my points still stand re: the UHD looking like it does in the caps vs seeing it in an actual HDR viewing environment and how that relates or not to what you saw in the print, which will always be its own unique animal.

You're welcome.

Your points regarding the UHD are still valid, aye. Guess I'll find out when I see it. Have you had a chance to see it yet? I assume this has a UK release or do you have to import it from the States?

[Geoff D]

It's getting a UK release, I ordered the tat-laden collector's set when it was going for £39 pre-order at amazon. Heck knows when they'll post it though, they like to group my stuff (non-Prime, free postage) together to save on postage which can mean a delay of several days before something gets sent out. Either that or it gets couriered to me the Sunday before it's due out, I give up trying to figure them out.

[Geoff D]

Just saw your edits Chris

Originally Posted by singhcr

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks. The one thing I do find strange is why the print would be so grainy considering how slow the negative stock is (for the 1930s anyway) and how much light was being used to light these sets. That normally would damp down grain, not exaggerate it. The only thing I can think of is the optical step in making the final print. I'm still learning about optical projection and the three strip process, but what I've gathered seems to back up my theory.

Printing will make the grain dupier but coarser, as well as the successive layerings of them as you said (3x negatives being printed exposed onto 3x matrices), but it's also about contrast. That in itself is one of the biggest agitators for grain no matter if we're talking about prints, Blu-rays, UHDs, whatever. Higher contrast increases the brightness in the mid-tones where a lot of grain resides, we just don't see it unless the contrast gets hiked up which is one of the key things to Technicolor. (And is why I see so much hellish grain on so many Sony UHDs!)

I think you're misinterpreting this added point though, the actual IB prints themselves are contact printed from the dye-laden matrices otherwise how does the dye literally get imbibed onto the receiving stock? That's definitely not an 'optical' step, unless it's done via osmosis? In this quote they're referring to what you were saying first up about the negatives having to be optically printed to matrices, not about the actual final prints.

Quote:
https://nitrateville.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6391

Three strip negs always have to be optically printed, since the Blue record is oriented emulsion-in. The key to Technicolor's vivid color was the optical printing of the matrices because optical printing increases contrast, and therefore chroma.

Interesting note about the orientation of the blue record though. It's bi-packed with the red record in-camera with its anti-halation backing removed and the two emulsions in contact so as to allow light to pass through it to hit the red layer underneath (which is why the red layer is slightly less sharp) and so it's because of that that the blue layer can't be contact printed, if you did you'd get a 'flopped' image. Don't you love it when you get an actual explanation for something being the way it is rather than simply "it is"? Such things excite my brain. Awesome!!

I'm not using the old Blu-ray as a reference for grain as there's a lot of compression artifacts baked in there as you said. It is contrast boosted compared to the UHD but that look is closer to what the print looked like compared to the UHD caps but I know that they shouldn't be used as color/contrast references so I need to see the disc on my TV to really compare. Times like this I wish I had a better way to know what the untouched scans of these negatives look like other than what amounts to an educated guess. The only reference I have for what this film looks like is the IB Tech print and while I know the UHD won't look exactly like that due to skipping the printing process, etc I really loved the way that print looked and it's personally just frustrating that people who get the UHD won't be able to see what I did in the theater.

I didn't say you were using it as reference, more me highlighting the effect that sheer contrast can make on these things w/ref to the previous point about contrast ^