Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Wizard of Oz (1939) IMAX 3D REISSUE

This is topic The Wizard of Oz (1939) IMAX 3D REISSUE in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001979

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 09-21-2013, 08:07 PM:

AMC Tyson's Corner 16, McLean, VA
9/21/2013, 4:05 pm show
Auditorium #3
Presented in IMAX Digital 3D, 2K
Issues: Most inherit of the DCP itself. Projector showed a pink screen before, and a green screen after the film. There was one instance where the right eye was blank for a few frames.

This movie doesn't need any explanation. It's The g-dd--n Wizard of motherf---in' Oz, the Victor Fleming/Judy Garland film. I won't review the movie itself, but the experience. The film obviously would earn its highest rating from me except my personal bias on a couple of stupid songs and the slight melodrama. So it gets a 9.5/10.

Firstly, the restoration was fantastic but spotty on the sepia opening 20 minutes of the film. There was some grain that looked like video noise, and I'm not sure if it's just noise or film grain. The three-strip Technicolor portion which takes up most of the film were drop-dead goregous. I noticed things I may have not noticed before, and such clarity shows the dated makeup and effects. But not all was clear. There were horrible instances of aliasing, not the kind of 2K-blown-to-huge-screen aliasing, but the bad kind. There was one instance of edge enhancement on a Kansas wooden fence. Little DNR on the Wizard's face, it looked like. In other words, it looked like a Blu-ray master blown to 2K.

Film transfer: 7/10

The 3D was nowhere near as fantastic as the conversion done for Jurassic Park. It messed with my vision. No, not really, it didn't. But it was mediocre in the most mediocre way possible. There was some depth, some cut-outs. Minute amount of ghosting, but more so than JP. Almost every time a shot dissolves to another, the depth map is applied to the shot that dissolved, so the shot that it is dissolving into has the incorrect depth mapping until the dissolving is finished. It was weird, and a bit blurry. The 3D was disappointing but that was expected. Wizard is a 2D film at heart.

3D: 5/10

The sound was loud with limited dynamic range, the latter is expected. The 6.0 IMAX mix is faithful to its mono origins with 90% dedication to the center channel. There was hissing in some moments, everything was a tad bit harsh. Could be the IMAX standard or little-to-no compensation for the Academy curve. Certain moments made me cringe, such as the Tin Man moving his mouth for the first time. Ugh... Horrible sound. The aspect of this sound mix which fails was the attempt to make a retrospectively-weak bunch of audio elements and make then more than they are. There were some added bass moments like when the house lands in Oz. Kind of revisionist, but faithful in practice.

Sound: 5/10

And a generic theater experience story. I was getting my ticket but since the IMAX in Tyson's now has reserved seating, I obviously had to pick a seat. I am used to the touch screens at Cobb that allow you to pick the seats for yourself, but Tyson's is a generation behind when it comes to this. You are shown a screen without touch with the available seats, but you have to ask the cashier which seats you want instead of touching them. Worst of all, the resolution on the screen was so low you couldn't read which seats were which. I pointed my selection to her, but she couldn't see where my finger was pointing. For the first few times she picked the wrong seats, as I kept on correcting her, she still didn't select them. Finally, she realized she was on the wrong side and selected the correct seats for me. I wouldn't blame her, AMC needs to step their game up!

It was crowded and parents took their kids to see it. Too much popcorn-munching and bag-wrestling behind me, kids were asking questions. I paid $18.50 and I get this?! So much for a last resort theater.

Is WoOz in 3D worth it? Nope, unless you like the film very much.

Overall moviegoing experience: 5/10

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-21-2013, 08:44 PM:

I heard that the Blu-ray will cost more than $100. I guess whatever studio is responsible for this assumes that people who like this movie are idiots. Same goes for releasing it in IMAX 3D. It just seems so silly.

Posted by Carol May (Member # 4068) on 09-21-2013, 09:16 PM:

I saw the sing-a-long version last year at Oscars Outdoors. The songs were subtitled, people (not me) sang along, it was a beautiful summer evening. When it was over, I didn't feel anything was missing at all, certainly not Toto jumping at me from the screen.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-21-2013, 10:24 PM:

Is this a real thing or someone's idea of a sad joke? If it's real, please shoot me now.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-22-2013, 06:50 AM:

Seems like nobody in Europe is playing this, nor has any intention to do so...

quote: Joe Redifer
I heard that the Blu-ray will cost more than $100.

?!!

Does it also include a certificate of pretentiousness?

quote: Connor Wilson
There was some grain that looked like video noise, and I'm not sure if it's just noise or film grain.

That's one of the biggest issues I see with 2K transfers, film grain often looks like digital noise afterwards and Digital IMAX blows it entirely out of proportion. I hate the look of digital noise, which has been around since the very first generation of CCD-based cameras.

quote: Connor Wilson
Almost every time a shot dissolves to another, the depth map is applied to the shot that dissolved, so the shot that it is dissolving into has the incorrect depth mapping until the dissolving is finished. It was weird, and a bit blurry.

That sounds really awful and clumsy. Cross-fading between scenes isn't something that's compatible with 3D, but maybe they could have solved it by fading out the 3D depth map of the vanishing shot and fading it in on the new shot?

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 09-22-2013, 08:07 AM:

Regarding the Blu-Ray, the 3D edition retails for $35.99 and is available as low as $25.11.

There is a $100 set with 5-discs that also includes:

-52 pg Hardcover Photo Book
-Ruby Slippers Sparkle Globe
-Collectible Award Pin Set by The Noble Collection
-Journal
-Frameable Map of Oz

Amazon exclusive Promotional Item:
-4 GB "Wicked Witch of the East" flash drive

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-22-2013, 10:45 AM:

Who decides which pins are collectible and which aren't? It seems to me most things designated "collectible" are, in reality, accumulatible by the seriously gullible.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 09-22-2013, 07:35 PM:

As I had stated at another thread I started the other day on this topic, I never cared too much for THE WIZARD OF OZ but had decided to see the movie after the positive critic's review of how good the 3-D conversion is in IMAX Originally, I had deep reservations on how a 1939 movie could be converted to impressive 3-D like TITANIC and JURASSIC PARK was but I was going to see for myself how good it is but after reading Connor Wilson's review, I changed my mind about seeing it. Normally, I do not let other people's opinion about a movie sway me , but Connor made a lot of sense when he gave a negative review of the 3-D conversion and lukewarm comments about the sound. I already have the movie on a blu ray disc that came out several years ago and the picture and sound quality is excellent so that is enough WIZARD OF OZ for me.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-22-2013, 08:45 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
Who decides which pins are collectible and which aren't? It seems to me most things designated "collectible" are, in reality, accumulatible by the seriously gullible.

Yep, if it says "collectible" on it, it's never going to really be a collectible. Especially if it's a reproduction of something from years previous.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 09-23-2013, 08:36 PM:

How does one determine if a map is frameable?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-24-2013, 01:32 AM:

I always get a laugh out of the phrase "suitable for framing." Almost everything can be framed if you throw some creativity/money at it.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-24-2013, 04:05 PM:

I tried to think of stuff cannot be easily framed. Stuff like an elephant, an oil freighter or an M. Night Shyamalan shot... but that's all just beginner stuff for die-hard framers when considering to frame a black hole...

On another note, does anybody know a venue in or around Europe that will be showing this?

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 09-24-2013, 05:08 PM:

What about the shoemakers, Vinny and Luigi:

"Youze guys got nuttin' on us! It's a dirty frame!"

[Big Grin]

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 09-24-2013, 09:44 PM:

I saw this also over at Tysons this morning - thankfully it was only two of us in the audience and only once did I hear my fellow patron ever so slightly nosh on his popcorn. I had used an accrued Amazon stubs $10 credit bumping it down to $3 out of the pocket - booyah!!

Given the 3D conversion was done by the folk who did the first Clash of the Titans (remake) and SW: The Phantom Menace - two films not well converted - I was actually quite surprised how well they did with this film.

Closeups looked great, and the scenes that worked well in 3D were the poppyfield sequence, the walk down the corridor towards the Wizard's chamber, the closeup of the witch as she is flying in the air, writing 'surrender dorothy', the flying monkey attack. I did not notice any ghosting.

The one thing I did note that I didn't particularly care for is that some long shots the image looked a tad smeary and ever so slightly out of focus. One wonders if this flaw would be non-existent if and when IMAX-D's 2D resolution is changed over to laser's 4K resolution.

As for the sound, it was too loud and strident. It all seemed treble tweeked and could have been easily turned down a notch.

All in all though, I quite enjoyed the 'IMAX' experience (aside from the minor PQ issues). It was ingenious to have the IMAX 'numbers' count down intro in sepia tone.

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 09-25-2013, 07:29 PM:

I was reading Scott Wilkinson's review of his Oz experience at the newly-renovated TCL Chinese IMAX. He is more in the know of the exhibition business than I am, so I will take his word for it. He says that the DCP used for The Wizard of Oz IMAX 3D was in 4K, but projected through their 2K projectors because at the moment they have "superior contrast." Is it even possible to make a 3D movie in 4K on a DCP? I know for sure the DCI spec can only do 3D in 2K, but is digital IMAX any different?

Let's just assume for a while that the DCP was indeed 4K and 3D, as crazy as it sounds. Do you think the downscaling of 4K to 2K by the projectors caused the aliasing when I saw Oz? 4K content can play really well in 2K projectors as I have seen Lincoln projected with a Barco 2K machine. The movie itself was a noticeable increase in quality from the presumably 2K trailers.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-25-2013, 07:39 PM:

I don't think any IMAX locations are 4K yet that I know of. So why would they supply a resolution that they can't play? All IMAX locations using digital have aliasing that you can notice probably all the way to the near back of the auditorium if your eyeballs are good enough. Sit close to the screen and it looks like a preshow projector. Digital IMAX is really, really bad.

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 09-25-2013, 08:00 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I don't think any IMAX locations are 4K yet that I know of. So why would they supply a resolution that they can't play? All IMAX locations using digital have aliasing that you can notice probably all the way to the near back of the auditorium if your eyeballs are good enough. Sit close to the screen and it looks like a preshow projector. Digital IMAX is really, really bad.

You have a good point! If you're going to install digital theaters with huge screens, go for at least 4K! Aliasing takes me out of the movie. Sadly, at the back section of rows at Tyson's IMAX, there is a thick walkway between the middle and back sections, making the back area way back. This sucks because you can't see what's on the bottom of the screen. It's fine for 2.35:1 films but totally unacceptable for everything else! I guess I'll sit more towards the front. As for artifacts, even a 15/70 print of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol had aliasing.

But Joe, what I saw wasn't the typical D-IMAX aliasing. It was the worst aliasing I have ever come across. The amount of it was sickening, but it was mostly prominent in the opening, thankfully.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-25-2013, 08:57 PM:

Mission Impossible's aliasing likely came from the digital intermediate.

Did the aliasing look like weird lines? It's hard to explain, but almost as if sections had been removed, but not an even amount. Like this maybe:

That's an extreme example of what I'm trying to say. This is caused by very quick and dirty scaling.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-27-2013, 12:49 PM:

quote: Connor Wilson
Sadly, at the back section of rows at Tyson's IMAX, there is a thick walkway between the middle and back sections, making the back area way back. This sucks because you can't see what's on the bottom of the screen.

It's just plain unbelievable that IMAX dares to deliver such crappy theater design as of today. A venue close to me also suffers a similar issue, no matter were you sit, if somebody tall sits in front of you, your view of the bottom part of the screen is ruined... If this would be a venue from the stone age, I could at least have some sympathy, but most of those venues are just brand new (as in, just recently converted).

A 4K 3D DCP would definitely not be DCI compliant, as it would exceed the allowed bitrate.

But, IMAX doesn't need to conform to DCI and IMAX is known to deliver 4K DCPs to their exhibitors in the past (at least they were labeled as such).

I've often seen the bad kind of scaling Joe refers to, that's easily noticeable in horizontal and/or vertical lines running trough the shot. The effect especially noticeable when the camera slowly zooms or pans.

I've not yet seen this in any D-IMAX setup in that way and with all the "custom" image processing going on, I would hope that they at least managed to get rid of those ugly beginners scaling artifacts. Actually I hope they limit scaling and other image deformations to an absolute minimum, given the limited resolution they have to work with.

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 09-27-2013, 05:35 PM:

The TCL Chinese constructed a new booth to house the twin 2K IMAX digital projectors. But they're keeping the old booth which houses twin Christie 4K projectors for non-IMAX programming. Something here sounds stupid.