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

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

This isn't meant to sound smug and superior at all, but if you've seen any amount of filmed content from that period all the way into the '80s and even '90s you may have noticed that women are often represented with a soft kind of 'glow' to them compared to the men, the "feminine soft focus" as you put it. This was achieved by putting some kind of filter onto the camera lens, some DPs actually used stockings because of the way that the fine mesh would deflect and diffuse the light. Some actresses demanded such treatment but eventually it just became part of the visual lexicon for a generation of cinematographers. Even when watching something like Candyman there are shots of Virginia Madsen in an early restaurant scene which have that typical diffuse 'glow' to them.

This was noticeable even on some TV shows that were shot on film, with Space:1999 as an example, which was filmed in the 70's. Martin Landau and other cast members were always in sharp focus, but Barbara Bain was often in soft-focus for close-ups. Not sure if that was also done for Mission Impossible.

[Noremac Mij]

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!?

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.

Of course it’s a “fix.” But isn’t that what art, film, and beautiful photography supposed to be? I’m not asking to make it look like crayons, but it should at least resemble a print. Anything less is unacceptable.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by mar3o

This was noticeable even on some TV shows that were shot on film, with Space:1999 as an example, which was filmed in the 70's. Martin Landau and other cast members were always in sharp focus, but Barbara Bain was often in soft-focus for close-ups. Not sure if that was also done for Mission Impossible.

Sure, that's why I couched my reply in terms of "filmed content" and not just movies, as I said before I had Star Trek very much in mind when writing that post and any number of TV shows will also have a similar effect.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Grey2Grey

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-disc 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.

But it’s so cumbersome adjusting for every movie. It’s like I’m doing their job for them. Preserving the highlight and shadow detail is exactly the kind of thinking that makes movies look pretty ugly. Sacrificing these details for the overall good is the right thing to do. A print should be the reference when grading.

[rikraq]

Do you think this will be cheaper on Black Friday? 22.96 is pretty good, but I'm cheap.

[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.

Well I just asked my 21 year-old daughter what she thought of the yellow brick road on this transfer and she said "its very yellow..." I asked her if she thought it looked orangeish she said no its a dark yellow almost golden. So I guess my eyes are getting old thanks for your input anyway.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Negatives are ugly.

[rallymonkey]

Who cares about the picture!!! Can anyone confirm if this comes with a slipcover? I got mine in the mail from Target....no slipcover!!!!! WTF

[Brian81]

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.

Do you pay attention to the black level at the theater? Horrid! Talk about light. And if wanting print over negative, kiss that fine detail behind. Might as well have HD.

[clifford finch]

Originally Posted by rallymonkey

Who cares about the picture!!! Can anyone confirm if this comes with a slipcover? I got mine in the mail from Target....no slipcover!!!!! WTF

YES it does come with slipcover. (I feel your pain!)

[Bn43]

Originally Posted by rallymonkey

Who cares about the picture!!! Can anyone confirm if this comes with a slipcover? I got mine in the mail from Target....no slipcover!!!!! WTF

More like, who cares about the slipcovers???

My Walmart copies of this and It's a Wonderful Life arrived today with slipcovers, which I immediately stashed away for eventual selling. My collection is more uniform without them.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Brian81

Do you pay attention to the black level at the theater? Horrid! Talk about light. And if wanting print over negative, kiss that fine detail behind. Might as well have HD.

35mm prints have a resolution of about 0.4K, due to jitter, etc. No other fine details are needed if everything else is done right. Scanning the negative and obsessing over that fine detail is one of the least important aspects of UHD. The key is HDR in getting home video to match an actual print in contrast and color saturation and of course in color accuracy. Realistically speaking, 4K, 8K are all stupid marketing gimmicks. I wish they would instead focus on what I mentioned above and in addition also to motion and compression.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Scanning the negative and obsessing over that fine detail is one of the least important aspects of UHD. The key is HDR in getting home video to match an actual print in contrast and color saturation and of course in color accuracy.

whynotboth.gif

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

whynotboth.gif

Because one is essential and the other is not. Get right what’s needed first, then worry about super high resolution. They have it completely backwards thanks to marketing. With decades of technology and millions of dollars, they still can’t properly match color saturation and accuracy to film. Think how incompetent these people must be.

[stvn1974]

I am still disappointed they didn't CGI in new flying monkeys.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

I am still disappointed they didn't CGI in new flying monkeys.

No, but they CG’d new sound effects.

[Vangeli]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

I am still disappointed they didn't CGI in new flying monkeys.

Begone, pestilence!

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Because one is essential and the other is not.

And yet both are accomplished with the same scan.

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

With decades of technology and millions of dollars, they still can’t properly match color saturation and accuracy to film. Think how incompetent these people must be.

It's not competence/ability; it's priorities. Improved resolution sells product; improved color accuracy does not- it's that simple.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

And yet both are accomplished with the same scan.



It's not competence/ability; it's priorities. Improved resolution sells product; improved color accuracy does not- it's that simple.

It’s a shame. Color accuracy is the single most important aspect. Colors in general are extremely important for the brain and are responsible for why some movies work and others don’t subconsciously. It’s easy to market resolution. Requires no imagination.

[Cholly]

I just got my 4k steelbook of this today (Its a Wonderful Life comes tomorrow) and had a little skim through.
MY GOD. Its so rich and beautiful looking! Out of all the discs I've had a chance to look at this is far and away my new favourite! Once all my halloween watching is finished this will be one of the first to play (I might not even wait for that).
Updating my home theatre is one of the best things I've done.