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

[clifford finch]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I literally had Star Trek in mind when typing that, no joke

Wow Star Trek was the first thing that came to my mind as well while reading your post. Geoff if you can clear something up for me I would be very grateful. I watched Wizard of Oz 4K last night and I found the transfer to be impeccable! I was about as enthralled with it as I was with my first viewing of the recent 4k release of The Shining, stunning! On my setup the yellow brick road seems almost pale orange, am I viewing correctly or do I need to consider some recalibration. I would really appreciate your input as I respect your opinions and knowledge on such matters. Thank you!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by clifford finch

Wow Star Trek was the first thing that came to my mind as well while reading your post. Geoff if you can clear something up for me I would be very grateful. I watched Wizard of Oz 4K last night and I found the transfer to be impeccable! I was about as enthralled with it as I was with my first viewing of the recent 4k release of The Shining, stunning! On my setup the yellow brick road seems almost pale orange, am I viewing correctly or do I need to consider some recalibration. I would really appreciate your input as I respect your opinions and knowledge on such matters. Thank you!

Are you watching on the A1E as in your sig? Make sure that your colour space is on Auto and colour temp is on Expert 1.

[jh901]

Originally Posted by clifford finch

On my setup the yellow brick road seems almost pale orange, am I viewing correctly or do I need to consider some recalibration.

My display is pretty well calibrated and, while I wasn't looking for it, there wasn't any pale orange. I'll be curious to hear from Geoff or others as well.

[guachi]

I'm a rare day one buyer/day one watcher but I made an exception for Wizard of Oz.

My eyeballs. The colors are amazing.

Two things that I noticed: Eighty-year old cameras aren't as tack sharp as modern cameras and you can really tell the image was softened when Dorothy is the focus of the shot. I'd never noticed it before on this movie (though I've seen it countless times in other movies).

Second, I think the font on the cover of the regular edition is the same font on the shirts of the men in the Emerald City cleaning up our heroes.

[clifford finch]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Are you watching on the A1E as in your sig? Make sure that your colour space is on Auto and colour temp is on Expert 1.

Yes I am and I will check on that right away. Thanks!!!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by guachi

I'm a rare day one buyer/day one watcher but I made an exception for Wizard of Oz.

My eyeballs. The colors are amazing.

Two things that I noticed: Eighty-year old cameras aren't as tack sharp as modern cameras and you can really tell the image was softened when Dorothy is the focus of the shot. I'd never noticed it before on this movie (though I've seen it countless times in other movies).

Second, I think the font on the cover of the regular edition is the same font on the shirts of the men in the Emerald City cleaning up our heroes.

That's more on the typical filtration applied to the leading ladies of that time and for decades afterwards. The three-strip process will cut down on some level of acuity owing to the beam-splitter optics and the softer red channel (light had to go through the 'blue' negative to hit the 'red' one) as well as the combining of the three records, which even in precise digital space isn't going to be as "tack sharp" as a single-strip shot.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by guachi

Eighty-year old cameras aren't as tack sharp as modern cameras and you can really tell the image was softened when Dorothy is the focus of the shot.

You're kind of generalizing there about the cameras used 80 years ago. Most movies were still being made in black-and-white. WOO was made using the new three-strip Technicolor system, which required special cameras.

It was still a very new process in 1939, having only been used for full-length motion pictures since 1935. So, it had only been used for about 4 years to make movies. Maybe a little longer if you include short films.

These old cameras recorded red, green, and blue light from the subject in front of the cameras onto three separate strips of film. A prism behind the lens split the light into two paths: (1) a path directly in line with the camera lens which exposed black & white negative film that had a green filter in front of it; and (2) a path at right angle to the image from the lens which had a red filter in front of it and which exposed two strips of film sandwiched together.

As you can imagine, they were not just your average movie cameras in 1939.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

You're kind of generalizing there about the cameras used 80 years ago. Most movies were still being made in black-and-white. WOO was made using the new three-strip Technicolor system, which required special cameras.

It was still a very new process in 1939, having only been used for full-length motion pictures since 1935. So, it had only been used for about 4 years to make movies. Maybe a little longer if you include short films.

These old cameras recorded red, green, and blue light from the subject in front of the cameras onto three separate strips of film. A prism behind the lens split the light into two paths: (1) a path directly in line with the camera lens which exposed black & white negative film that had a green filter in front of it; and (2) a path at right angle to the image from the lens which had a red filter in front of it and which exposed two strips of film sandwiched together.

As you can imagine, they were not just your average movie cameras in 1939.

Not red but magenta, as the filter had to contain the colours necessary to expose the blue and red records that were bipacked together (red + blue = magenta).

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Not red but magenta, as the filter had to contain the colours necessary to expose the blue and red records that were bipacked together (red + blue = magenta).

OK, got it!

[Grey2Grey]

When I picked up a steelbook at my local BestBuy, the girl who was ringing me up looked at the cover and then commented on how beautiful it was. She then showed it to another girl in the next checkstand, and they both gushed about it for a bit.

First time that's ever happened to me!

[Grey2Grey]

Originally Posted by spudeus

Overall the UHD presentation captured the detail present to the point it gave the image real depth - almost like watching a live performance!

When Dorthy opens the door and sees Oz for the first time and the camera starts to track around the set, I was like, "Wow, this is LITERALLY like being on the set and seeing it with my own eyes."

Warner knocked it outta the park with this one!

[clifford finch]

Originally Posted by jh901

It's 80 years old! Absolutely, there's some deliberate soft focus.

And the yellow brick road is YELLOW.

I screened at about 75" diagonal. Quite an experience. Never thought I'd see 3 strip technicolor look like this.

Thank You Im going to need some recalibrating my yellow brick road is pale orange

[BNex99]

I do wish the mono track was included, but aside from the couple minor alterations that have been mentioned, this has always been a pretty faithful remix. At least it isn't filled with altered SFX like certain other Warner titles.

Picture-wise, it's magnificent. And it was a nice touch to include the 1990 documentary since it's not on the 2013 Blu-ray.

[Noremac Mij]

HDR is a wonderful tool and we can finally make movies look like film at home. And yet release after release shows poor contrast and milky blacks. Why are you so afraid of contrast WB? Turn the contrast up. Turn the saturation up. And give us proper blacks, even if you have to crush them a bit. If the darkest blacks look lighter than the bars on my OLED, you’ve failed. We want movies that look like prints. Not like negatives. Negatives are ugly.

[David Craig]

It is great to hear that the 4K is amazing.

I ordered a Amazon US copy and am anxiously awaiting it here in Canada.

[Grey2Grey]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

HDR is a wonderful tool and we can finally make movies look like film at home. And yet release after release shows poor contrast and milky blacks. Why are you so afraid of contrast WB? Turn the contrast up. Turn the saturation up. And give us proper blacks, even if you have to crush them a bit. If the darkest blacks look lighter than the bars on my OLED, you’ve failed. We want movies that look like prints. Not like negatives. Negatives are ugly.

I agree with you up to a point.

Just like with Blu-rays, not all transfers are going to be perfect. There will always be some level of variability. While some HDR transfers may appear to be somewhat washed-out looking, they are preserving all (or most) of the highlight detail that would otherwise be lost.

If this bothers you, you can always just adjust the contrast, brightness and color on a per-movie basis when needed. I do this all the time, and while it may be a bit of a PITA, at least you can get the image looking like you think it should.

But if the transfer is already contrast boosted on the disc (or stream), like with the previous transfers of The Wizard of Oz, that is permanent, and can never be reduced or removed.

[jh901]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

If the darkest blacks look lighter than the bars on my OLED, you’ve failed.

Feature length films are not created for you to see on a 65" OLED panel. There are no "bars" that you should be contrasting actual content with. Why should your "bars" be the standard, anyhow? Why not the deepest black velvet on the market? Or maybe a nano black that's the blackest black every made!?

What you won't admit is that this contrast boost you want is intended to give you a fix. Like more sub-bass. A little something extra to take the experience up a notch. Of course, only size will deliver. Home theater is about image size once a certain threshold is reached. Not 3D. Not boomy sub-bass. And not contrast boosting.

[Grey2Grey]

https://www.hdnumerique.com/dossiers...n-oz-1939.html

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jh901

Feature length films are not created for you to see on a 65" OLED panel. There are no "bars" that you should be contrasting actual content with. Why should your "bars" be the standard, anyhow? Why not the deepest black velvet on the market? Or maybe a nano black that's the blackest black every made!?

Please don't feed him, jh.

[jvonl]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Please don't feed him, jh.

But he looks so thin.....lol