Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > Oklahoma! in Todd-AO?

Reply
Thread Tools

Oklahoma! in Todd-AO?

 
 
Derek Gee
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-24-2005
"ZEKE, the NERDS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:BoNGd.97813$Ix2.13734@okepread02...
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>> ZEKE, the NERDS wrote:
>>> TODD AO was shot at 30 FPS, which results in a significant

>> improvement in
>>> flicker and strobing due to the 25%
>>> increase in temporal resolution. This is why I shoot my own movies at

>> 30p
>>> instead of 24p [most HD shooters use 24p] because they WANT to
>>> get that "film look." 30 frames per second [still] retains the "dreamy"

>> quality of
>>> film

>>
>>
>> Isn't this an argument for shooting filmed TV shows at 30 fps instead
>> of 24? (I can picture producers saying, "Oh, of COURSE we want to spend
>> 25% more on film stock ...")
>>
>> I wouldn't propose this for theatrical features - I'm thinking it's too
>> much of a 24 fps world out there. But for films made strictly for TV,
>> it could be especially welcome with the advent of HDTV. And wouldn't it
>> be easier to convert 30 fps films to 25 fps PAL?
>>

> well the ultimate film format is 59.95 (TRUMBALLVISION)
> i saw it once when they had the TV show in the LUXOR i actually
> was fooled by it for a few minutes, it was set up to look like a live
> TV show being filmed. i think they had a similar show at a pizza chain
>
> you really thought it was live cause you had that nice film resolution and
> depth
> together with the "liveness" of 60 FPS temporal resolution. i imagine a
> lot of
> customers never knew it was film!


If by "TRUMBALLVISION" you mean Showscan, then you are correct, but to the
best of my knowledge there is no system trademarked as TRUMBALLVISION.
(Yes, I know Doug Trumball invented it.) I've seen two Showscan
presentations, and I thought both were pretty impressive. The better of the
two was one custom made for General Motors to show at the Detroit Auto Show
in the late 80s or early 90s. It did not look like film or television at
all. It looked real!! Apparently Showscan Entertainment is still in
business at:

www.showscan.com

just in case you'd like to set up you're own theater, or produce your own
Showscan presentation.

Derek


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Warchild
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-24-2005
In article <RuXId.14304$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
"Lincoln Spector" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Joseph Caporiccio" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Its odd to prefer the laserdisc of the todd ao oklahoma to the dvd - its
> > exactly the same transfer.

> I haven't checked Oklahoma, but I've seen a number of early DVDs that looked
> inferior to well-made LDs (Before Sunrise is one). I suspect that the two
> media are different enough so that a great LD transfer isn't going to look
> great on DVD. Once the publishers started doing new transfers to DVD, and
> started caring about those transfers, the quality got much better.
>
> Lincoln


I have a large collection of Laserdiscs, but I find them largely
un-watchable on my Mitsubishi HD ready rear projection. The discs were
mastered for a conventional TV viewing, and no better. I much prefer
DVD, at this point.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave Garrett
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-24-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...

> I have a large collection of Laserdiscs, but I find them largely
> un-watchable on my Mitsubishi HD ready rear projection. The discs were
> mastered for a conventional TV viewing, and no better. I much prefer
> DVD, at this point.


In general, DVD is almost always going to look better than LD, but it's
not entirely the fault of the LD mastering process that your LDs don't
look good on your set. Not all digital sets are created equal when it
comes to handling analog video sources, and some people with large LD
collections have wound up testing a number of digital RP sets with LDs
before settling on a model that was a decent compromise between digital
and analog sources. I've heard favorable things about the Pioneer Elite
line of sets in this regard.

There are some things you can do to improve the situation ranging in
cost from relatively affordable (separate calibration for different
video sources) to outright expensive (an external video scaler); check
out http://www.mindspring.com/~laserguru/digitalage.html for a good
overview.

Dave

 
Reply With Quote
 
Martin Hart
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-24-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> Its odd to prefer the laserdisc of the todd ao oklahoma to the dvd - its
> exactly the same transfer.
>


Yes, they're from the same transfer and that's about half the problem.
The resolution of the original transfer was far below that required to
do DVD justice. Also the disc, like "The King and I" and "South
Pacific", the other two large format films that Fox transferred just a
tad too early, suffers from being single layer, single sided, non-
anamorphic DVDs with way too much compression. There are many annoying
digital artifacts and anomalies in the DVDs. Just as the transfers of
these three large format films were about the high point in laser discs,
they are a low point in DVD production and the films deserve better
treatment. Just doing an A/B comparison of the overture and opening
credits in "Oklahoma!" will start to tell you that the DVD is going to
contain a lot of disappointment.

Marty
--
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com
The American WideScreen Museum
 
Reply With Quote
 
Morgan Montague
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-24-2005
Marty's experience with the 3 Fox titles below is the same as mine. I first
bought the deluxe Laserdiscs of OKLAHOMA!, THE KING AND I, AND SOUTH PACIFIC
to see these large format in a presentation as close to a roadshow as
possible during my 27" Composite Video NTSC days. Later on, being an early
adopter of DVD and HDTV and component inputs I had hope the R&H Collection
on DVD I bought at Costco would have been as good as, if not better, than my
original LD. I was sadly disappointed and was glad the entire collection of
5 musicals was cheaper than any one of the LD's.

I will probably wait to see if there is a new, anamorphic remastered R&H
Collection in a few years before I re-invest in the collection. Also, thank
God for Netfliks, I can probably preview them before plunking down the
moola.

I am a sucker for certain titles and will keep rebuying them. Like I have
BEN-HUR in LD CLV and CAV plus DVD. I have IAMMMMW in LD and DVD.

As I get a little older, I don't rush out for every new edition unless there
is a chance it is going to be a limited run. I will probably get the
Russian WAR AND PEACE soon (and there are 2 versions of this out, one good
and one bad).

Morgan
"Martin Hart" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
> says...
>> Its odd to prefer the laserdisc of the todd ao oklahoma to the dvd - its
>> exactly the same transfer.
>>

>
> Yes, they're from the same transfer and that's about half the problem.
> The resolution of the original transfer was far below that required to
> do DVD justice. Also the disc, like "The King and I" and "South
> Pacific", the other two large format films that Fox transferred just a
> tad too early, suffers from being single layer, single sided, non-
> anamorphic DVDs with way too much compression. There are many annoying
> digital artifacts and anomalies in the DVDs. Just as the transfers of
> these three large format films were about the high point in laser discs,
> they are a low point in DVD production and the films deserve better
> treatment. Just doing an A/B comparison of the overture and opening
> credits in "Oklahoma!" will start to tell you that the DVD is going to
> contain a lot of disappointment.
>
> Marty
> --
> http://www.widescreenmuseum.com
> The American WideScreen Museum



 
Reply With Quote
 
Lincoln Spector
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-24-2005
> I have a large collection of Laserdiscs, but I find them largely
> un-watchable on my Mitsubishi HD ready rear projection. The discs were
> mastered for a conventional TV viewing, and no better. I much prefer
> DVD, at this point.

So do I. But I would guess that you'd find some early DVDs just as
unwatchable (although, since I still have a conventional TV that dates back
to before DVDs came out, I can't speak authoritatively on how they would
look on your system). Basically, I'm talking about really crappy DVDs.

Lincoln


 
Reply With Quote
 
Joseph Caporiccio
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2005
from th3e DVD, the Hugh Jackman Oklahoma tried to pretend its a live
performance. It's not - it's shot on hi def vid and the songs are prerecorded.

Josiah Gluck wrote:

> I had the very good fortune to see that production in London a few years
> ago.
>
> It was a circular, non-proscenium theatre, with the seats arranged like
> an amphitheater. Very minimal sets with a deep, curved cyclorama at
> the back. The orchestra was set up behind it. The sound design and mix
> were great. It all felt like 3D Todd-AO.
>
> And Jackman was superb.
> I also got to meet him a few years ago @ "SNL" and he couldn't have been
> nicer or more gracious...
>
> jng
>
> > >> The recent production of Oklahoma (starring a pre X-Men Hugh Jackman) is
> > >> pretty stunning and is available on DVD.
> > >Yes, but it was not shot in a large negative film format. By the unwritten
> > >bylaws of RAMT, it's therefore not worthy of existence.
> > >
> > >Lincoln
> > >

> > In fact, it was a stage production, not a dedicated film.


 
Reply With Quote
 
davidm2@earthlink.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2005
> from th3e DVD, the Hugh Jackman Oklahoma tried to pretend its a live
> performance. It's not - it's shot on hi def vid


Actually, it was shot in 35mm. Paul Wheeler, the cinematographer of
that production, wrote a textbook called "High Definition and 24P
Cinematography" and said:

" 'Oklahoma!', a UK National Theatre production, was shot on 35mm. I
shot 265,000 feet of 35mm in 19 days using three cameras."

The shoot was in 1999 and predated the introduction of the first 24P HD
camera, the Sony HDW-F900.

David Mullen, ASC

 
Reply With Quote
 
Brian
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-26-2005
I prefer th Ld to the DVD because of the massive artifacting and other
problems with the DVD.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Advertisments