A Few Words About A few words about...™ Mary Poppins -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[haineshisway]

OK. It arrived today and I looked at it. The live action looks good. There is actually some grain here and there, even if it does block up a tiny bit from compression authoring. The overall color balance is shifted way to the cool side. I set my skin tone and hue settings on my projector all the way over to the orange side and boosted the saturation a bit and I got nice skin tones. Before that it was shrimp pink flesh and everything felt gray and cold. As long as it's within the range of adjustment, I'm satisfied.

The animation was exactly as I feared, except they used a few new tricks to get around the live action / animation compositing problems. Scenes without any live action appeared to be cut out, scrubbed, then composited back in over a still frame of the BG. That is what Disney normally does. But the combo scenes were less refined. A scene of lambs jumping over the top of the live action was missing tons of lines, especially around the outside silhouette. Other fast action scenes with camera moves had the same problem.

There were several places where lines popped on and off. This seemed to be because they were selecting the black lines and darkening and spreading them to make them bolder and thicker. Whenever the xerox got wispy, the lines fell off entirely, so there were places where lighter interior lines like on the horse's nose disappeared and crawled from frame to frame.

The underdrawing in the Frank Thomas animation was scrubbed clean. He was had a very loose line that took to xerox really nicely. No more though. The construction lines in the key drawings of the Fox, Squirrel and Penguins had been erased completely. In fact, the Fox looked really bad, because the feathered lines on his tail had been dialed up to the thickness of magic marker. Big spiky blotches. I noticed just one scene where the original xerox lines were intact. It was the scene where it starts raining and the Fox jumps off the fence. I guess the optical of the rain effects over the top made it hard to monkey with the animation, so they just left it be.

I noticed backgrounds not precisely matching camera moves, like the first scene of Dick Van Dyke and the Penguins dancing, and scenes where the composted animation was slightly transparent and you could see the background through them. There was also some of the sulpher screen yellow tinge around the edges of the live characters. These were probably in the original film.

Well it's just ten minutes or so. I don't know why Disney feels the need to go out of their way to mess with stuff though. This is definitely not the way it used to look. It looks more like Saturday Morning TV animation clean up now, not the Nine Old Men.

Thank you for your thoughts, which I completely disagree with I give up.

 

[haineshisway]

These comments are quite facsinating. I too noticed a bit of a cool look to the video portion, and adjusted my projector just a bit for a warmer look. I cannot believe the soundtrack on this! In the overture, when the chorus sings "Chim Chim" I have never heard them sound like that-every other presentation whether it be on laserdisc, DVD or CD was not as gorgeous as this, and those cannon blasts inside the Banks home, plus the glorius sound of that orchestra throughout the film, it is amazing for 1964!

For those of you interested in some Mary Poppins history, I posted an article here on the site:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/327969-mary-poppins-a-look-back/#entry4030257

There is nothing cool about this transfer, color-wise. It's just about perfect. Too blue? C'mon, really This has become such a thing and no one seems to know what Technicolor prints looked like when projected with carbon arc light - BLUE.

 

[haineshisway]

I've seen the Blu-ray and am quite happy with it. Coming from someone that knows little to nothing about color timing, the Blu-ray does look, well, a bit too blue.

For a Technicolor film, the brightness of the colors seem a bit washed out to me. I realize that all of this is subjective and my opinion. I also realize (and this is rarely mentioned), that HD video and film are two different mediums, and it could very well be that this timing is the best it could be for the home environment.

Other Blu-rays struck from Technicolor OCNs seem much more vibrant to me. Maybe this is the way the film originally looked; I have no idea.

On the bright side, the clarity and sound quality are top notch.

Mary Poppins is NOT a Technicolor negative - you can have your opinions, of course, but best to put some facts in the mix - Eastman negative, like every film after three-strip went away. Prints were by Technicolor and there is a frame posted here from a dye transfer print.

 

[bigshot]

When telecine artists look at color balance, the use skin tones as a guide. Do you know anyone as PINK as the people in the blu-ray? Those screen caps of the various releases are telling. Every release of this film seems to have worse color than the one before it.

 

[RobertSiegel]

There is nothing cool about this transfer, color-wise. It's just about perfect. Too blue? C'mon, really This has become such a thing and no one seems to know what Technicolor prints looked like when projected with carbon arc light - BLUE.

I am aware of that, I didn't say it was "wrong" in any way. I merely stated I adjusted my projector a bit for my own taste.

 

[bigshot]

bigshot, does this original 35mm film frame scan help you any?

poppins2.jpg

Try comparing the interior lines on the horse's muzzle to the blu-ray.

 

[bigshot]

I am aware of that, I didn't say it was "wrong" in any way. I merely stated I adjusted my projector a bit for my own taste.

Go ahead and say it. Shrimp pink people and ice cold settings is wrong. I had to go all the way to the edges of my projector's settings for skin tone and hue to get it watchable. The only other film I've had to do that with is Bambi.

 

[haineshisway]

Here's what I'll go ahead and say - actually, I'll let Mr. Harris say it, because he knows this film very well and he knows what dye transfer prints look like when projected with carbon arc, which this film was: "Color, densities, shadow detail (even a bit limited in dupes), and the goddess of grain, are all precisely where they should be, in director Robert Stevenson's 1964 classic."

I agree with him straight down the line. If everyone thinks they know better, more power to them. I don't adjust my settings to some personal like because when the color is right my personal taste doesn't enter into it. It would be like taking Woody Allen's latest yellow-infused film and adjusting my settings because that doesn't appeal to me at all. And that would be wrong, IMO, so I don't do it.

 

[bigshot]

Uh huh.

 

[haineshisway]

Uh huh and bowing out. Thankfully, there will be hundreds of thousands of happy Mary Poppins fans all over the world. And I'm one of them. Ta and I leave you with this from Matt Hough's fine review here at the HTF:

"the color is the most outstanding facet of this transfer. For the first time on home video, the flesh tones look right, neither too brown nor too pink, and the “Jolly Holiday” animation boasts beautifully saturated hues which stun but don’t bloom. Sharpness is excellent (yes, thin matte lines from previous releases are still present on occasion but seem much tamer in high definition), and the transfer offers quite a film-like texture. Black levels are wonderful. The film has been divided into 24 chapters."

 

[Robert Harris]

If I had the time, I'd have my projector calibrated with a special setting, to allow me to view mid-1960s productions as c. 1926 two-color Technicolor -- think gorgeous teal and orange.Actually I may view Gravity in that manner. Didn't care for those black skies. Same problem with 2001. Don't like filmmakers having control.

 

[bigshot]

Filmmakers having control is infinitely superior to lackeys following bone headed instructions from executives. I wouldn't complain as much if the people who made this film were reworking it. But these people had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of these films.

 

[Charles Smith]

Just got back from watching it on Reed's 120" screen, and I think my jaw was on the floor for the entire two-and-a-quarter hours marveling at (among so many other things) the color. Here was a film with people who looked like a group of real people, with varying and always realistic flesh tones. If anyone had gotten up to touch that dial, I would have been forced to utter something impolite.

And oh yes, that orchestra. My god. I have never appreciated it like this before. That alone brings Mary Poppins into the company of the great roadshow films. And there is so much more...

I got to revisit my 14th year on earth tonight.

 

[Bryan^H]

For those who love the cinema, this is one of those Blu-rays that will make the hair on the back of your neck rise to attention.

Thanks for the glowing recommendation Robert. I love Cinema, and never having seen this film and how you describe it makes me wonder how I missed this title for so many years.
I think I'm in for a treat.

 

[stevenHa]

Just curious if Mr. Harris had any opinion on the issue with the line quality on the restored animation sequence - if the alterations as reported were so this would be a noticeable loss for art fans who greatly appreciate seeing the nine old men's unaltered handiwork.

 

[Cinescott]

My only point (and yes, it is an opinion), is that for better or worse, Mary Poppins seems to have been dialed towards the cool (blue) end of the visible spectrum. If anyone can tell me definitively that this is the way the Technicolor prints were projected in 1964, that's fine. I have nothing to gain either way. I'd probably be more pleased if this is the case.

I have no intentions of dialing the colors on my LED to match my personal preference. I want to view it as the colors are encoded on the disc and more importantly, how the film was shown in theaters. The screen cap (yes, I know the dangers inherent of even bringing this up) shown on the previous page taken from the Blu-ray is quite indicative of the timing throughout the disc according to my eyes. Am I terribly upset? No. Do I want Disney to recall anything? No. Will I be displeased whenever I watch Mary Poppins in the future? No.

All I have to offer as background for my statements is 50 years of watching films, both theatrically and at home. At no time theatrically did I ever see a film look like this disc looks (as a supposed representation of the theater-going experience). I also realize that it can be a difficult balance to give HD video a colorful, vibrant look without going too far in the opposite direction and making skin look like everyone is an Oopma Loompa. No one can argue, however, that there are not decisions being made during the video transfer process related to color and that as with any human element, the decisions made should be subject to opinion and challenge when something as culturally important as Mary Poppins comes to home video. I completely respect the opinions of the film experts on this forum and value their opinions. However, I do not feel that if my opinion differs in the slightest from anyone's, no matter who, that it should be negated.

 

[Rob_Ray]

All I can tell you, Scott, is that after watching Mary Poppins for thirty years on various video incarnations from mutliple laserdiscs, through mulitiple DVDs and now this BluRay, they've finally gotten the color to match what I remember seeing in theatres back in 1965 when I first saw it. But fifty-year-old memories are a funny thing and I can't swear that what's on the BluRay is accurate or not. All I know is that the dimly lit scene in Mr. Dawes Sr.'s office gave me chills of deja vu that I have never experienced before.

 

[Mark Booth]

Sometimes I'm glad I'm not an expert. I'm picky enough about image quality as it is.

^^^^
This!

bigshot, I respect your credentials and passion. I also find myself feeling sorry for you that your passion prevents you from enjoying what is a MARVELOUS presentation by Disney!

Mark

 

[Charles Smith]

Right, 50-year-old memories are a risky think to trot out. Especially for us laypeeps!
But re the "blue" comments...

Any time over the past whatever numbers of years that I've thought back to my first times seeing MARY POPPINS, I see in my mind's eye: the color blue! This movie is full of blue, from much of the advertising to the main and end titles to many of the scenes, and... you name it. Blues and greens, with all manner of other color highlights. (Duh. What am I saying here? Obviously nothing profound.) But though I'm NO expert at this, this Blu-ray brought back my original visions/images of this film as seen in 1964 or 1965 or whenever the post-roadshow engagement opened in my town.

And this might not apply to anyone in this thread, but obviously there's quite a backlash against the absurd blue and green treatment in all the films cranked out for the kiddies today (and I hate and ridicule it as much as the next guy). But I think it's to the point that sometimes we think we see that treatment -- even when we don't. I don't see it here AT ALL. This is what color films used to look like. It certainly is what MARY POPPINS has always looked like to me. Rightly or wrongly, mistakenly or otherwise...

 

[JoshZ]

I was especially disappointed in the color changes to Pinocchio and Alice in Wonderland. It's not that I don't enjoy the blu-rays, but they're certainly not quite the films I fell in love with.

I'm the first person to complain about the teal & orange fad in movies made today, and the revisionist timing of some live action features to make them look more "modern," but when it comes to the alleged recoloring of Disney animation, I have to wonder against what reference they're being compared? An old DVD or VHS? Memories of a theatrical screening from 60 to 70 years ago?