The Wizard of Oz (1939) Video Release Comparison 1983 LaserDisc to 2019 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 05. 2022
- I recommend viewing this comparison in 4K resolution (available via the sprocket icon) on a 4K Ultra HDTV rather than on a mobile device.
The Wizard of Oz (1939) video releases compared - all upscaled to 4K to match the resolution of the most recent release. The audio throughout this video is from the 2013 Blu-ray.
* 1983 MGM LaserDisc
* 1988 Criterion LaserDisc
* 1989 MGM LaserDisc
* 1997 MGM THX DVD (same transfer as 1993 “Ultimate Oz” LD)
* 2005 Warner DVD
* 2013 Warner Blu-ray
* 2019 Warner 4K Ultra Blu-ray [HDR converted to SDR for comparison]
The 2019 4K HDR master was converted to SDR for this comparison using default settings in a program called Hybrid. - Krátké a kreslené filmy
The MGM DVD actually looks really good..
This movie is 84 years old, which is extremely hard to believe when looking at the 2019 Blu Ray release.
Laserdisc is a vibe. Keep your crystal clarity.
I was amazed at how beautiful the 4K version looks. That is the definitive release of the movie. Each release of the movie that you showed in this video was a landmark of its time, I'm sure. Each time, the digital technology used in the restoration was getting more and more advanced, and was able to obtain beautiful results.
The 1080P blu-ray looks fine. It's not easy to see a difference in the 4k comparison on here. 1080P is the highest the resolution goes.
Hardly any difference between the 2013 and 2019 versions. At least on youtube...
I was fortunate enough to catch a print of TWoO in London in 34mm, and honestly the bluray/4k versions look really dull compared to the original negative. Especially the 2019 Warner it's over bright and DNR'd in a lot of places. So I'll respectfully disagree. It would be a treat if Criterion or Studio Canal do a transfer of Oz in the future so people can see how beautiful it was intended to be.
0:30
Back when the film was released Technicolor had to mechanically align the three color strips and the registration was never perfect. A thousandth of an inch on the film was a inch on a 50 foot screen. Now they took the three color records and computer aligned them frame by frame also removing any imperfections on each frame. Plus there is no film wandering side to side in the gate. So in theory you will see a better picture than what was seen on opening night.
And a lot more stable too!
I love Technicolor and I think Technicolor movies look better than what came later.
Thank you. The Technicolor lovers don’t want to see this.
I’m sure Technicolor was just lovely on the big screen. It wasn’t so lovely on antenna tv in the 80’s
Thank you so much for uploading this video! This is absolutely incredible and in my opinion a very important video that really accurately shows how far we've come
The Laserdisc is the most original and untouched of the releases, the 1997 DVD is my personal favorite in terms of color and detail, the 2005 DVD is my least favorite, and the 2013 Blu Ray and 4K look relatively the same, but are really good tho.
I think both versions ( unrestored and HD restored ) are very good , colorful and cute colors ! I love all format versions of the film ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
This is so incredible
Me ha enamorado el color del Laserdisc 1989
I like the 1989 LD and the Blu-Ray looks better to me than the 4K because the 4K release is darker. The 2005 DVD looks great too.
This video has a issue it's not a 4k video so yes the picture looks slightly darker but that's because that's how 4k works it's showing true colors where blu-ray is much brighter and usually can get washed out still better than DVD or any other past format but not perfect
@@thetoythief8940 The people that make these releases sometimes change the color, which differs from the original 35MM film negative. For lighting, I prefer the bluray which I have.
CZcams can't display hdr properly*
Wizard of Oz, The (1939) [ML105204] 1996 release is a gorgeous release on laserdisc. This is not shown on this video clip.
That laserdisc used the same master as the 1993 Ultimate Oz laserdisc set. That same master was recycled for the 1997 THX MGM DVD without the chroma boost built into the Laserdisc signal.
Any standard definition laserdisc or even DVD can’t compete with the the resolution of today’s Blu-rays or 4K Ultra HD releases.
@Jake Minnie *face palm*
You need to see this on a 4K TV with an ultra HD player, not CZcams which has restricted bitrate and color space specifications.
@@ChuckPenn3 what's a chroma boost and why is it on the Laserdisc?
@Jake Minnie Have you seen any old movie on Blu-Ray. Film stock like 35MM has a high level detail that is comparable to 4K resolution. The 1997 DVD was mastered in 480i, while subsequent releases were sourced from the original film elements that were then scanned in 2K resolution, 4K resolution and cleaned up digitally frame by frame. How stupid are you buddy? You're a fucking idiot here
Here's the comparison
0:00 1983 MGM VHS/Laserdisc
0:04 1988 Criterion Laserdisc
0:08 1989 MGM VHS/Laserdisc
0:13 1996 MGM VHS/1997 DVD/1999 WB DVD
0:18 2005 WB DVD
0:24 2009 WB DVD/2013 WB Blu-ray
0:30 2019 WB 4K UHD/2020 HBO Max
The colors are so much more vibrant in the 80s versions. I also like the 97 and 2005 DVD versions. Blu-Ray looks okay though. Too much clarity.
Try watching them on a 4K HDTV and not on a mobile device. I created this comparison in 4K resolution and it seems people aren’t getting a hint of the advantages because they are watching a postage stamp-sized version.
Do yourself a favor and watch the 4K UHD on an HDR capable 4K TV.
You have to see it to believe it, if you wanna brag to your family and friends about the colors on your TV, you'd be hard pressed to find a better demo material, it's simply spectacular.
this video would be sick if it was recorded in 4K and not 1080p
This reminds me of people calling into QVC many years ago and commenting how good a stereo system that QVC was selling while listening to it on their cheap tv speakers. At best CZcams is bit starved like Netflix. I have all the mentioned formats from VHS Beta Laser to A 4k remux. In all honesty the best formats are almost too good. When Dorothy opens the door to Oz with the BluRay and 4K you can tell the flowers are plastic. It reminds me also of one Christmas eve NBC ,Turner, TCM and our local PBS station were showing "It's a Wonderful Life" NBC'c print was perfect Turner and TCM's was very good and WCNY's looked like a worn 16mm film. I watched the emulsion scratched version.
For color accuracy, the 2005 dvd hasn't been beat.
@@deckofcards87 you need to see the 4K UHD with HDR - the SDR conversion I used here of it doesn’t do it justice
I don't know why but I do so wish I could find a good digital rip of the 1989 50th anniversary MGM laserdisc to make my own custom DVD copy of
The 2005 Warner DVD is my favorite, colorwise.
I can understand one saying that if they haven't seen the 4K HDR version on a 4K television. All I could do is approximate it in this comparison which is in SDR.
I’m currently watching this on an iPhone, so I’m not sure if the 4K release is showing up with false colors or brightness, so from what I’m seeing right now, I’m gonna go with the 2013 Warner Blu-Ray for the best colors, but I will probably change my mind soon since I can try watching this on a 4K TV.
Try comparing it on an actual TV with the streaming CZcams video on the highest setting - not the default. Comparing this on an iPhone is pretty silly though. You’re also looking at a conversion of the HDR 4K to SDR for the comparison.
It really wish this compared the 1999 DVD as well, which was probably the most common DVD people have owned prior to 2005. The 1997 DVD is relatively obscure to people who weren't super early adopters of DVD, though I am glad it was included.
I used the 1997 DVD as it was the sane transfer as the 1993 Ultimate OZ THX LaserDisc set. There were only so many editions I could track down to compare. If anyone is still viewing the 1999 DVD this many years later, I don’t know what to say. I wasn’t looking for the incremental differences in each release; it was the major overhauls that mattered most to me to focus on here.
@@ChuckPenn3Your video depicts every major home video transfer except the 1999 DVD. Everything besides the '99 would just be a repackage of one of those other releases. The 1999 DVD was a totally separate restoration from either the 1997 DVD or the 2005 one and was the first major release of the film under distribution from Warner Bros. It was commissioned for the 1998 Theatrical re-release and was the last major analogue restoration of the film before they started doing them in the digital domain. I'd hardly call it incremental. I would consider it a major overhaul from anything that came before, including the Ultimate Oz laserdisc. It has long been supplanted but it is a very significant release in the film's home video evolution.
@@PiperSparkles How did a film restoration work during the analog era?
@@Ballowax There have been photochemical film restorations LONG before they were being done digitally. Granted, there is only so much you can do with out the aide of digital technology but there were some fantastic restorations done in the 90s. The 1998 theatrical re-release of The Wizard of Oz was the last photochemical restoration before they started doing them digitally in 2005. This is why both the 1989 and 1998 restorations have a sort of 'rainbow effect' on certain shots that almost looks like it's meant to be 3D. The the 3 strip Technicolor elements shrunk at different rates and so they were not able to be properly aligned until the digital era in the 2000s.
@@PiperSparkles okay, that's cool... How do analog film restorations work?
"Come along, Dorothy. You don't want any of those apples. Hm. 🍎🍎🍎
Just so everyone knows this video does NOT incorporate the 4K HDR elements!! So it will look like the 2013 is more visually stunning. I incredibly wish WB would have released this new remaster on blu ray like Disney has with their amazing upgrades of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Cinderella (Cinderella’s 4K is legendary and fixes everything wrong with it and boy is there a lot wrong!!!)
It isn’t possible to showcase the HDR in SDR properly no matter the conversion method, as I explained in the description.
2005 dvd is the best: the colors are brilliant like the original 35mm technicolor print , 4k blu ray is so dark and flat.. 🤐
What about its 70th anniversary DVD/Blu-ray release in 2009?
Same master as released in 2013 and used in the comparison.
Wow i actually preferred the better looking 1983 and 1997 versions and 2005 DVD, the rest and especially the 4k DVD newest version looks like Hell and Bad.
1997 stepped it up tremendously, and took out the hanging munchkin 0:14
Blu Ray
I’m surprised the 1997 DVD actually doesn’t look bad at all. The only complaint I have with it is the bland color palette, which doesn’t really do Oz any justice.
It isn’t a matter of looking bad. Standard definition resolution (720x480) is tremendously limited compared to high definition (1920x1080) and 4K (3840 × 2160), not to mention the expanded color and contrast range made possible by emerging technologies.
@@ChuckPenn3 I understand. I just mean that usually Blu-Rays tend to improve upon older releases, and the older ones don’t always look bad, it’s just that if I watched a comparison of two releases with different color palettes, my eyes would look more at the one I consider to look better.
How about how the movie looked in 1939?
Or how about how LIMITED the movie looked in 1939 based on Technicolor printing at the time, before the major upgrades in the 1940s…
Why is the 4K release suddenly so much darker?
It isn’t, really - read the description - it’s converted from HDR to SDR to match the dynamic range of the other videos and appears darker without the HDR coding.
The 4k 1st place
The 1997 mgm dvd 2nd place
Honestly I don't appreciate the 4k looking darker, it's like they took life out of the picture
This video is not entirely accurate. It’s 4K HDR downgraded to SDR 1080p. So it won’t be as accurate as a proper 4K tv with a 4K player unfortunately.
@@romeostruedude I might give it a chance though
The 4K version is pretty dark, the 97 dvd version looks pretty damn good
Watch this video in 4K resolution (not the default 360p that it defaults to on phones) on a 4K HDTV and I don’t think you’d come to the same conclusion. Also, the 4K appears darker here because I had to convert it from high dynamic range (HDR) to standard dynamic range (SDR) to be able to compare it to the other sources and upload it to YT.
the highest option available is 1080P@@ChuckPenn3
it's amazing what they were able to do with an 80 year old film
I doubt the "Laserdisc" footage is from a Lasedisc. The quality is VHS levels of potato quality.
What is wrong with the criterion release? It's horrendous looking! Looks like someone puked all over the film print.
I disagree as it was a huge leap in quality over the prior release and superior to the MGM release that came out the following year. The Criterion was the best video release until the 1993 Ultimate Oz laserdisc release.
Yeah, I definitely agree. It has a unfavorable green tint to it that other prints don’t. Not sure why it looked that way. To me, Criterion’s ‘88 print looks worse than its former, MGM’s 1983 edition. Obviously proper film scanning due to modern technology has made MGM’s 1997 print and others thereafter far superior to the ones that preceded it. Also, just my opinion, but 2013’s (what I believe to be restored from the og negatives) 1080p release looks better than 2019’s. Perhaps it’s the display I’m watching this video on, but 2019’s has a powdery, almost duller look to it. By that I mean the color saturation looks less than that of 2013’s. Almost dimmer. You can clearly she this difference in the Tinman’s highlights.
1997 was best version 2005 n Blu-ray stunk
Um, no - but keep believing what you want.
@@ChuckPenn3 I will sean pebbs brother
I do actually have the 1998 DVD and also the 2005/2009 one, and then tried to look for the 4K version. Comparing all 3 - I do like the 4K edition the most, next would be the 1998 one and lastly the 2006/2009 version. I would've placed the 1998 as my top but the film is not yet fully cleaned as there are a lot of specks that's still seen especially on the Technicolor scenes. They did remove that for the 2005 release and got a lot more cleaner for the 4K edition.
This thing can reach 39k! Yes you read that right. It was shot on 73mm film and it was stated that 70mm film is equivalent to 39k
Nothing come close to the 1997 MG DVD
Ha - try watching it on a 4K display.
@@ChuckPenn3 4K display with the 4K disc itself. Not this YT video.
Appreciate the comparison video though.....in particular the LD ones were interesting to see!
Blu ray is better than 4k! On blu ray you can see her skin texture and then on 4k it’s smoothed out.
I disagree. You’re watching a version compressed for CZcams. I was unable to replicate the high dynamic range of the 4K for this comparison.
I’m not a technical expert but I imagine the 4k looks good on a 4k system.
It’s funny though how all these comparison videos no mater what the film look miles better on blu ray than 4k with non specialist equipment
@@THX1178 My thinking also. YT is fine for the lower resolution comparisons, but once you get to 4K it's going to be hard to truly replicate that here.
It does look better on this video but it might be due to the compression difference as well as capturing an hdr source and showing it as non hdr, that is going to affect color grading and such.
I think I like the 1997 DVD version the best.
Try playing this video in 1080p resolution on an HDTV and not on a phone.
@@ChuckPenn3 Well, keep in mind YT (on a web browser) maxes out at 1080p here. I'm watching this video on a 4K monitor / my gaming system.
At the lower resolutions, the 1997 DVD actually looks quite good so kudos there, for the time period. Up at 1080p and my 4K monitor, the 2013 BD actually looks better than the 2019 4K (the latter looks a little soft). But maybe that's just again inherent limitations with YT itself.
Haha.. DVD is so much better than Laserdisc..
Winner goes to:
1983 MGM Laserdisc/original (1939) transfer
Made to fix the movie so it's too old
Nothing past the 1997 version looks particularly extraordinary to me
1997 vs 2005
To you. Try watching in 1080p on a 4K display and not your phone.
@@ChuckPenn3 just assume we're all watching these types of videos from our phone hence why we're all giving almost identical reactions 😁
@@XxDyneXxFreeEnergyxyeah that’s why he told you to try checking it out on your tv so no one can sound ignorant. Tho you have to remember the 4K has been converted to SDR so it still won’t be as accurate even in 1080p.