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

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by DVD Josh

Agree, but they are both unattractive to me. This movie has so many iconic images. No one thinks of red flowers when they think of this movie. No one.

That's why I went with the slipped version from the Target 3 for 2 deal.

hmm, I don't know, it's a fairly iconic scene
and man do those flowers pop in wide gamut (at least in the Dolby Cinema version)

[clifford finch]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Because movies intended for home use are mastered to the D65 white point which Expert 1 will get you closest to 'out of the box' without a further white balance calibration with a colourimeter and measuring software. Like it or not, that's literally the reference standard for home viewing so the further away you move from that (in either direction, warmer still or more cold and blue) the further away you're moving from what it's intended to be. Again, for better or worse.

But given enough time it's remarkable how the eye adapts to D65, it does indeed seem "too yellow" or whatever at first glance but now when I see a TV with the temp set to Neutral or Cool I think it looks horrid, so cold and dead, and too much blue in there will skew the reproduction of the colours themselves. Once you adjust to that warmer balance then you really see how better defined colours become vs those heavy blue tints, in a way it's analogous to what the studios typically do with SDR and HDR grades, particularly when comparing new HDR to legacy SDR. The heavy greeny/blue tints of many existing SDR grades really do pervert the colours and greatly play down their subtleties in favour of a blanket colour wash, whereas the more neutral approach to HDR allows more nuance and depth to individual colours. (Though I realise that that approach isn't ideal for everything, and subtlety is not what people want from a three-strip Techni picture! )

Well that's it Ive made an appointment with a ISF certified pro calibrator I want my stuff to look the best it can!

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

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.

Well the Dolby Cinema version I saw had some of the deepest blacks I've ever seen and some of the most intense saturation as well.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by clifford finch

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.

cataracts forming?
Ihear that can shift color perception, I forget what is affected the most, blue?, if so maybe that could shift yellow to more orange

[Bn43]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

hmm, I don't know, it's a fairly iconic scene
and man do those flowers pop in wide gamut (at least in the Dolby Cinema version)

I'm gonna have to agree with DVD Josh about the red flowers. Prior to tonight, I had only seen the movie once, three years ago, and couldn't even remember the poppies. I don't get why they would show something that is a threat to her so prominently on the cover, and such a minor part of the store at that, one obstacle. I remembered the movie vaguely enough that I thought maybe she wakes to Oz in a field of poppies or thought that it represented her journey being like a dream. Seems really random to put on the cover. Like making the cover of Star Wars the trash compactor scene.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by slimdude

The Wizard of Oz wouldn't be a good Halloween movie because, it's not horror. The Wizard of Oz is a musical, so you ought to watch a good horror movie.

those flying monkeys scared me for years more than anything in any 'true' horror film....

[TM2-Megatron]

Originally Posted by gates70

Had to go to 3 Sunrise Records here in Canada to finally find a copy. The second one I went to told me that only their bigger stores were getting it, so I wonder if this is one of those releases that will be limited for while.

The Sunrise nearest my work had a couple copies, but they're asking $37.99 for it, which is pretty outrageous. They were asking the same price for The Shining, which Walmart Canada ended up getting quite a lot of a week or two later (and charging like $10 less for it, too).

Sunrise can be good for some things, but their pricing on others is way out of whack.

[Bn43]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

This is completely untrue. If you’re watching on one of the cooler settings, you are used to a bluish tint. You should switch to the warmest setting and give several months to get used to. Then switching back, you will see how wrong it looks. Out of the box, even the warmest setting is usually over 6500K before calibration. So even with the warmest setting, it’s much too cool. Projected movies have a temperature of about 5000K-5500K. Home video at 6500K in general is not very pleasant to look at and the cooler settings are just ridiculous. One reason why I like my OLED C8 is that it has a “Warm 3” setting. Which is a bit warmer than 6500K. It’s very nice indeed.

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

This is common for someone who has been using inaccurate picture modes like standard and vivid. Your eyes become accustomed to a cooler temperature in whites. D65 for white balance is white. If you look outside say at a white car on a sunny day it will have a yellow tint from the sun reflecting.

Now that being said it’s your tv and there is no home theatre police so watch whatever settings you like. Just know, you’re moving away from reference.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Because movies intended for home use are mastered to the D65 white point which Expert 1 will get you closest to 'out of the box' without a further white balance calibration with a colourimeter and measuring software. Like it or not, that's literally the reference standard for home viewing so the further away you move from that (in either direction, warmer still or more cold and blue) the further away you're moving from what it's intended to be. Again, for better or worse.

But given enough time it's remarkable how the eye adapts to D65, it does indeed seem "too yellow" or whatever at first glance but now when I see a TV with the temp set to Neutral or Cool I think it looks horrid, so cold and dead, and too much blue in there will skew the reproduction of the colours themselves. Once you adjust to that warmer balance then you really see how better defined colours become vs those heavy blue tints, in a way it's analogous to what the studios typically do with SDR and HDR grades, particularly when comparing new HDR to legacy SDR. The heavy greeny/blue tints of many existing SDR grades really do pervert the colours and greatly play down their subtleties in favour of a blanket colour wash, whereas the more neutral approach to HDR allows more nuance and depth to individual colours. (Though I realise that that approach isn't ideal for everything, and subtlety is not what people want from a three-strip Techni picture! )

Hm. Okay, thanks. I decided to watch The Wizard of Oz in Cinema Pro with Expert 1. I'll admit that I thought it looked pretty nice. I had been watching in Expert 1 for the last two months, but changed it back to Standard or whatever a couple of days ago as I was watching The Wire. I wish I had read the technical explanation sooner. Like seventeen months ago.

[dcforsyth]

It's simply an awesome picture IMO.

For the folks who don't understand all the techie talk (like myself). Just get it if you're a fan of the movie.

This is the first movie I've actually watched the Blu-ray after watching the 4k. And in my opinion, this kills the Blu-ray!!!

[Joce]

This is why more 8K scan/4K restoration should be done.

[Archivy]

Originally Posted by Joce

This is why more 8K scan/4K restoration should be done.

Just know it's really, really expensive, which is why it's done only sparingly.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Joce

This is why more 8K scan/4K restoration should be done.

Originally Posted by Archivy

Just know it's really, really expensive, which is why it's done only sparingly.

IMO the 8K part is a red herring for this looking as good as it apparently does, several new 4K transfers are/have already been done on datacines that have 6K/8K sensors at the point of capture, we just get told it was a "4K scan". There's nothing beyond 4K on Oz' negatives but as Warners also did the previous 2009 restoration in 4K from 8K scans (same with GWTW) then I suppose they figured they'd better let it be known that the new one was done from 8K scans too. The true expense for this kind of project comes from having to scan THREE separate negatives and then digitally recombine them at such high 4K resolution, the data that's being shifted must be gigantic.

Not that I'm saying they shouldn't use >4K scanners because it's pretty much a necessity when it comes to the principals of oversampling, e.g. a 2K transfer will look better coming off of a minimum 3K sensor and a 4K transfer will look better coming off of a minimum 6K sensor (though some scanners like the Scanity build the image in a slightly different way, using a 4320x96 sensor to scan little slices of the image which when combined create a similar oversampled effect, equivalent to an 8K fixed-array scan according to Scanity). Just saying that this oversampling occurs more often than people think.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Joce

This is why more 8K scan/4K restoration should be done.

Yep, let's just hope we continue to physical releases for years to come. What worries me are new scans and restorations never seeing the light of day on anything but streaming/download.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Yep, let's just hope we continue to physical releases for years to come. What worries me are new scans and restorations never seeing the light of day on anything but streaming/download.

It's a good point.

For longevity it's good that the 'larger' version exists, from which future products can be pulled.

With improving broadband speeds it may be that we can stream 4k at UHD Disc rates in the not too distant future.

For many years streamed music was the poor relation for listening, as it was effectively just mp3. Amazon are now streaming almost everything at CD rates, and some titles in 'UHD', at better-than-CD rates. At a price, of course.

[Archivy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

IMO the 8K part is a red herring for this looking as good as it apparently does, several new 4K transfers are/have already been done on datacines that have 6K/8K sensors at the point of capture, we just get told it was a "4K scan". There's nothing beyond 4K on Oz' negatives but as Warners also did the previous 2009 restoration in 4K from 8K scans (same with GWTW) then I suppose they figured they'd better let it be known that the new one was done from 8K scans too. The true expense for this kind of project comes from having to scan THREE separate negatives and then digitally recombine them at such high 4K resolution, the data that's being shifted must be gigantic.

Not that I'm saying they shouldn't use >4K scanners because it's pretty much a necessity when it comes to the principals of oversampling, e.g. a 2K transfer will look better coming off of a minimum 3K sensor and a 4K transfer will look better coming off of a minimum 6K sensor (though some scanners like the Scanity build the image in a slightly different way, using a 4320x96 sensor to scan little slices of the image which when combined create a similar oversampled effect, equivalent to an 8K fixed-array scan according to Scanity).

I agree. Yes, technicolor restorations are a logistical pain since you're dealing with three-strip color separations; hence why they're so expensive!

I should have also mentioned that another reason "it's not done so often" is that original elements frequently are no longer extant to justify such thorough restorations. I count my lucky stars when they do.

I can't imagine Gone with the Wind must be far behind. Maybe 4th quarter 2020?

One thing I will quibble with is my understanding is that a 35mm negative can resolve at 6k rather than your cited 4k, but I haven't looked into it myself, so I'm going off of second-hand information when I write that, based on info from colleagues when I worked in the film archiving field (I wasn't in the preservation department).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Archivy

I agree. Yes, technicolor restorations are a logistical pain since you're dealing with three-strip color separations; hence why they're so expensive!

I should have also mentioned that another reason "it's not done so often" is that original elements frequently are no longer extant to justify such thorough restorations. I count my lucky stars when they do.

I can't imagine Gone with the Wind must be far behind. Maybe 4th quarter 2020?

One thing I will quibble with is my understanding is that a 35mm negative can resolve at 6k rather than your cited 4k, but I haven't looked into it myself, so I'm going off of second-hand information when I write that, based on info from colleagues when I worked in the film archiving field (I wasn't in the preservation department).

A lot of stuff has been said about what 4/35 film can ultimately resolve. With the best modern glass using the slowest stock blasted with light on a static test pattern scanned from perf to perf then yeah, it may be able to squeak out more than 4K but as soon as things start moving - those darned motion pictures and their motion! - then temporal resolution takes a massive hit, and when you factor in the exigencies of the wide variance of 'real world' exposures, using glass with all sorts of idiosyncrasies built in, smaller usage of the 4-perf real estate for the final extraction etc then resolving 6K detail is rather fanciful IMO.

And in the case of something like Oz you've got the reduction in MTF from the beam splitter used in the three-strip camera and the bi-packed red/blue records which are slightly softer than the green channel. More recent studies have shown that with 35mm scanned at 8K and then enhanced by a proprietary process like the Lowry system they can resolve more information (in 4K playback) than just the scan on its own, but that's cheating.

But as I said, actual >4K scanning is much more common than people think but because the data is output at an already-downsampled 4K or 2K on the fly then it's not referred to as a 6K/8K scan when it technically is, having baked in all the relevant 6K/8K oversampling at the point of capture.

[jonam]

Originally Posted by BNex99

Batman and Blade Runner are the ones I was thinking of.

I know of the new 4k of the original 1989 Batman but isn't a lossy track of the original audio also included?

I haven't heard that they did anything with Blade Runner.
What did they change?

[koberulz]

The lossy 5.1 on the Batman disc is the same as the Atmos track.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Archivy

I can't imagine Gone with the Wind must be far behind. Maybe 4th quarter 2020?

My wish is for Ben-Hur and it's 60th Anniversary on 4K.

[Geoff D]

Aye, I'm still not sure that Warners are going to rush out and redo GWTW in today's febrile political climate but Ben-Hur has gotta be nailed on, if you'll pardon the pun.