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

If the old is on top it looks significantly sharper.

I'm guessing that the newer version has less video processing (EE, etc.), and thus looks smoother. The colors seem cooler as well.

Now normally I'm a born pessimist. The cup is half empty. If it can go wrong, it will go wrong. However, I'm looking at those screen grabs and thinking "what an improvement in the contrast range. I can see a lot more details than I could before. I can also see where Ted McCord was going after a soft-focus look that was ruined by the contrast-hike in the old copy."

I think it looks a vast improvement. Have the weird exposure variations on the background plates of the titles been smoothed out? Or is that a sacred element of the movie not to be fooled with? :wink:

Wow. The increased detail and sharpness in the top (old) version is astounding.

Hard to pass final judgement on small screen captures, but...

Less EE, better dynamic range, more shadow detail - in the new version.

More high frequency detail in the old version... but how much of that is "artificial" detail from sharpening? Hard to tell without seeing fullsize frames - which I have never seen.

Look forward to a full review. I never purchased the last version - but I'm waiting for a proper release.

-Scott

Thanks for the info Ron!!!

But a word to the wise...don't react too quickly to these small screen captures and try to form any absolute conclusions. Like Scott says, the degree of real image resolution can't be determined from such a small image...you'd have to see it big. It's possible that the old version is sharper, but it's also possible that when properly scaled and displayed at a large size, the new version reveals much more low-level detail that is obscured in the original version due to EE.

I can't wait to get my hands on this disc and compare for myself...though like many of you my initial reaction from the screen caps isn't overwhelmingly optimistic (I like the bolder black level of the original based on these images). Still...keeping an open mind until I see these images *big*...

Thanks again Ron!!!

dave

deleted my own post. sorry.

What's with the tiny screen shots? Where's Bjoern when you need him?

Assuming the new transfer gives us a significantly lower level of electronic edge enhancment, this is why studios still use EEE on transfers: with a small enough image, the false sharpness causes some viewers to (also falsely) perceive increased resolution.

DJ

Well said, Ron.

Let's also just say that is a particular rumor I will continue to propagate.

The "sharpness" in the upper screen grabs is edge enhancement, IMHO. The previous release was inundated with it. I, along with many others, are highly (and hopefully) anticipating this new release of Sound of Music.

Ron...could you post a couple of those screen-shots in their native 720 x 480 resolution?



The SOM DVD was one that I showed off to some friends when it first came out...and my non-videophile guests remarked "What's that ghosting around Julie Andrews???" in the opening scene. They saw the EE even without me pointing it out...and that was on a 34" 16x9 monitor...

Preferably the shot of the captain and the Baroness walking by the lake so I can see her dress and find out if they finally got the color right.....

Tim...I read your comments from the email-notification from your post. I hope you don't mind me mentioning it...because I found your thoughts quite interesting...pointing out the irony with the controversy here at HTF regarding several new high-profile title re-releases (Ben Hur, OZ, SOM). I find it rather curious myself, and when Ron posted these screen grabs from the old/new SOM DVD I thought to myself "Wow...here we go angain...another controversial 'improved' DVD presentation!".

What's particularly surprising with this new DVD is the contrast balance change. Robert Wise supposedly signed off on the last transfer and helped guide the process from what I had heard...so that would have led me to believe that the last transfer would have gotten these issues right. The EE that was added to the DVD wasn't something in the original HD transfer...so that wasn't a "Wise Approved" anomoly. Was this new DVD sourced from a whole new film-tape transfer? It's kind of scary to think that so much expertise with such a great title transfered just a couple of years ago would require such a total re-do if that's the case (with OZ it's another issue...that's dealing with registratoin and Ben Hur dealt with a new 65mm properly-framed print).

I really wish I had the film prints in my living room so I could do some *real* A/B comparisons and get to the bottom of all of this!

dave

I don't know which I like better. In the very first capture, the grass and trees look more detailed in the old version. But the gray/green dress -- looks much better in the new version! You can actually see the fabric.

This is perhaps because the newer version seems lighter, overall. But still -- who knows which is right?

Thanks Dave The more I thought about it I decided to delete it and start a new thread. Attached is the link. Robert Harris, as usual, already responded with eloquent wisdom. :b

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=244327

Forget this edition!

I want it on Blu-ray Disc!

I ask again: what's with the tinny screenshots? All the "oh, the one above looks so much detailed" posts are hilarious. You can't even really judge the color pallete correctly with screenshots that size. We should really be judging uncorrected 720x480 screen grabs.