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

[Techman707]

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

Nobody ever said that matrices were the same thing as a separation master. Why you are saying prints can't be made from a matrices (assuming the equipment were still available) and they "serve no purpose" is a puzzling statement. I believe you could make that clearer.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Because any matrices that exist now would be far too hard and crumbly to print. Matrices were printed in relief according to density with gelatin. The dye was imbibed into the gelatin and prints were made by contact with blank receiver stock, sometimes with a 40% density green record printed on it to increase apparent contrast. That gelatin and any dye left on the matrices would be dried out and shrunken, thus not giving any sort of accurate record of how Technicolor prints of the film were made.

 

[Techman707]

Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
Because any matrices that exist now would be far too hard and crumbly to print. Matrices were printed in relief according to density with gelatin. The dye was imbibed into the gelatin and prints were made by contact with blank receiver stock, sometimes with a 40% density green record printed on it to increase apparent contrast. That gelatin and any dye left on the matrices would be dried out and shrunken, thus not giving any sort of accurate record of how Technicolor prints of the film were made.

Yes, I certainly realize that very old used matrices might no longer be viable. It was the statement that "They (matrices) cannot be printed." and
"They (matrices) serve no purpose" that was puzzling.

One of the reasons I'm now dying from COPD/Emphysema is because I used "VITAFILM" for a lifetime. While it did a great job on softening brittle film and any warpage and curl, the only problem was it also softened my lungs.

 

[warnerbro]

I'm watching THE SOUND OF MUSIC on ABC right now and it is a comletely different print than the Blu-ray. I actually prefer what I'm seeing on ABC. The flesh tones are more accurate and pinker than the brownish Blu-ray. It also has a cooler, bluer look and more natural saturation.

 

[RobertSiegel]

Originally Posted by warnerbro
I'm watching THE SOUND OF MUSIC on ABC right now and it is a comletely different print than the Blu-ray. I actually prefer what I'm seeing on ABC. The flesh tones are more accurate and pinker than the brownish Blu-ray. It also has a cooler, bluer look and more natural saturation.

I also watched tonight Warnerbro. This broadcast was high def-and yes a completely different transfer than the one on the Blu-ray. I agree that the saturation is more natural, and everything looks much more "correct." Did you notice the interior paint in the Trapp villa was a very light gray or white, on the Blu-ray it is light brown. Her hair color is dark blonde on the broadcast, and it's reddish on the Blu-ray (Note my post above about Julie talking about dying her hair BLONDE for the role). I did find the faces a bit too pinkish on the broadcast, but this looks much more like the Sound of Music I saw in theaters much more than the Blu-ray. So what happened over at Fox? Did they not look at what they had before? What was their point of reference? The sad part is that the soundtrack on the TV broadcast is far inferior to the new mix from the original 6-track masters, which I just love on the Blu-ray in lossless. Plus it was 1:85:1 here on our ABC station except for the credits. And of course as far as sharpness, the Blu-ray beats the broadcast hands-down! But the colors.....

During the movie I DVR'd the film on ABC and froze some frames and switched back and forth from the Blu-ray to the broadcast. You could actually call it a different movie if you were going by the color tones. What was the point of reference at Fox for this new Blu-ray restoration? How could it look so different from everything before it as far as color? Tomorrow I am going to take the Blu-ray and do some adjusting on my new JVC projector and see if I can't get it closer to what I saw on TV and the 40th anniversary edition somehow, because when I watch the entire movie, I just have to have that beautiful new soundtrack.

Any others watch it? Your opinions?

 

[Rob_Ray]

I'm sampling it here on the west coast now, and I must say I think the colors on the bluray are closer to what I saw in theatres than what I'm seeing on KABC-TV. The broadcast picture is too pale and too blue and the skintones are too pale. Right now the Baroness and the Captain are talking along the lake and her hair almost looks more silver than blonde.

But the most startling thing for me is how well it's playing at 1:85 to 1. All the children were in the shot at the Winkler Terrace and the scenes in the car and at the villa are framed perfectly. But the onscreen graphics are very annoying.

 

[warnerbro]

Robert, you're very right about Julie's hair. On ABC it was blonde whereas on the Blu-ray it was orange. It did seem to be a 1.85:1 ratio which was pretty good. I realize some of the sides were cut off. I just wonder what Fox was doing on this Blu-ray transfer. I also appreciate that they showed the movie uncut. NBC used to trim about 40 minutes for their broadcast.

 

[RobertSiegel]

It just amazed me how different the Blu-ray is in HD from the HD shown on ABC. I have to agree with Rob Ray in one respect that there are alot of problems with the transfer being shown on ABC, but I also tend to think there are problems with the Blu-ray transfer. I've seen the movie over 200 times. I have read every magazine, book, interview,and just about everything else to be found on this movie. I own the original 6 sheet poster and a 3 sheet poster and the roadshow one sheet. The lobby cards. The 3 different pressbooks. The presskit. All of the books about Julie Andrews, and all other references to the movie in hundreds of other books. All in all, I am happy with the Blu-ray, but hope that for the 50th they re-instate the production diaries, include the deleted scenes (although the 2 are probably lone gone), and do some color correction because it just seems too orange/brown.

I quote from Julie Andrews on The Julie Andrews Hour (of which I own the complete season from 1974)

"I was really startled when I first saw my hair in a mirror after it was dyed blonde, and then to see it so blond on the screen, I realized it was a wise decision." Now if there had been a red or rusty tint, I think she would have said that instead of light blonde. This indicates to me that decisions were made with this new transfer.

Also, Shaun B. from Fox on the extra on the Blu-ray about the video transfer says "The field is green, the question we had was how green do we make it." That also indicates that decisions about the color were made for this Blu-ray transfer. But from what did they compare it? Certainly not the Robert Wise approved laserdisc box set transfer And It is nothing like the 40th anniversary edition in color tone, the Director has passed away, and anyone who worked on this transfer was probably too young to remember what it looked like in 1965. So my question remains....how did they decide the colors of the walls in the Trapp Villa (which have now turned beige but have been almost white before) or Julie's Hair (which has never looked rusty or red before).

Don't get me wrong. This is the sharpest, best sounding version of this movie ever released and I am thrilled with that. The soundtrack is an outstanding achievement and a major improvement. But I am a bit bothered by what might have been some guess work in coloring.

 

[nealg]

Well, I turned on ABC right after reading warnerbro's post. And what did I see? Pink, pink, pink (on my ISF calibrated Pioneer monitor). The print is far inferior to the blu-ray, plus it is cropped, which to my eye looks terrible. What's the point? (I know, people don't like black bars.) Not to mention washed out, soft and lacking contrast. Oops, I mentioned it.

Now I agree that flesh tones can look brownish on the blu-ray at times, but they are certainly no worse than those on Gone With the Wind. All I see on that transfer is brown/orange skin (look at Rhett at the bottom of the staircase), but I don't hear as many people complaining about that transfer. Is that really what 3-strip Technicolor flesh-tones looked liked in the theater??

Bottom line: The blu-ray is not perfect. ABC's color is different, but certainly not preferable. I'll stick with the blu. The ABC print PALES in comparison (pun intended).

 

[RobertSiegel]

As I said previously, I agree with you on the pink, the faces were all pink. And some scenes were fuzzy, and as I mentioned I will stick to the Blu-ray as well. But just looking at the Blu-ray alone, I still feel it was toned too brown and yellow and orange.

My bottom line: There has never been a better version or anything near the Blu-ray as far as clarity and sound. It's a fantastic transfer but I still believe there are some imperfections in the color tones.

 

[Matt Hough]

Every single release of The Sound of Music on video has looked vastly different from the preceding one. I'm starting to think maybe no one at the controls really has a firm idea what the proper color timing should be. Apart from a couple of shots on the Blu-ray (the Captain, Elsa, and Max motoring past the children in the trees springs immediately to mind) which are FAR too brown and unnatural, I love the Blu-ray's look and sound (see review).

But is there room for improvement? Of course.

 

[RobertSiegel]

Originally Posted by MattH.
Every single release of The Sound of Music on video has looked vastly different from the preceding one. I'm starting to think maybe no one at the controls really has a firm idea what the proper color timing should be. Apart from a couple of shots on the Blu-ray (the Captain, Elsa, and Max motoring past the children in the trees springs immediately to mind) which are FAR too brown and unnatural, I love the Blu-ray's look and sound (see review).

But is there room for improvement? Of course.

Interesting, I also think of that scene as one that comes immediately to mind. Max looks like he has bronzer on. Hehehe. I also couldn't agree more on the soundtrack, what a HUGE improvement over all previous versions. This finally is what I always imagined that orchestra should sound like.

 

[Techman707]

Originally Posted by nealg

Now I agree that flesh tones can look brownish on the blu-ray at times, but they are certainly no worse than those on Gone With the Wind. All I see on that transfer is brown/orange skin (look at Rhett at the bottom of the staircase), but I don't hear as many people complaining about that transfer. Is that really what 3-strip Technicolor flesh-tones looked liked in the theater??

As a matter of fact, the original Technicolor prints of GWTW looked exactly like the Blu-ray in the theatres. While I only have a 16mm print, there are STILL 35mm Technicolor prints around. During the 1969-70 release of GWTW, MGM sent out both the new washed out color scope prints as well as some older technicolor prints that were rejuvenated.

 

[RobertSiegel]

It is a shame that there aren't surviving alternate takes. Julie said that they did about 12 takes of that scene and wished they would put them on the disc. I'd love to see those. Also, if you watch the pre-release trailer, you will see different camera angles that were used, I noticed a different one in the bedroom when the captain discovers her and the kids singing, a different camera angle. Also in that trailer, she sings My Favorite Things differently as they are throwing the pillows around the room, listen for that, different vocals...they must have done the singing track over again. Also in that trailer, different takes that were not used before she sings The Hills are Alive. Kind of fun. It's either the pre-release trailer or one of the first few trailers.

Has anyone noticed this: When the camera is zooming in on Julie in the opening scene and she's walking towards the camera before she sings The Hills are Alive, that at one point she lifts her right hand up to her face, to me it looks like a signal. This is just done once about 3 measures before she sings. I know Robert Wise was in the fake forest giving her cues, I wonder if this wasn't some kind of cue for the cameraman or pilot to let her know she was about to do her twirl?

 

[Joe Caps]

In the very first trailer deone for Sound of Music, you can hear Anna Lee sing for herself (before she was dubbed) Maria Makes Me Laugh !!
Its very unsteady which is why she was dubbed.

 

[Robert Harris]

Re: alternate takes...

Because of a lack of a quality duping element during the era in discussion, many 65mm origination productions chose to use alternates, trims, etc. for trailers that would have been released to 70mm venues. Where precise shots were necessary, they were dupes.

What you're reporting is not uncommon.

RAH

 

[RobertSiegel]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Re: alternate takes...

Because of a lack of a quality duping element during the era in discussion, many 65mm origination productions chose to use alternates, trims, etc. for trailers that would have been released to 70mm venues. Where precise shots were necessary, they were dupes.

What you're reporting is not uncommon.

RAH

RAH: It would have been fascinating to see some of the alternate takes and angles that were filmed for the movie. At least we get a few in the trailer. Julie Andrews has said that over 10 takes were done on the opening scene, and she said on the Ellen show that she recently was able to view some of them at Fox, and a few even show her falling down from the downdraft...and that she would love to see them appear on the next version (this was about a year before the Blu-ray release). I wonder why they have never included them? After all it's one of the most famous scenes in film.

Do you have any knowledge of the 2 deleted scenes, are they lost forever? (Halfway through Do Re Mi, leisl introduces Maria to Rolf) and outside the Trapp Villa at night right before "Something Good" Maria looks up at the Captain on the balcony and he looks back down at her after Elsa goes in to pack her things. There are photos in the book The Sound of Music, America's Favorite Movie of the former, but I've never seen a photo of the latter.

RAH I have one more question. If you are familiar with the RCA soundtrack that has been available for years, you will notice that the music before "The Hills are Alive" is quite different from the lead-up to her twirl in the film. Is there a reason for this? Was what is on the RCA soundtrack something was was to be used and changed for the film after the soundtrack was done? I also notice on the RCA soundtrack there is no guitar at the beginning of Do Re Mi when she first sings "Doe a Deer." Why would the soundtrack album be different? Was this recorded separately from the film's soundtrack?

 

[RobertSiegel]

sorry duplicate post.

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by RobertSiegel /forum/thread/305455/a-few-words-about-the-sound-of-music-in-blu-ray/270#post_3767904


 
 RAH I have one more question. If you are familiar with the RCA soundtrack that has been available for years, you will notice that the music before "The Hills are Alive" is quite different from the lead-up to her twirl in the film. Is there a reason for this? Was what is on the RCA soundtrack something was was to be used and changed for the film after the soundtrack was done?

 I heard that passage of the title song in the trailers as well, and it always sounded to me like it was recorded for the film but then replaced with the portion we know (the variations on the line "my day in the hills", from the opening verse that was only used in the play) but kept for the soundtrack album. I imagine the version heard in the film has always been there. That alternate melody is also from the opening verse. I think the version heard in the film works better; it provides a much better build-up to the introduction of Maria.

 

[John Skoda]

Of course I'm not RAH, but here's my two cents.

In order to get prepare a soundtrack album (especially for a big musical) and have it available at roughly the same time as the film comes out, the record company is usually working from the pre-recordings rather than from the final tracks as heard in the film. Lots of things in the pre-recordings get changed in final post-production of the film.

In your first example, the music heard on the LP before "The hills are alive" was part of the song as written for Broadway. It actually has lyrics that are not heard in the film (you can heard them on the Original Broadway Cast LP). My guess is this music was recorded at the recording session for the song and was originally planned to be used for the opening of the film (before any film was shot). In the final scoring, however, they chose to score the opening with an eye toward enhancing the location footage rather than using this pre-set music.

In "Do-Re-Mi," I bet the guitar was also added in post-production because it would have seemed odd to see a big close up of Julie Andrews playing a guitar and not prominently hear the guitar.