A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Sound of Music -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[dmiller68]

Great review thanks this is one of my favorite films!

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Mark B
I'm in agreement with you, Robert. The colors are just plain off. They do not resemble anything I've ever seen from this era of film making, and have a computer generated paint by numbers look to them. It's obvious that the elements are not in good shape, so something had to be done digitally in an attempt to bring the hues back to life. However, I feel they tried to hard, did too much, and went too far.

Maybe i was hearing things but on the restoration extra i am sure they said they adjusted the colours according to a print Robert Wise saw and approved a couple of years before his death.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Originally Posted by RobertSiegel
I would like to know what Fox used, if anything, as a comparison to what the film should have looked like as far as color, as the Director is gone and those who worked on the Blu-ray on those computers are probably too young to have seen it in 1965. It is a drastic difference in color from any version I have ever seen on screen or at home.

As FoxyMulder just said, and many others have said throughout this thread, the restoration team used a 70 mm print made during a previous restoration (which Robert Wise, shortly before his death, was happy with) as the color reference. Whether the look of that print was close to how the film looked in 1965 appears to remain an open question, but it was a palette that the director approved of.

When the promotional video first popped up on Facebook, the first thing many people said was to the effect of, 'Oh good, they've restored the golden hues that I saw in theaters and haven't seen on home video since.' The first things many other people said was to the effect of, 'Oh no! What did they do to the colors?'

That's the problem with a film that has been loved primarily on home video for the better part of three and a half decades. It's virtually impossible to come up with an objective measure.

 

[Brian W.]

Originally Posted by Adam Lenhardt
When the promotional video first popped up on Facebook, the first thing many people said was to the effect of, 'Oh good, they've restored the golden hues that I saw in theaters and haven't seen on home video since.'

It wasn't many people. To my knowledge, only one lone person said that, and that was Sebastian1972. And he didn't see it in theaters on the original release. He said that's what a dye transfer print he viewed in Los Angeles looked like, a print that was allegedly approved by the cinematographer.

 

[Brian W.]

Originally Posted by RobertSiegel
Robert Wise himself approved the anniversary laserdisc box set, which has similar color to the 40th anniversary DVD.

RIGHT! So it appears Robert Wise has approved different color timing at different times. As I recall, he also approved both the Criterion "West Side Story" and the original MGM/UA letterboxed laserdisc release, and each has very different color and contrast... very different look to both of them.

 

[Brian W.]

Robert Wise himself approved the anniversary laserdisc box set, which has similar color to the 40th anniversary DVD.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The only thing I know is that I loved this BRD and will treasure it forever. I'll leave it to others to argue whether the video and audio are accurate to the original theatrical release of it.





Crawdaddy

 

[Brian Sharp]

Been away from home so I have not been able to view SOM on BD but would like to make a couple of observations. We opened SOM using carbon arcs as the light source and, partway through the run, they were replaced with Xenon lamps. We were never really happy with the result as the image seemed to lose its warmth. We were told that this was due to the different colour temperature of the Xenon lamps.
At the same time (well, a couple of weeks later) the sound system was replaced by a solid state sound system, the previous system being a hybrid of solid state pre-amps and valves for the power amps. The sound to our ears was not the same; the mellowness that we had early in the run was not there but we seemed to gain in the mid and upper range. So which was the more accurate? Was it all a matter of personal perception as, theoretically, the results produced should have been almost identical. Do memories depend on where the film was seen and the equipment used in its presentation?

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Sharp
Been away from home so I have not been able to view SOM on BD but would like to make a couple of observations. We opened SOM using carbon arcs as the light source and, partway through the run, they were replaced with Xenon lamps. We were never really happy with the result as the image seemed to lose its warmth. We were told that this was due to the different colour temperature of the Xenon lamps.
At the same time (well, a couple of weeks later) the sound system was replaced by a solid state sound system, the previous system being a hybrid of solid state pre-amps and valves for the power amps. The sound to our ears was not the same; the mellowness that we had early in the run was not there but we seemed to gain in the mid and upper range. So which was the more accurate? Was it all a matter of personal perception as, theoretically, the results produced should have been almost identical. Do memories depend on where the film was seen and the equipment used in its presentation?

Thanks for that.

The point is actually even more complex, as prints struck on different days are all slightly different. A point more magenta, cyan? A point more yellow will yield
an overall warmer look.

Let's make matters worse for those creating the Blu-ray.

The 70mm print struck by the lab and viewed by Mr. Wise, would have been on a stock that was not created for reproducing
the original look of the film, nor could it.

Original prints on Eastman Color stock no longer survive with color intact. Dye transfer prints have a totally different color scale.

In the realm of projection, the condition of the reflectors, color temperature of the arc or bulb, age, quality, clarity of optics, setup and alignment of the entire optical system...

and last but not least, the color of the screen, all make huge differences in the way that a film is viewed. We won't even touch on personal bias
and the point that people see things differently.

As a final result, what Mr. Wise may have approved as a 40th anniversary home video edition is of little value when comparing to the way that
HD masters and Blu-ray encode color, depth, blacks, etc.

Have a desire to mimic the look of an original 35mm dye transfer print?

Good luck.

Which print? Stuck in Hollywood or London? Each will have differing looks.

Was any print referenced as an approved answer print? If so, and it survives, what projection equipment was used during the approval process.

What is the best source of a hero when creating a new scan and HD master for this film?

I've not a clue.

RAH

 

[ahollis]

The sound of a xenon bulb striking is not the same as the wonderful sound of carbon arc striking. That is the first difference of many. I always thought the light from the carbon arc created a much richer and softer image. However it did fit with the films produced during that time. As the films became edgier in the late 60's the hard light of the xenon seemed to compliment the photography. All of this in IMHO.

 

[RobertSiegel]

I have been playing this disc every single day since I got it. I scan different scenes and marvel at the clarity and see things I never remember seeing, such as patterns in clothes, things happening in the distance, freckles on Julie's face. It's amazing. The color issue, if there is one, is not a distraction for me anymore. If this is how Fox felt the film looked then I have become happy with it, and the soundtrack is such an improvement, it's the one thing I hoped they really improved upon and they did. Listening with professional headphones, which is much easier for me because I live in a home at the current time where I cannot crank the sound (a shame considering I have Klipschorns), and with the headphones switching back and forth between the French version and the new DTS MA mix, there is such a difference. I really applaud Fox for what they have done. I have no idea is the color tones are closer to what was originally presented or meant to be, but to have the clarity and sharpness of this picture and the soundtrack so beautifully restored, I am a happy camper.

If I had one complaint on this pressing now, and it's very minor, but I absolutely HATE that little pop-up that comes up every time you change chapters or scan. It's very distracting and I wish there was a way to turn that off or that it wasn't there at all. It is also on Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. I really hope Fox stops using that, I love to scan films and it's very annoying as it takes 4-5 seconds to go away.

This new outlook on the transfer is much different from when I first got the disc and was upset with the color tone and change in soundtrack, but I think that was because it is such a drastic change from what we have had before and not what we have been used to for so long. But I am so happy with this release now that I have had time to really study it. How great to have my all-time favorite movie, a movie that has meant so much to me my entire life, available to view in this quality at any time. My Epson projector (the original 1080, not UB) died on me so I have been using a 35" tube set and my dad's 42" 1080p Sharp, but have pre-ordered the new 3D JVC rs-40 projector which is due to come out in the next few weeks so I will finally be able to put my 150" screen to use again and I can tell you without a doubt what the first disc I put in will be. Any guesses? lol.

 

[warnerbro]

I've seen THE SOUND OF MUSIC on the big screen in 70mm several times. Once in Century City for the 25th anniversary and I recall it always having sort of a beige-mauve-tan color to it. So this really replicates the look I remember. Robert Wise commented that he wanted the color subdued to keep the film from appearing too saccarain. (how do you spell that darn word?) I also remember the detail and this definitely replicates that. My only disappointment is with the sound effects during the songs either being deleted or turned so low they're barely noticeable (thigh slap in the opening number, various footsteps during MARIA, the kiss Julie blows Charmian during MY FAVORITE THINGS REPRISE, and more). This film won an Oscar for sound, so I think that is a travesty they didn't at least try to replicate the Academy-Award-winning sound levels.

 

[Sebastian1972]

Quote:

It wasn't many people. To my knowledge, only one lone person said that, and that was Sebastian1972. And he didn't see it in theaters on the original release. He said that's what a dye transfer print he viewed in Los Angeles looked like, a print that was allegedly approved by the cinematographer.

That vintage 35mm dye transfer reduction print of The Sound of Music was made around 1967, actually, and was approved by Mr. Ted McCord (the cinematographer). It’s a legitimate source for color and density reference for the recently struck 70mm print that Mr. Robert Wise saw not too long before his death – and was happy with it – It was also used as a guide for color and density reference for this blu-ray edition. The original 70mm Deluxe (Eastman Color) reference print struck in 1965 have already faded to oblivion you can’t see any true color on those film reels but pink.
I respect those of you who feel so passionately about what the look and color scheme of The Sound of Music should be like based upon your fond memories over the years but please keep in mind that one’s memory of color can be very deceptive. Even Mr. Francis Ford Coppola admitted he can’t remember exactly how his film “The Godfather” originally looked like until Mr. Harris got a hand on the true restoration project of the film and rescued it from the ravage of time that the original look of The Godfather can now be seen again faithfully in its full glory.

 

So are some sound effects totally missing or were those sweetened for re-releases?

 

[Sebastian1972]

Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard
So are some sound effects totally missing or were those sweetened for re-releases?

Eric – Those were sweetened -and enhanced - a few times over the course of decades of multiple re-releases under several hands of different mixing engineers.

 

[Joe Caps]

Changing sound effects to a wekk known film can hardly be called "sweetening"

Any one for tampering?

And Wise pretty much called ANYTHING perfect and just the way he always wanted it. An opinion not to be trusted in the last years of his life.

Why the big deal about the sound effects, particularly Maris apron slap.

I watched this using my newly wone big screen fron projector with my brother and his family on Thanksgiving day. We watched the opening with and without the slap.

He said that withthe slap on the apron, its Maria wild and gree singingon a mountain side. Without it, its a talend singing actress with a film crew around her miming to a playback.

 

That's what I thought, Sebastian. Thanks for the input. Every time I played the older version with the slap, it sounded like she was slapping herself hard!

 

[Techman707]

Thanks for that.

The point is actually even more complex, as prints struck on different days are all slightly different. A point more magenta, cyan? A point more yellow will yield
an overall warmer look.

Let's make matters worse for those creating the Blu-ray.

The 70mm print struck by the lab and viewed by Mr. Wise, would have been on a stock that was not created for reproducing
the original look of the film, nor could it.

Original prints on Eastman Color stock no longer survive with color intact. Dye transfer prints have a totally different color scale.

In the realm of projection, the condition of the reflectors, color temperature of the arc or bulb, age, quality, clarity of optics, setup and alignment of the entire optical system...

and last but not least, the color of the screen, all make huge differences in the way that a film is viewed. We won't even touch on personal bias
and the point that people see things differently.

As a final result, what Mr. Wise may have approved as a 40th anniversary home video edition is of little value when comparing to the way that
HD masters and Blu-ray encode color, depth, blacks, etc.

Have a desire to mimic the look of an original 35mm dye transfer print?

Good luck.

Which print? Stuck in Hollywood or London? Each will have differing looks.

Was any print referenced as an approved answer print? If so, and it survives, what projection equipment was used during the approval process.

What is the best source of a hero when creating a new scan and HD master for this film?

I've not a clue.

RAH

While I agree with everything you're saying, in the case of this Blu-ray transfer, the color is definitely off. I finally viewed the SOM Blu-ray tonight. Having run all sorts of prints over the past 45 years, I'm well aware that EVERY print's color is different. With Technicolor prints, when they used "short ends" to make up a 2000 ft. reel, the color can be profoundly different even within the same reel. Normally, I'm not a real "bug" about color, however, in the case of this Blu-ray, the color is definitely off. It appears that it is either deficient in blue, or the blue has been shifted toward cyan. Certainly, anyone who saw the picture in its original run, whether 35 or 70mm, must realize that the mountain and sky scenes were not so washed or burned out looking. It's only because the skin tones look relatively normal that the overall look isn't that offensive.

There's been mention of a dye print. I have never seen or even heard of there being any dye prints of SOM. However, if it was true, then there would have been a matrice made. Since matrices are expensive and only make economic sense when a large number of prints will be made. If a matrice had been made, why were all the 35mm prints Eastman/Deluxe prints? You would also think there should have been a lot of dye prints floating around. Have you ever heard of one?

While the Blu-ray is a "nice" transfer, by some of the descriptions at the beginning of this thread, I was look for something REALLY outstanding, at least with regard to sharpness. While it's good, today's transfers of 35mm films done right off the negatives are better looking, even though most of the pictures stink.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Techman707
There's been mention of a dye print. I have never seen or even heard of there being any dye prints of SOM. However, if it was true, then there would have been a matrice made. Since matrices are expensive and only make economic sense when a large number of prints will be made. If a matrice had been made, why were all the 35mm prints Eastman/Deluxe prints? You would also think there should have been a lot of dye prints floating around. Have you ever heard of one?

While the Blu-ray is a "nice" transfer, by some of the descriptions at the beginning of this thread, I was look for something REALLY outstanding, at least with regard to sharpness. While it's good, today's transfers of 35mm films done right off the negatives are better looking, even though most of the pictures stink.

Dye transfer prints were produced for the UK market, and several survive, but how color correct they may be...

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Originally Posted by Techman707
While the Blu-ray is a "nice" transfer, by some of the descriptions at the beginning of this thread, I was look for something REALLY outstanding, at least with regard to sharpness. While it's good, today's transfers of 35mm films done right off the negatives are better looking, even though most of the pictures stink.

The Sound of Music will never be REALLY outstanding with regard to sharpness. As Mr. Harris stated in the opening post of this thread, "certain parts of the film were shot using softening filters toward different kinds for image diffusion." If the source image is soft, the outputted image is going to be soft. The ways of getting around this -- pumping up the contrast, applying artificial sharpening filters -- would do far more damage than they'd be worth.

And do we really need a razor sharp Sound of Music? The detail on the current BD is nothing short of astounding.