A few pictures about....The Sound of Music (1 Viewer)

[DaViD Boulet]

If you can make one of those grabs with Julie on the hilltop that would be great bcs that's where I noticed some of the most obvsious EE in the old version.

Maybe another grab when she enters the mansion and has the 7 kids all lined up with interior details of the room...like the painting on the wall.

 

[Mark Lucas]

I have no idea what dvd decoder you're using but if it's Powerdvd or Windvd then both can be configured to spit out unmodified 720x480 screen grabs, which when jpeged are really light images to load. These can either be posted as such or resized to 960x540 or 853x480 using bicubic in Photoshop or a photo editor of choice. Then we can accuratly see all the detail and I would never complain again...

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

I'll reserve my judgement for the larger caps, but... :/

 

[GlennH]

Make no mistake, the old DVD has WAY too much ringing/EE/sharpening on it and it is very noticeable on my 58" screen. You can't tell that on the above small caps, where it may even be perceived by some as being better detail. But in my opinion, even with these small caps the new version appears to have better contrast. The white of the sky isn't quite as "blown out" looking.

I seem to remember there is a scene early in the movie in a grove of white-barked trees where the ringing halos are particularly bad. Maybe check out that scene.

 

[Scott Simonian]

Exactly! The old ones have a perception of more detail cause they are obviously over-sharpened. Excessive EE abound. If that were to be projected on a moderate to large screen, I couldn't see it as watchable.

I think the new screens look much better.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Given that EE/sharpening was intended to make images look "better" on small screens...I wouldn't be surprised if a downresed JPG from a screen-cap looked "better" to the eye when artifical sharpening had been applied.

Looking forward to the native 720 x 480 images!

dave

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Per your request...

OLD -> NEW

 

[DaViD Boulet]

AWESOME!

*exactly* what I was hoping for. Thanks Ron.

I think even at this size some folks will be on the fence...but as far as 'detail' goes everyone look at the stripes on Julie's dress in the opening scene...they are less obscured in the new version bcs the edge-sharpening in the old version imparted a sligtly artificial ringing (which is even more obvious when these images are upscaled and viewed wide-angle). And even though I like the look of the rich blacks, the old version tends to crush blacks a bit (losing shadow detail) and has a "pumped" look to the contrast (though, without seeing the real film projected, it's impossible to know for sure just what is the closest to the real thing).

Also notice the way the film grain in early version was exaggerated by the EE (saw this in Master and Commander DVD as well).

Ron...I'm so hyped...I can't wait to get this DVD and do some careful AB in my theater.

Sound of Music DVD Party at my place!!!

 

[Mike Wadkins]

hunny i lost the fine detail

 

[DeeF]

No, MY place!



Yes, this is exactly right. Note the picture with the Captain with the stick/crop in his right hand, talking to the Baroness. In the old, the blacks are crushed and it's all a dark shadow.

But in the new, the details of his hand, thumb, etc. are quite clear.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

No *my* place!!

 

[DaViD Boulet]

BTW, looking at these larger image comparisons...I'm suspecting that the new DVD is *not* sourced from a new film-tape transfer...but perhaps from a better mastered image from the HD transfer on file. The reason I say that is that both major differences I see--EE and contrast pumping...are things that can be manipulated (added) in the digital domain.

Also, it would stand to reason that the existing HD master was acceptable given how many people who saw it (Ron...weren't you one of them) at Fox studios talked about how gorgeous it was...and then many of those same people asked "what went wrong?" when the DVD was released.

Does anyone know for sure the technical process behind this new DVD?

 

[DeeF]

The screenshots of the new DVD actually remind me more of the movie, which I saw many times, including in its original run. It's a softer movie, with lighter pastel colors befitting the 60s. In particular, the Baroness's salmon dress looks right (in the newer shots).

 

[DaViD Boulet]

(yes...another post...I know I know)

Here's a great way to "compare" these images...

save them all to a folder on your C drive giving them names to keep them in order.

Then open them on your computer using the standard windows image-viewer. From here...it's easy to "zoom" the images...3 or 4 clicks on the zoom and you can clearly see the noise from the edge-enhancement on the original version.

Also, by just clicking "previous/next/previous/next" you can alternate between old/new/old/new image right in the middle of your screen...that's a great way to see the differences in revealing way. Pay attention to those stripes on Julies dress in the first pair of images. Also, look at the Baroness in the 3rd pair...look how unnatural she looks with the edge-sharpening and pumped contrast in the first DVD..compared to the smooth and natural look in the second. Julie's face in the first pair is also a givaway...look how "electronic" she looks in the older DVD and how much more natural in the new.


In general, the "harsh" look of the first DVD...which was it's biggest problem...is completely gone. While the new DVD doesn't pack more inherent image detail to my eyes...what detail *is* in the source is now let through in natural way without artifacting from ringing and edge-accentuating. In short...the new image from these screen caps is much more natural (to my eyes).

Fox has really learned their lesson in how to master. This is good news as we want those Fox blu-ray discs to look as good as they can...


Ugh...now I have to *wait* to get that DVD in my system and compare on the projector!

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Sorry, David.

WinDVD captured these as JPG images. That is how
they stayed.

If you really want to get perfection here, I can
do more shots in BMP format as long as WinDVD allows
me to save them as such.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

You're right...interesting that my browser saves them as BMP even though they're native JPG. Hmmm. I'll try saving again at home.

Don't worry about reposting...the JPG compression is really clean and while it may add a slight bit of noise to both images...it does so equally so it's still a good tool to compare the two.

 

[Damin J Toell]

...And that is the difference between video and film.

The look of the old transfer makes me feel like one of my contacts has slipped, and everything looks a little bit off.

DJ

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Yep.

It also shows how a great film-tape transfer can still end up looking like "video" on DVD if electronic manipulation isn't handled with care.

My Fair Lady showed improvement with the newer DVD (from the same film-tape transfer but better compressed) and I'd love to learn if Fox indeed used the same HD master for this new disc as was used the last time. If so, it would be the most pronounced "before and after" DVD-pair to demonstrate the effects of improperly applied electronic enhancement to an otherwise stellar transfer.

 

[Scott Kimball]

 

[Elijah Sullivan]

The old release with the boosted contrast and edge looks a bit more "modern" to me. The pastel style of the '60s is rather plain. Does anyone else suspect that on the previous disc they made an attempt to make it look more contemporary?

The new image looks much more natural to me. I can't compare it with the theatrical print, but it sure looks more filmlike and the light more natural.

Sweet