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

[Damin J Toell]

You may want to take a look at the DVD Review article linked above, if this is what you're talking about:

'After having had his first run at the transfer of the movie, director Robert Wise and the DVD’s producer Michael Matessino were brought in to examine the results. “There was one scene in the movie right after the opening credits, where the colors began to fade,” John recalls an especially funny anecdote. “Frame by frame I corrected them and brought the level back to what they should look like. When the director came in to take a look at the reel, he looked at me and said, “No, no, what did you do?” It turns out that he actually wanted to have the shots turn to an amber look to show the Golden Age of the thirties, which I didn’t know. So I spend hours, fixing these frames by mistake.”'

As for the article itself, I think it is quite informative, and it says much more about John Sellars than THX.

DJ

 

[Stephen PI]

Matching density, when going in and out of opticals, is usually down to the telecine colorist.

 

[Darrell S.]

In regards to above posting by Damin, in the scene after the opening titles where we get the little blurb "IN THE LAST GOLDEN YEARS OF THE THIRTIES" with a shot of Salzburg the background, it has always morphed into a pinkish-orange color underscored by a change from upbeat to a slightly-sad brooding score which I always noticed and loved. It creates a melancholy mood of longing for something beautiful that will never exist again before the destruction of war, foreshadowing what this movie was going to be about. Also, the man who directed this, Robert Wise, whom we just recently lost, was the editor for CITIZEN KANE which created a whole new, offbeat editing style the world had never seen before using jump cuts and unexpected cuts giving the viewer an unsettling feeling.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

It's always a pleasure to read such excellent discussion from so many well-informed, and articulate members.

this thread has got class.

 

[Darrell S.]

David Boulet,

We're just trying to keep up with you... :star:

 

[DaViD Boulet]

:b


Ok...after re-reading the EXCELLENT article previously posted:

http://www.dvdreview.com/html/sound_..._special.shtml

A few things occur to me. Firstly...I'm betting that those "DVD to laserdisc" comparisons are NOT screen-grabs from the final mastered DVD (was it even available when the article was written?). Look at them...they don't look like the DVD grabs from Ron's post. In fact...they look more like the NEW DVD grabs in terms of contrast and "EE". I'll bet they are SD downconverted images given to the author right from the HD master...just like the laserdisc grabs were actually sourced from studio files (not scraped off a production laserdisc).


Old DVD, New DVD, cap from film-tape article (SD/LD):






One more:






Especially in that last trio, it seems to me that the SD version touted in the article looks much closer (almost identical) to the NEW DVD release...not the first. (p.s. I even saved the split-screen image on my PC, enlarged it and viewed it side-by-side with new and old DVD images...and it clearly is most like the new in contrast and lack of EE. Only difference is the new DVD appears to have a smoother, grain-free image like Lowry or some similar company has helped clean it.)


Nothing bad about the current DVD that we've criticized seems transfer-related...and it was clear reading that article just what great care Fox took in the whole transfer process (for instance...not applying any DNR to the HD master to allow for future, better algorithms to be employed at a future date). That shows a lot of forethought...and a lot of sensitivity and respect for that artistry of the film.



My guess...that film-tape transfer was just as great as the article makes it out to be. It was only LATER when someone in another department got their hands on the SD master and was told to "prep this for DVD" that all the electronic muddling took place.

Can anyone confirm one way or the other if this new DVD is sourced from the same film-tape transfer as the previous disc? I did notice from Ron's screen grabs that the new DVD opens up the vertical plane of the image just a tad...so that makes me wonder.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I thought about this while looking at the article this morning after not having seen it for a couple of years, and I think you're right. Just as Sharpline Arts provided shots from the LD master, I wouldn't be surprised if John Sellars/HTV/Sharpline/Fox (or something along the chain there) provided shots directly from the final HD master.

DJ

 

[Darrell S.]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole point of using TODD-AO to get the sharpest, most detailed image possible? The previous DVD looks like there are thousands of little electronic worms swimming through everyone's face. It doesn't resemble natural film grain, but some kind of electronic anomale like you would see on a bad computer download. If you watch any of the documentaries, every single person remarks as to how it rained the whole time they were shooting. They even shot some of the scenes by the lake during the rain with a tarp over them. You can even see the rain drops falling into the pond behind them. This might account for some of the hazy quality and shady look to many of the outdoor scenes. Aside from all these technical points, it will be wonderful to finally have a version of this film that showcases Julie Andrews at the top of her game. This is her movie and her restrained and nuanced performance makes every frame she appears in sparkle and ignite the screen.

 

[TedD]

Unfortunately, history shows that it doesn't seem to work out that way.

Although the 65mm negative and IP are unquestionably the most detailed elements extant, it seems like the state of the art advancements seem to show up first in film scanners that donn't support 65mm.

Note that the Spirit 4K in the reference below doesn't do 65mm. However, the Northlight does, although not in real time at 4K. Unfortunately, the Northlight was not an option when many of the existing 70mm films, including SOM were transferred.

http://www.mvfinc.com/services/digital_intermediate.htm
Has some pictures and descriptions of 4K state of the art film scanners.

It's a shame that a new transfer for SOM wasn't done on the Northlight. I still see what I would consider an objectionable amount of EE in the screen caps from the new release of SOM.

So a studio that made the choice to use a 70mm (actually 65mm) element could only choose from telecines that weren't state of the art.

The 65mm film width also makes it much more difficult to keep the entire negative/interpositive in position in the focal plane of the optical system. This can lead to poorer resolution and an in and out of focus problem. (See the original Oklahoma! DVD for a real live example of the problem).

The only way to do a good high res (4K) transfer is to use a non real time system (anywhere from 20 to 60 seconds per frame) which takes a long time and doesn't come cheap.

BTW, tape is an outmoded method for storing the 4K output of the modern film scanner. The amount of data resulting from scanning frame at 4K is so large that the scanners normally output via a SCSI channel or SAN (Storage Area Network) directly to computer harddisks.

The harddisks are then backed up to tape(s) which are used to transport the data. Upon receipt of the tapes, the data is restored onto harddisks for further processing.

Ted

 

[Darrell S.]

When I look at the screen comparisons between the old and new DVD, they appear to be the exact same print. It just looks like they electronically lightened it and digitally smeared out the electronic worms. In other words, it doesn't seem like they went back to the original elements or negative and struck a new print. It looks like they just took the existing DVD and tweaked it a little. I would love to know from Herb or anyone at Fox exactly what has been done. The color temperature and framing seem to be exactly the same.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Looks like Fox did what Columbia (and RAH) did with Lawrence of Arabia: Superbit. Went back to the HD transfer and made a new DVD master without all the added "enhancement".

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Actually, I think the processing worked in the reverse order...I'll bet the image started out looking more like the NEW DVD and was digitally modified to look more like the old.

See the caps I posted earlier...magnify that image from the web article and compare side-by-side with the old/new DVD. Aside from less grain, the new DVD looks very much like these "grabs" during the film-tape transfer write up. It's the first DVD image that deviates the most...being much darker and more "hardened" in details through electronic "enhancement".

 

[Darrell S.]

What you say makes sense, David. So we are not getting a new restoration from the original film negative. We are getting what we should have gotten from the first DVD before it was tweaked into oblivion. This is hilarious. Oh well, we'll get some new extras and less worms.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

My suspician is, just like the new My Fair Lady and Lawrence of Arabia, that's the case.

However...someone reading this board *has* to have insider info to know for sure if the new DVD is sourced from the same film-tape/HD transfer as the previous. Please let us know!!!

 

[Dennis*G]

I know I am wrong in thinking this way, but to me the older version looks better, same with the new Wizard of Oz (I like the looks of the old). But I know from reading that the new version is the more correct version.

I'll have to blow these up tonight like stated and see the EE, maybe that will change my mind.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Exactly. I'd go even farther and say we really need to see the images scalled 720P or higher and projected to really see which image is "better"...sometimes EE can make smaller-screen images look "sharper" which...after all...is why they added it in the first place.

 

[DeeF]

I'll ask my friend at Rodgers and Hammerstein if he knows about the transfer. He's the one that leaked the new versions of Oklahoma! and State Fair, so he might have an answer (as to whether it's a new transfer, or just a re-tweaked one).

 

[Kevin M]

Well I guess I can scrap my plans for linguini tonight.... .

 

[Jeff Whitford]

I like Ron cannot see EE and I dont want to. I like Dennis, think the original still looks better. I have a 110" screen so im showing it plenty big. The first DVD is a little contrasty but im willing to accept that for the sharper picture. I don't see myself upgrading my current disc.
I really hesitated posting this because I was basically called an idiot after my first post in this thread but im sure there are others that feel the way I do. I/others hopefully won't be brutalized for my/our opinions.

 

[Scott Kimball]

I don't think anyone is an "idiot" for not seeing edge enhancement. But I'm the opposite of you, since I can easily spot it on a 32" screen most of the time. Some people just don't have the eye to evaluate all aspects of an image. And, considering that edge enhancement is designed to mimic a sharper image, it's no wonder that many people can't see it. Once you learn to separate edge contrast from detail and acutance, you find excessive EE to be a very bad thing. That's not to say that EE doesn't have its place - digital sampling reduces acutance - some of which can have "apparent" recovery through enhancement. It can't be used like a global on/off switch, however. It has to be applied discretely and appropriately, if at all.

To me, judging by the screen captures, the new SOM is vastly superior to the old. The EE in the old was only one of the problems, not only causing ringing and harshness, but pushing the grain as well. The pushed contrast and lack of shadow detail is just as bad to me.

-Scott