The Wizard of Oz Artifact...missed?

[slick1ru2]

So I got the Wizard of Oz couple of weeks back during the price drop and I watch about all the stuff they did to restore it, etc.. And it looks excellent. So at the very end of the movie, when Dorothy wakes up back in Kansas, in the bottom middle of the frame there is obviously a hair they missed! What! Anyone else catch that? Do you think they left that just to give a taste of how distracting one artifact can be?

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

So I got the Wizard of Oz couple of weeks back during the price drop and I watch about all the stuff they did to restore it, etc.. And it looks excellent. So at the very end of the movie, when Dorothy wakes up back in Kansas, in the bottom middle of the frame there is obviously a hair they missed! What! Anyone else catch that? Do you think they left that just to give a taste of how distracting one artifact can be?

Defect removal is a time-consuming and expensive solution when restoring older films. Any missed problems are the result of human error and are unlikely to be completely avoided, when a film needs to be fixed frame-by-frame.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Defect removal is a time-consuming and expensive solution when restoring older films. Any missed problems are the result of human error and are unlikely to be completely avoided, when a film needs to be fixed frame-by-frame.

Yes, I know. They had a team and spent what, almost a year on it. This is not one frame, this goes on for almost the entire scene. Its just weird.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Yes, I know. They had a team and spent what, almost a year on it. This is not one frame, this goes on for almost the entire scene. Its just weird.

Yes it is bizarre. The huge effort that went into this one is amazing. They probably fiixed a zillion little things, and then missed this glaringly obvious flaw. I immediately noticed on my first viewing. How could thay miss it? It's not just there, its quite active, drawing your attention to it.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Yes it is bizarre. The huge effort that went into this one is amazing. They probably fiixed a zillion little things, and then missed this glaringly obvious flaw. I immediately noticed on my first viewing. How could thay miss it? It's not just there, its quite active, drawing your attention to it.

Thank you for confirming it! I was starting to think I was going crazy, lol.

[surfdude12]

i will say i didn't notice it. considering the age of the source, and how great the film looked (insanely good), i'm giving lots of leeway even if there was something there.

[BladeRunner2007]

It's on the original negative. They can't remove it. It has always been there.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

i will say i didn't notice it. considering the age of the source, and how great the film looked (insanely good), i'm giving lots of leeway even if there was something there.

Yes, it looks insanely good, with not line doubling artifacts. Great, state of the art restoration. But to miss something that looks like a hair, when seen on a projector, jittering on the bottom of the screen, snapped me out of my fantasyland just like Dorothy, I was back in Kansas.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by BladeRunner2007

It's on the original negative. They can't remove it. It has always been there.

Well they removed all the scratches on the original negatives with a program that worked like photoshop, that takes pixals on either side and averages them. They show them doing it at on the restoration featurette. They have the technology, trust me.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Yes, it looks insanely good, with not line doubling artifacts. Great, state of the art restoration. But to miss something that looks like a hair, when seen on a projector, jittering on the bottom of the screen, snapped me out of my fantasyland just like Dorothy, I was back in Kansas.

good timing then? perhaps even director-intended?

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Well they removed all the scratches on the original negatives with a program that worked like photoshop, that takes pixals on either side and averages them. They show them doing it at on the restoration featurette. They have the technology, trust me.

Scratches can be easily removed because they're mostly in a single frame. It's a little different when the hair is there in the entire shot.

[Robert Harris]

Removal of gate dirt would probably have necessitated pixel painting, a long and laborious task. Far different from removing a piece of dirt.

RAH

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Scratches can be easily removed because they're mostly in a single frame. It's a little different when the hair is there in the entire shot.

[Crimson King]

I think that it is a wonderful restoration of a 70+ year old film, the little hair at the end did'nt bother me.

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Yes, I know. They had a team and spent what, almost a year on it. This is not one frame, this goes on for almost the entire scene.

The fact that it's hanging out for the whole scene is likely the reason it wasn't removed.

A defect for a frame or two is much easier to deal with than a defect that lasts a whole scene.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by BladeRunner2007

It's on the original negative. They can't remove it. It has always been there.

They cant physically remove the hair, but they can remove it digitally.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

i will say i didn't notice it. considering the age of the source, and how great the film looked (insanely good), i'm giving lots of leeway even if there was something there.

Of course not. You have missed an entire movie before.

[Show spoiler]ROPE

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Removal of gate dirt would probably have necessitate pixel painting, a long and laborious task. Far different from removing a piece of dirt.

Thanks for the insight. I assume it is the difference between automated work and actual human intervention.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Thanks for the insight. I assume it is the difference between automated work and actual human intervention.

They used both on this film. But as they point out in the featurette, programs are dumb, it removed the Ruby Slippers because they sparkled so much like a scratch.