 |
|
| Movies Forum Index » Movie Technology Forum » Wizard of Oz on Blu-ray... |
|
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Art Velordi... |
 Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I've been patiently waiting for Oz to be released on Blu-ray, but after
following this NG I have concerns about the picture quality. Can anyone
put my mind at ease (or confirm my fears)? In any case I'm still very
interested in the extras & featurettes.
Art |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| rjn... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 25, 4:57 pm, Art Velordi <artiewra... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
Quote: I've been patiently waiting for Oz to be released on Blu-ray, but after
following this NG I have concerns about the picture quality. Can anyone
put my mind at ease (or confirm my fears)? In any case I'm still very
interested in the extras & featurettes.
This review, as is customary for the site,
includes some full-res screenshots:
<http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/wizard.htm>
Biggest problem seems to be the bundling.
--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name at (no spam) ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Scott Dorsey... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Art Velordi <artiewray74 at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
Quote:
I've been patiently waiting for Oz to be released on Blu-ray, but after
following this NG I have concerns about the picture quality. Can anyone
put my mind at ease (or confirm my fears)? In any case I'm still very
interested in the extras & featurettes.
It'll be fine. It'll be the usual compressed HD video, which will look
great on your TV screen at home.
If you try and blow it up to theatrical size, you'll find it's not a
patch on the 35mm original and the artifacts are painfully obvious in
the front rows. But that's okay, because you aren't going to be doing that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Penna... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<acb843d5-99fa-4693-8596-8e61b072f049 at (no spam) p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
rjn <email4rjn at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: On Sep 25, 4:57 pm, Art Velordi <artiewra... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
I've been patiently waiting for Oz to be released on Blu-ray, but after
following this NG I have concerns about the picture quality. Can anyone
put my mind at ease (or confirm my fears)? In any case I'm still very
interested in the extras & featurettes.
This review, as is customary for the site,
includes some full-res screenshots:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/wizard.htm
Better (larger, uncompressed) screenshots here:
http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=26649 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Art Velordi... |
| Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 11:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:32:40 -0700, Paul Penna wrote:
Quote: In article
acb843d5-99fa-4693-8596-8e61b072f049 at (no spam) p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
rjn <email4rjn at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 25, 4:57Â pm, Art Velordi <artiewra... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
I've been patiently waiting for Oz to be released on Blu-ray, but
after following this NG I have concerns about the picture quality. Â
Can anyone put my mind at ease (or confirm my fears)? Â In any case
I'm still very interested in the extras & featurettes.
This review, as is customary for the site, includes some full-res
screenshots:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/wizard.htm
Better (larger, uncompressed) screenshots here:
http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=26649
Great websites & info. I feel a lot better. Thanks to all who responded.
Art |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Art Velordi... |
| Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:42:31 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Quote: Art Velordi <artiewray74 at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
I've been patiently waiting for Oz to be released on Blu-ray, but after
following this NG I have concerns about the picture quality. Can anyone
put my mind at ease (or confirm my fears)? In any case I'm still very
interested in the extras & featurettes.
It'll be fine. It'll be the usual compressed HD video, which will look
great on your TV screen at home.
If you try and blow it up to theatrical size, you'll find it's not a patch
on the 35mm original and the artifacts are painfully obvious in the front
rows. But that's okay, because you aren't going to be doing that. --scott
Exactly. Well...I can still carp about the disappointing (though
historically accurate) 1.33 A/R can't I?
Art |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| rjn... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Art Velordi <artiewra... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
Quote: Well...I can still carp about the disappointing (though
historically accurate) 1.33 A/R can't I?
And what was your preferred outcome?
The 1955 1.85:1 matte hack?
--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name at (no spam) ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Scott Dorsey... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 8:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Art Velordi <artiewray74 at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
Quote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:42:31 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Art Velordi <artiewray74 at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
I've been patiently waiting for Oz to be released on Blu-ray, but after
following this NG I have concerns about the picture quality. Can anyone
put my mind at ease (or confirm my fears)? In any case I'm still very
interested in the extras & featurettes.
It'll be fine. It'll be the usual compressed HD video, which will look
great on your TV screen at home.
If you try and blow it up to theatrical size, you'll find it's not a patch
on the 35mm original and the artifacts are painfully obvious in the front
rows. But that's okay, because you aren't going to be doing that. --scott
Exactly. Well...I can still carp about the disappointing (though
historically accurate) 1.33 A/R can't I?
If you want it wider, sit in the front row....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| J. Theakston... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 12:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 27, 2:12 pm, Martin Hart <emai... at (no spam) thewidescreenmuseum.com>
wrote:
Quote: In article <pan.2009.09.27.03.01.53.219... at (no spam) verizon.net>, artiewray74
at (no spam) verizon.net says...
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:42:31 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Art Velordi <artiewra... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
I've been patiently waiting for Oz to be released on Blu-ray, but after
following this NG I have concerns about the picture quality. Can anyone
put my mind at ease (or confirm my fears)? In any case I'm still very
interested in the extras & featurettes.
It'll be fine. It'll be the usual compressed HD video, which will look
great on your TV screen at home.
If you try and blow it up to theatrical size, you'll find it's not a patch
on the 35mm original and the artifacts are painfully obvious in the front
rows. But that's okay, because you aren't going to be doing that. --scott
Exactly. Well...I can still carp about the disappointing (though
historically accurate) 1.33 A/R can't I?
Art
"Historically Accurate?" Do you think that it would be better with the
top and bottom of the picture chopped off? What an idiot!
I think Art was nagging about how pillarboxing the image can cause
such a significant decrease in screen size.
But of course, so many screens today are much bigger than their
original variants, that after the compromise, an average multiplex cut
down to 1.37 is probably an accurate representation of the screen
sizes in most theaters in 1939. I was surprised when I read that the
Roxy's original screen was only something like 25' wide.
J. Theakston |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Hart... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <tterrace-90A861.17324025092009 at (no spam) nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
tterrace at (no spam) sonic.net says...
Quote: In article
acb843d5-99fa-4693-8596-8e61b072f049 at (no spam) p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
rjn <email4rjn at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 25, 4:57 pm, Art Velordi <artiewra... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
I've been patiently waiting for Oz to be released on Blu-ray, but after
following this NG I have concerns about the picture quality. Can anyone
put my mind at ease (or confirm my fears)? In any case I'm still very
interested in the extras & featurettes.
This review, as is customary for the site,
includes some full-res screenshots:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/wizard.htm
Better (larger, uncompressed) screenshots here:
http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=26649
I worry about the reliability of reviewers who think "The Wizard of Oz"
was one of the first, or even the very first, color motion pictures.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Hart... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <pan.2009.09.27.03.01.53.219000 at (no spam) verizon.net>, artiewray74
at (no spam) verizon.net says...
Quote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:42:31 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Art Velordi <artiewray74 at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
I've been patiently waiting for Oz to be released on Blu-ray, but after
following this NG I have concerns about the picture quality. Can anyone
put my mind at ease (or confirm my fears)? In any case I'm still very
interested in the extras & featurettes.
It'll be fine. It'll be the usual compressed HD video, which will look
great on your TV screen at home.
If you try and blow it up to theatrical size, you'll find it's not a patch
on the 35mm original and the artifacts are painfully obvious in the front
rows. But that's okay, because you aren't going to be doing that. --scott
Exactly. Well...I can still carp about the disappointing (though
historically accurate) 1.33 A/R can't I?
Art
"Historically Accurate?" Do you think that it would be better with the
top and bottom of the picture chopped off? What an idiot!
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Art Velordi... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 8:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:48:47 -0700, rjn wrote:
Quote: Art Velordi <artiewra... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
Well...I can still carp about the disappointing (though historically
accurate) 1.33 A/R can't I?
And what was your preferred outcome?
The 1955 1.85:1 matte hack?
Sheesh...good thing it isn't easy to get bar-b-qued in here. Sorry
guys... I certainly wasn't suggesting a 1.85 matt hack. By "historically
accurate" I simply meant the HD release at 1.33 was the same a/r the film
was shot in. My disappointment is that the picture wasn't widescreen to
begin with (although I believe wider aspect ratios weren't in common use
until years after Oz was released.)
Art |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 27, 4:12 pm, Martin Hart <emai... at (no spam) thewidescreenmuseum.com>
wrote:
Quote: Do you think that it would be better with the
top and bottom of the picture chopped off?
Whoa, hang on Marty! The top & the bottom of the picture don't have
to get chopped off!
Let me just put in the scope lens, that's all we have to do!
For you, always, The Special Treatment.
I looked at the screen caps on one of those sites, and I don't know if
the jpg compression of the captures, or the digital processing of the
image in the chain ending at the disc, or some other thing has
contributed to it, but they just look so flat, flat, flat. Like the
Fleischers did it animating with cels. So un-photographic, so
lacking in depth. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| rjn... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 28, 5:19 am, rotoflexSPAMT... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: Let me just put in the scope lens, that's all we have to do!
Rotate that lens 90 degrees.
Negamorphic.
"Unhanced for narrowscreen"
Wizard of Oz.
Now in Minimascope.
--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name at (no spam) ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| rjn... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Steve Kraus <scr... at (no spam) SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote:
Quote: Is it only available in the deluxe 4 disk set
or is there a regular Blu-ray as well?
That was the ding in the 'beaver review.
At present, it's only available as the
you-paid-way-too-much edition.
Once the must-have-at-any price buyers have
been drained, mundane editions may be expected.
--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name at (no spam) ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:06 am
|
|