Posts: 1,008
Threads: 33
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 736
Given 414 thank(s) in 260 post(s)
HDR for catalog titles SHOULD be about allowing for extended range where applicable and be hands off entirely in terms of changing anything.
Sadly it is not.
Why am I not surprised they digitally redid shots even in Oz? WTF!
Damn Fool Idealistic Crusader
Posts: 1,640
Threads: 26
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 39
Given 203 thank(s) in 155 post(s)
Country:
Sadly, they already crossed that line for Blu-Ray by erasing the wire on the Cowardly Lion's tail, which would have been imperceptible on a good 35mm print. Never getting rid of my 50th anniversary Laserdisc.
Posts: 2,693
Threads: 47
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 1637
Given 954 thank(s) in 608 post(s)
I don't mind wire removal if it was not intended to be seen (as usually was) in cinemas. It's adjusting for preserving the initial experience on newer medium. However the sepia to color change is revisionism, and one of the best moments in cinema history as that.
Posts: 53
Threads: 23
Joined: 2021 Sep
Thanks: 0
Given 11 thank(s) in 9 post(s)
Country:
Actually, according to DVDBeaver, "only one video version has ever convincingly coordinated the Kansas sepia with the sepia-painted, Technicolor-photographed transition shot before Dorothy opens the door on Oz. The 1999 DVD makes the door, wall, Dorothy’s gingham dress and elbow look like sepia-tinted black & white" and the 2005 restoration renders "an obviously sepia-painted door and wall, a brown-colored gingham dress, and, most pointedly, the clearly flesh-colored elbow of Judy Garland’s stand-in Bobbie Koshay. The 1999 transfer is the only one that truly impresses with an astounding contrast as Dorothy reveals Oz. “Stencil printing”--each frame tinted sepia by hand at that point--in addition to the Technicolor-shot sepia door, wall, and dress--was the process used to create the effect in 1939; it was revived for the 1999 DVD transfer. It must have made the original audiences gasp, as I did when I saw the 1999 edition after viewing this film throughout a lifetime. It is unfortunate that the process was not reused in 2005."