A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Sound of Music -- in Blu-ray (2 Viewers)

[Techman707]

Exactly. No prints ever do look exactly the same. Even the same print projected in a different theater under different conditions won't look the same. But prints produced through the same process will definitely look closer than prints produced through different processes.

You make it sound like people who see a 70mm print are seeing something totally different, color wise, then people who see a 35mm print. Once they stopped filming with 3 strip cameras, ALL prints, whether Eastman or Technicolor IB, still came from an Eastman negative. So if made properly, the IB prints should look similar to the Eastman prints. When I was working and we were running a 70mm print we always had a 35mm backup print. Occasionally, when the 70mm print was sent back to have the mag tracks re-recorded, we ran the 35mm print. While the 70mm print was certainly better in overall sharpness and resolution, the color wasn't like day and night. Take Funny Girl as an example, the color of the 35mm IB prints looked virtually identical to the 70mm Eastman prints.

What I'm talking about is where a colorist makes an independent judgment on their own on what the colors should be. That appears to be what has happened with the Blu-ray of SOM. It doesn't even mean, in some cases, that it looks bad....it's just wrong.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by Techman707

What I'm talking about is where a colorist makes an independent judgment on their own on what the colors should be. That appears to be what has happened with the Blu-ray of SOM. It doesn't even mean, in some cases, that it looks bad....it's just wrong.

Hi, Bruce.

I'm no pro nor expert in such things, but I'm curious what exactly about the colors (of the sky and mountains, etc) do you find off/wrong since you keep pointing that out as your basis for this ongoing debate -- specific examples from the BD would probably help. I know you mentioned blue seems to be deficient (or perhaps there's a color shift to cyan), but near as I can tell, it's not "wrong" in the sense that they should never look like that at all. In fact, I'm more inclined to think a very blue sky to be wrong, if anything. Certainly, I've seen plenty of photographs that have skies that lean a bit toward cyan -- and really, I rarely ever see very blue skies in real life either. And to be honest, trees and grass can be almost any sort of green for a number of reasons -- there's really no obvious right or wrong there unless it's some sort of glowing flourescent green or some such perhaps, which I do sometimes see in stills from digital cameras -- not to mention what the filmmakers might have actually intended and could bias the colors accordingly (as was likely done/intended by Mr. Wise near as we know), and I did not notice anything obviously wrong w/ those greens.

Yes, I'm sure everyone agrees that this SoM BD certainly looks very different from what we're used to seeing on home video (and presumably in older theatrical screenings as well before the most recent limited screenings that apparently have this same look). It definitely has a lot more yellow and might indeed lean a bit more toward cyan. I noticed this from the promo footages posted on the web about a month or two before the BD release -- and in fact, I even commented about how "green" it looked (though part of that was probably due to poor color fidelity of web presentation on my work LCD) in the PR(?) thread though nobody followed up on my comment at the time.

And yeah, it's quite possible the recreation(?) team went a tad too far w/ the "golden hue" look, but w/out any real, reliable reference, it's also difficult to argue that this look is definitely wrong or way off me thinks.

Color can be such a very subjective thing as we all know afterall. And it also doesn't seem like Mr. Wise was actually going for any particularly "realistic" look for SoM anyway. As much as this particular BD's color might be off some, I imagine all prior home video incarnations were probably also off by as much (in the other direction), if not more so...

_Man_

 

[Joe Caps]

Please, don't "imagine" what the older transfers were like
The 40th anniversary looked very much like the film should look
The new one has blue pumped up in all the background. Meanwhile, in the foreground, the reds have been pumped up which affect skn tones and colors.
Julie Andrews and several of the children should have blond hair. In the 40th Ann disc they do, here their hair has beome red. Don't like the over bass heavy pumped up sound either. Most folks pum up their bass on their amps too much to begin with. All you have to do is add some fake bass to a vid transfer, and someone is bound to say it now sounds deeper and richer than before.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Joe,

Strangely, while you think blues have been pumped up in the backgrounds, Bruce (aka Techman707) has been saying the opposite it seems. So which one of you are right in how "wrong" the color is?

Red hair? That sounds like hyperbole though. Yes, I see their blond hair got warmer to a rich golden hue, but red?

In general, I find the colors have gotten much warmer and more saturated compared to previous home video incarnations. Yes, the transformation may seem a bit extreme, especially on initial viewing or if you've become so very used to the previous look(s), but I don't really find it obviously wrong either (in the sense that Mr. Wise could not possibly have intended this look -- or at least something very close to this).

And with all due respect, merely holding up some previous home video release for reference isn't the be-all-that-ends-all when we're talking about such subjective matters. It just seems like we're just rehashing the same things over and over again w/out digging up any further (meaningful) evidence to show how right or wrong this BD looks -- at this point, I don't think anyone's really arguing that this BD looks perfectly/exactly like it should, but rather whether it is so far off/wrong that we should not embrace it as a good-to-excellent release (as such things go), or am I mistaken on that?

_Man_

 

[Robert Harris]

I'll make a point one more time re: matices.
Matrices are NOT separation masters.
They cannot be printed.
They serve no purpose
They can be scanned to any resolution, but the scans are of no value for any purpose.
I don't believe I could be any clearer.
RAH

 

[Aaron Silverman]

They were much more useful before Neo defeated them.

 

[Brian Kidd]

They were much more useful before Neo defeated them.

*rimshot*

Good night, ladies and gentlemen! Drive safely! Don't forget to tip your wait staff; they work really hard!

 

[Sebastian1972]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
I'll make a point one more time re: matices.
Matrices are NOT separation masters.
They cannot be printed.
They serve no purpose
They can be scanned to any resolution, but the scans are of no value for any purpose.
I don't believe I could be any clearer.
RAH

Amen to that, Mr. Harris. It’s beyond me several people on here just can’t understand something as logical as this. Obviously, their mind has set to whatever they wish to believe. This particular thread reminds me of some sort of religious thread, really, but can be quite interesting to observe, otherwise

 

[Adam_S]

Originally Posted by Sebastian1972
Amen to that, Mr. Harris. It’s beyond me several people on here just can’t understand something as logical as this. Obviously, their mind has set to whatever they wish to believe. This particular thread reminds me of some sort of religious thread, really, but can be quite interesting to observe, otherwise

This thread reminds me of a couple online things I've seen regarding arguments about film transfers and their home video representations, specifically about people who say they see film grain in VHS transfers of Disney Cartoons (they're seeing video noise and they think the noise is grain) and complain when the noise isn't there on DVD or bluray transfers. and then I'm halfway reminded of the ridiculous arguments set forth at criterion forum when primary source documents regarding Magnificent Obsession were posted saying the director intended a widescreen ratio and the entire forum stuck their heads in the sand and said, "well he was just FORCED to say that by the studio, he didn't really MEAN it, because clearly, it's supposed to be academy cause that's how I've always seen it and I like how it looks. I have special insight into Sirk's thoughts and I KNOW that I'm right because I'm a time traveling mind reader."

unfortunately, the ignorance of the criterion forum is apparently influential, some of their users there have championed the color of transfers like this, because it is more "accurate" to what Ozu wanted and is what all Agfa shot films look like. A poster working for BFI has reassured the forum members there that their knowledge of the color of Ozu's has been noted and that the upcoming BFI blurays of Ozu's color films will reflect that look the criterion forum prefers (Criterion the company is smart enough to know that the green brown color of those transfers are not what Ozu is supposed to look like, just look at this, for example.)

 

[Sebastian1972]

Quote:

This thread reminds me of a couple online things I've seen regarding arguments about film transfers and their home video representations, specifically about people who say they see film grain in VHS transfers of Disney Cartoons (they're seeing video noise and they think the noise is grain) and complain when the noise isn't there on DVD or bluray transfers. and then I'm halfway reminded of the ridiculous arguments set forth at criterion forum when primary source documents regarding Magnificent Obsession were posted saying the director intended a widescreen ratio and the entire forum stuck their heads in the sand and said, "well he was just FORCED to say that by the studio, he didn't really MEAN it, because clearly, it's supposed to be academy cause that's how I've always seen it and I like how it looks. I have special insight into Sirk's thoughts and I KNOW that I'm right because I'm a time traveling mind reader."

unfortunately, the ignorance of the criterion forum is apparently influential, some of their users there have championed the color of transfers like this, because it is more "accurate" to what Ozu wanted and is what all Agfa shot films look like. A poster working for BFI has reassured the forum members there that their knowledge of the color of Ozu's has been noted and that the upcoming BFI blurays of Ozu's color films will reflect that look the criterion forum prefers (Criterion the company is smart enough to know that the green brown color of those transfers are not what Ozu is supposed to look like, just look at this, for example.)

Well said, Adam.

 

[Brian W.]

Originally Posted by Adam_S
the ridiculous arguments set forth at criterion forum when primary source documents regarding Magnificent Obsession were posted saying the director intended a widescreen ratio and the entire forum stuck their heads in the sand

Okay. But those people were presented with source documents, as you said. Not ONE person here has presented ANY source documents, links, or info other besides "a knowledable source I can't reveal told me" to support the notion that "The Sound of Music" is supposed to have this brownish-yellow look, or has addressed the seeming contradiction of Robert Wise approving the restoration upon which this Blu-Ray version is based and also approving the very different-looking 40th Anniversary presentation.

 

[MatthewA]

I'm going to put forth a controversial idea:

Perhaps both looks are equally valid, and that neither one is "wrong" unless someone specifically says so. Ansel Adams once said "The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways." Could that be the case here? Furthermore, who's to say that De Luxe Labs didn't just ignore what Robert Wise and Ted McCord wanted them to do in printing back in 1965? And just because you have a dye transfer print that doesn't mean it's the right look; it just means it will never fade. IB Technicolor prints of the same movies are not always alike, even from the same print run. Without timing cards available, and since all the original 70mm and 35mm Eastmancolor prints are "just too pink" to tell, we'll never know until a document saying "this is how it's supposed to look, and this is the only way it's supposed to look" turns up.

But don't take my word for it. I have no documents to back it up either.

 

[Rory*M]

I'm glad to read in another thread here that Fox has been restoring PLANET OF THE APES, my favorite film. I hope it'll also lead to a new Blu-ray release. I'm not a big fan of THE SOUND OF MUSIC, but I do admire the production and I'm a huge fan of Robert Wise and his THE SAND PEBBLES. After reading the comments here, I guess I'll have to get the SOUND Blu-ray too.

 

[WilliamMcK]

Not to reopen the wounds of the Magnificent Obsession wars, but the only documents I recall being presented were studio documents indicating that Magnificent Obsession was to be exhibited in 2.0 SuperScope. Was there actually documentation of Sirk's preference for exhibition? I missed it if there was. Having watched MO in 1.33, 1.78 and 2.0, I can honestly say that I find 1.33 has too much headroom and 2.0 is way too tightly framed. My personal preference is for 1.78 -- a ratio that (to my knowledge) was not one being used by theaters then or now. This tells me that it's possible that Sirk was forced into the 2.0 SuperScope but perhaps filled in the entire frame with relevant images because he was aware that 2.0 wasn't being used world-wide. However, if there is documentation as to Sirk's preference, and/or working habits on the set of MO, then obviously this wouldn't be the case.

And yes, I am a member of and an occasional poster on the Criterion Forum, but I don't feel I have to be loyal to one forum or the other. I happen to find the conundrum of transitional wide screen movies fascinating.

Anyway, back to The Sound of Music -- I think the quote from Ansel Adams is very apt (though it could be used to justify a botch as well). I have watched the new blu-ray of SoM a few times now and have uh ... warmed up to the color palette. I still think it's too dark though.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by MatthewA
I'm going to put forth a controversial idea:

Perhaps both looks are equally valid, and that neither one is "wrong" unless someone specifically says so. Ansel Adams once said "The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways." Could that be the case here? Furthermore, who's to say that De Luxe Labs didn't just ignore what Robert Wise and Ted McCord wanted them to do in printing back in 1965? And just because you have a dye transfer print that doesn't mean it's the right look; it just means it will never fade. IB Technicolor prints of the same movies are not always alike, even from the same print run. Without timing cards available, and since all the original 70mm and 35mm Eastmancolor prints are "just too pink" to tell, we'll never know until a document saying "this is how it's supposed to look, and this is the only way it's supposed to look" turns up.

But don't take my word for it. I have no documents to back it up either.

Good points in all. Perhaps, at least a couple of those points really do apply to Mr. Wise (and the circumstances surrounding SoM).

I guess there's always the argument that maybe Fox should release "both" versions on BD.

_Man_

 

[Joe Caps]

I imagine that SOM shot one camera at a time by Mr. Wise.
All the over 130 times I saw SOM looked pretty much the same to me and they also looked like my friends 35mm British Technicolor print.

The point is - this is a big release and if fox sees that all theyhave to do is make a release reasonably pretty and sharp, they its all okay.
There are not tones of musicals on blu ray and out of they few, a few have had wrong wrong wrong color and everyone thouth they were more than okay (bothamericanin paris and Gigiwith all of the blue sucked right out of them- not good). God knows what Fox would do with Can Can, Star, hello dolly, with a song in my heart, etc.

 

[RobertSiegel]

Originally Posted by Joe Caps
Please, don't "imagine" what the older transfers were like
The 40th anniversary looked very much like the film should look
The new one has blue pumped up in all the background. Meanwhile, in the foreground, the reds have been pumped up which affect skn tones and colors.
Julie Andrews and several of the children should have blond hair. In the 40th Ann disc they do, here their hair has beome red. Don't like the over bass heavy pumped up sound either. Most folks pum up their bass on their amps too much to begin with. All you have to do is add some fake bass to a vid transfer, and someone is bound to say it now sounds deeper and richer than before.

You are very correct on Julie's hair color.....I was reading 2 books on Julie Andrews (which I have read about 5 times each hehe), one written in the early 70's and another that was written 2 years ago. In both books, when interviewed, she talked about how strange it was to see her hair dyed BLONDE. In one of the books she goes on to describe the tone (just a short statement) and says that her friends were very surprised when one day she showed up for a party and her hair was a very light tan/blonde color. What I am seeing in the new restoration is a reddish look to her hair color. That is inconsistant with not only the 40th anniversary edition but what she herself started when interviewed for both books. Interesting.

I am afraid I have to disagree, however, on the soundtrack. After listening with headphones and switching between the two, I much prefer the new mix. For instance, the entire song Raindrops on Roses, on the old version the music is way too low volume, now it sounds like there is actually an orchestra playing with her. Also the thump when Julie throws the tomato to Gretyl at the farmer's market, the bass note when it drops is actually stronger on the 40th anniversary edition, leading me to believe the bass wasn't pumped up. The high end, in my opinion, was not altered, if you listen to the last note of music right before intermission, you can hear very clearly the tape hiss and the tape being turned off. If they had reduced the high end to get rid of tape hiss, that tape hiss would not sound so strong. I think of a big example of terrible high end reduction that was used on the Hello Dolly DVD, I don't find that here. Also in the headphones, listen to the first part of the nuns singing right aftewr "the last golden days.....ect" comes up on the screen and compare it to the new soundtrack. The new edition is much more clear and richer.

We also have to remember that Fox said they used for the first time the 6 track master, which they could not use before. It's highly probable that since it was in such awful condition that a slight bit of the high end has just worn. But I personally find the new soundtrack much warmer and richer, more like the sound of Oklahoma than the 40th anniversary edition. Mind you, I have never seen a 70mm print of this film, so I am speaking from a personal preference standpoint.

Still, my preference would have been to give us the new mix AND the mix from the 40th anniversary edition in lossless and let us choose which one we wanted to listen to. And I will say it again, if they were able to finally use the 6 track masters, they should have provided a new isolated score in lossless.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by RobertSiegel
You are very correct on Julie's hair color.....I was reading 2 books on Julie Andrews (which I have read about 5 times each hehe), one written in the early 70's and another that was written 2 years ago. In both books, when interviewed, she talked about how strange it was to see her hair dyed BLONDE. In one of the books she goes on to describe the tone (just a short statement) and says that her friends were very surprised when one day she showed up for a party and her hair was a very light tan/blonde color. What I am seeing in the new restoration is a reddish look to her hair color. That is inconsistant with not only the 40th anniversary edition but what she herself started when interviewed for both books. Interesting.

Except perhaps if Sebastian(?) was actually correct about the use of a warming filter for the shoots (and/or other aspects regarding the general look of this transfer). For all we know, Mr. Wise could've wanted her hair dyed lighter than he actually intended to look on film in order to account for the use of a warming filter, *IF* that is actually what happened. Her hair dye was essentially just makeup work -- and it would be very rare for typical makeup work to be expected to look exactly the same on film as in real life, especially if a warming filter was used.

_Man_

 

[Brian Sharp]

Just got to look at a few sequences today. I felt that the first reel had more of a red bias than I could remember. After that the balance seems to be more in line with how I remember it. As an aside my wife went out to get some material to make some cushions to match the curtains; what she came back was no match at all. The point being it is not easy to memorise a colour.

On the sound front, apart from a few minor quibbles, I am well satisfied.

 

[Kruse]

“The Sound of music” has been my absolutely most beloved movie since I for the first time watch it back in the early 90’s broadcasted on TV in a very poor quality with nearly no colour at all, but it just catch me completely and since that time I have bought all the media it have been released on except for the laserdisc.
I also have been lucky to experience this great movie in both 35 and 70mm in the movie theatre, for the 70mm it was in the spring 2008 which I remember looking beautifully for the most part, very opposite the 35mm back in 2005 which was in a disappointing picture quality.

So this bluray has been the most awaited disc ever for me and for the same reason I think I nearly have read every review available, ending up in this very interesting forum with so many deeply knowledge people in this particular movie and film processing.

For the bluray I’m very satisfied with this incredible detailed picture which we not have even been close to before in time. The colour also look nice for the most part of the movie, but the colour is still the main reason for reading all these reviews because its like its not really perfect, in one way I would wish I got the colour from the 40 anniversary DVD in combination with the sharpness of this new release, but when comparing the two it’s also like the colour for the most part look much better in the new one. So I think I’m coming up to that my only real complains is the too yellow/brown skin colour in the bed scene of “My Favourite Things” and the same in the “So Long, Farewell” in the big party and the too hard contrast in the same scene with nearly no grey scale at all.

There is still room for improves if a 50 year anniversary release will come, but so far I’m happy for the incredible work and effort there have been put to one of my biggest movie of all time.