A Few Words About A few words about...™ Seven Brides for Seven Brothers -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[bujaki]

I was somewhat amused by the title of the song "Going Coitin'," instead of "Going Courtin." A Freudian slip from Darthkarki?

 

[David Norman]

Let me re-write the joke:
Excluding empty-stocked Amazon...David Norman has listed 7 Sellers for 7 Buyers. Coincidence?

Dmn th trpds - fll spd ahd

Flew right by me -- but pretty funny despite having to be bottle fed to the punchline

 

[Conrad_SSS]

This Blu-ray release is a tremendous triumph, and worth the long wait.

The CinemaScope version looks better than I ever hoped it could, and the widescreen version is significantly improved. I thought the sound on both versions was excellent. I strongly disagree with the notion that there is any synch issue with the footsteps on the 'Scope version.

I pre-ordered mine from Amazon as soon as it became possible to do so, and my copy arrived yesterday. I was (and remain) thrilled.

I also have to acknowledge the thrill of watching the M-G-M Jubilee Overture in High Definition and with 5.1 audio. That alone makes this the bargain of the century.

...and to those who have yet to purchase the superb release, I noticed that it is now again available to order from Amazon.

 

[RichMurphy]

Got my copy today and sampled both the CinemaScope and "flat" versions, and Darthkarki is correct: in the CinemaScope version of the barn raising dance, the dancers are slightly out of step with the music. Again, the picture and sound are perfectly synchronized -- it's the music and the dancers' steps that are a little bit off. On the flat version, the dancers are on the beat with the music.

You really have to listen very closely to notice this -- I didn't notice it at all upon first viewing, but was curious after reading this thread. And in any event, it is not an issue for me. It's such a joy to see this classic looking as good as it does.

 

[Robert Harris]

Got my copy today and sampled both the CinemaScope and "flat" versions, and Darthkarki is correct: in the CinemaScope version of the barn raising dance, the dancers are slightly out of step with the music. Again, the picture and sound are perfectly synchronized -- it's the music and the dancers' steps that are a little bit off. On the flat version, the dancers are on the beat with the music.

You really have to listen very closely to notice this -- I didn't notice it at all upon first viewing, but was curious after reading this thread. And in any event, it is not an issue for me. It's such a joy to see this classic looking as good as it does.

Much of this depends upon the condition of the elements, and technicians do whatever they can to hit perfection. When we discovered the original stereo tracks for Vertigo, the main title mag was so shrunken that it would not run on sprockets without self-destructing.

We ran it, with Mike Hyatt holding it physically against the playback head, while I poured lubricant over his fingers. There’s no way that it could have kept sync.

Don’t know if there might have been a similar situation, but every mix is slightly different, especially as acetate and mag ages, and goes vinegar.

One can find themselves working with any number of disparate elements.

I’ve seen stems where some were original and others were x copies, made from extremely shrunken originals.

Having been there, it’s not something that I would ever attempt to second guess.

I’m thrilled with what’s been done.

 

[darthkarki]

The comparison can't stand as they're from different versions of the film, with different takes, different tracks, and obviously different sync for a different mix.

Alrighty, here's the comparison with the Cinemascope version from the older 2000 DVD. Same version of the film, same take, same track, different sync:

 

[Will Krupp]

When the movie was made, their budget was cut and they had to use Ansco color!

Just to be clear, the use of Ansco Color had nothing to do with budget restrictions. Ansco Color, the American version of Agfacolor, was primarily used by MGM during the second half of 1953 when the process was still actively attempting to compete with Eastman's new color negative. In addition to SEVEN BRIDES, MGM also produced THE LONG LONG TRAILER, KISS ME KATE, & BRIGADOON in the process. There are. I'm sure, some others I can't remember at this moment.

The reason Ansco is problematic and "soft" is because, like German Agfacolor before it, Ansco used color couplers that were larger than their corresponding film grain in order to trap them in their respective emulsion layers and avoid dye wander. The larger couplers resulted in a "thicker" negative that allowed light scatter and a correspondingly softer image. Eastmancolor (based on the Agfacolor patent, by the way) encased their couplers in droplets of oil that formed tiny clouds of color during development and allowed for a thinner negative with a sharper image.

 

[Cineman]

Alrighty, here's the comparison with the Cinemascope version from the older 2000 DVD. Same version of the film, same take, same track, different sync:

Ok, I hear a difference. However, this is what I believe I am hearing in those barn dance sequences and the reason for the difference...in the 2000 DVD (old mix), it sounds as though I am only hearing the taps of perhaps just four people (two couples) even though there are 12 people (six couples) dancing in the scene. If anything, I think the foley sounds for this version are not realistic for what one would hear with 12 people slapping their boots and shoes on a stage. However, in the 2005 DVD (new mix), it sounds as though I am hearing MORE taps, as though it is actually coming from 12 people, three times as many couples. That version has a more "crowded" sound, more realistic in terms of what is actually happening during this sequence imo; a large group of people, half of whom have never met, never danced with each other before, certainly not portraying a well-rehearsed dance troupe, slamming their boots and shoes on a barn floor.

A broad musical analogy between the two versions might be like the difference between suddenly asking a roomful of strangers to sing the Star Spangled Banner (the 2005 DVD) vs what one would hear from a rehearsed quartet (the 2000 DVD). Even if there had been no rehearsal at all, it is logical that the quartet is going to sound tighter and more unified than a roomful of people.

If, as you have also pointed out, the foley sounds of the taps match the feet of 12 people as you see it visually in the 2005 DVD (new mix), then I would say the foley sounds are correct. To whatever extent they do not match as perfectly to the beat as what is heard in the 2000 DVD (old mix), I believe that is due to the fact that there are FEWER boots on the ground sounds in that older mix and, therefore, the 2005 DVD (new mix) version offers less likelihood of it sounding as though they were in perfect unison with each other much less with the beat of the soundtrack for just that short amount of screen time.

Then again, maybe I am not hearing what I think I am hearing. Do you or anyone else hear noticeably MORE boots and shoe tapping foley in that 2005 DVD (new mix) version than in the 2000 DVD (old mix) version? The right amount of foley for 12 people rather than for just 4 or so?

That would not be nearly the same issue with the Goin' Courtin' sequence, where there are, at most, three couples dancing at the same time and not for as long as there are 12 or more people dancing in the barn dance sequence.

btw, I think it is interesting that you noticed this, pointed it out and didn't give up. Seriously. But I do believe at this point that it is the difference between too few taps in the older mix foley, and therefore more likely to sound tighter and right on the beat, vs about the right number of them in the new mix foley even though adding more boot and shoe sounds would naturally make it sound less tight and less perfectly on the beat and unified. More like a "crowd", so to speak.

 

[Tino]

Just ordered from Amazon

In Stock

Same day delivery.

 

[Robert Harris]

Ok, I hear a difference. However, this is what I believe I am hearing in those barn dance sequences and the reason for the difference...in the 2000 DVD (old mix), it sounds as though I am only hearing the taps of perhaps just four people (two couples) even though there are 12 people (six couples) dancing in the scene. If anything, I think the foley sounds for this version are not realistic for what one would hear with 12 people slapping their boots and shoes on a stage. However, in the 2005 DVD (new mix), it sounds as though I am hearing MORE taps, as though it is actually coming from 12 people, three times as many couples. That version has a more "crowded" sound, more realistic in terms of what is actually happening during this sequence imo; a large group of people, half of whom have never met, never danced with each other before, certainly not portraying a well-rehearsed dance troupe, slamming their boots and shoes on a barn floor.

A broad musical analogy between the two versions might be like the difference between suddenly asking a roomful of strangers to sing the Star Spangled Banner (the 2005 DVD) vs what one would hear from a rehearsed quartet (the 2000 DVD). Even if there had been no rehearsal at all, it is logical that the quartet is going to sound tighter and more unified than a roomful of people.

If, as you have also pointed out, the foley sounds of the taps match the feet of 12 people as you see it visually in the 2005 DVD (new mix), then I would say the foley sounds are correct. To whatever extent they do not match as perfectly to the beat as what is heard in the 2000 DVD (old mix), I believe that is due to the fact that there are FEWER boots on the ground sounds in that older mix and, therefore, the 2005 DVD (new mix) version offers less likelihood of it sounding as though they were in perfect unison with each other much less with the beat of the soundtrack for just that short amount of screen time.

Then again, maybe I am not hearing what I think I am hearing. Do you or anyone else hear noticeably MORE boots and shoe tapping foley in that 2005 DVD (new mix) version than in the 2000 DVD (old mix) version? The right amount of foley for 12 people rather than for just 4 or so?

That would not be nearly the same issue with the Goin' Courtin' sequence, where there are, at most, three couples dancing at the same time and not for as long as there are 12 or more people dancing in the barn dance sequence.

btw, I think it is interesting that you noticed this, pointed it out and didn't give up. Seriously. But I do believe at this point that it is the difference between too few taps in the older mix foley, and therefore more likely to sound tighter and right on the beat, vs about the right number of them in the new mix foley even though adding more boot and shoe sounds would naturally make it sound less tight and less perfectly on the beat and unified. More like a "crowd", so to speak.

I believe the difference between the two, is that the re-mix has returned to the original elements. The older mix, which was the original 4-track, had been used to strike many prints, and was worn. A mag master is a printing plate, with frequencies that literally wear away.

One can hear that throughout My Fair Lady. When we were able to actually harvest an image from the original (except one reel) 6-tracks, at 96k, it was as if a veil had been lifted, and many nuances came to the fore.

 

[darthkarki]

...it sounds as though I am only hearing the taps of perhaps just four people (two couples) even though there are 12 people (six couples) dancing in the scene. If anything, I think the foley sounds for this version are not realistic for what one would hear with 12 people slapping their boots and shoes on a stage. However, in the 2005 DVD (new mix), it sounds as though I am hearing MORE taps, as though it is actually coming from 12 people, three times as many couples. That version has a more "crowded" sound, more realistic in terms of what is actually happening during this sequence imo; a large group of people, half of whom have never met, never danced with each other before, certainly not portraying a well-rehearsed dance troupe, slamming their boots and shoes on a barn floor.

A broad musical analogy between the two versions might be like the difference between suddenly asking a roomful of strangers to sing the Star Spangled Banner (the 2005 DVD) vs what one would hear from a rehearsed quartet (the 2000 DVD). Even if there had been no rehearsal at all, it is logical that the quartet is going to sound tighter and more unified than a roomful of people.

...

Then again, maybe I am not hearing what I think I am hearing. Do you or anyone else hear noticeably MORE boots and shoe tapping foley in that 2005 DVD (new mix) version than in the 2000 DVD (old mix) version? The right amount of foley for 12 people rather than for just 4 or so?

It's actually the exact same foley track. All the sounds are exactly the same. As Robert pointed out, the difference you are hearing is the much better quality of the new mix, which does sound a lot louder and more distinct. That is a good thing, but it's completely unrelated to the timing of the foley in relation to the music.

 

[Robert Harris]

It's actually the exact same foley track. All the sounds are exactly the same. As Robert pointed out, the difference you are hearing is the much better quality of the new mix, which does sound a lot louder and more distinct. That is a good thing, but it's completely unrelated to the timing of the foley in relation to the music.

Your point is taken, and it’s interesting.

And you’re obviously knowlegable in the music and dance arena.

What we don’t know is what problems, if any, may have been encountered in getting those half century old mags, to run. For example, did the mx track even have sprocket holes?

As I’ve noted in other responses, in short, been there, done that, and sometimes, based on element condition, perfection may not always be possible. The alternative would have been to use a worn, sonically imperfect master, vs original tracks.

I do know that the original 4 track, or an x-copy, was used as an audio guide. There must have been some tech reason, why it may not be precisely the same.

If I had to hazard a guess, I’d think that the mx was slightly shrunken.

We’re fortunate to have what we do.

With Vertigo, we had virtually nothing to which to return.

In the case of 7B47B, for those who find this one sequence problematic, there is always the old DVD.

 

[Cineman]

It's actually the exact same foley track. All the sounds are exactly the same. As Robert pointed out, the difference you are hearing is the much better quality of the new mix, which does sound a lot louder and more distinct. That is a good thing, but it's completely unrelated to the timing of the foley in relation to the music.

Well, I don't think the timing of the foley is off in relation to the feet or the music. There is just so much more audible foley sound for the sequence in the 2005 DVD (new mix) than in the 2000 DVD (old mix), that we are now hearing more boots and shoes hitting the floor, some of which are only meant to convey the ambiance of a large group of dancers just getting started.

The particular section of the sequence you are focusing on is not about wowing the audience with dancing skill and precision. Not yet. For the beginning of that sequence, the filmmakers and foley techs were not tasked with trying to match some amazing steps and taps by Gene Kelly or Eleanor Powell. In fact, I would argue they are not even expecting you to focus all that much on the music or dancing at all just yet at this earliest stage of the sequence, but on the conflict and confrontational body language of the actors. In terms of dancing in this sequence, nobody has gotten "really good" yet, you know? At this stage of the sequence, these townfolk are kind of just shuffling along and trying to figure out where this is going and what to do next. I don't mean in a sloppy way. Just in a less than precise professional dancer way. The characters have not yet decided to make this a dancing skills showdown. The time for hearing and seeing some amazing footwork is yet to come, pretty much exactly where you cut off the clip and most certainly where Jane Powell (Millie) dances with Tommy Rall (Frank). And I don't think you have been asserting that those later sections of the barn dance are off in terms of foley, right?

Maybe the improved source foley sounds for the 2005 DVD (new mix) should have been mixed to bring out the on-the-beat taps, make them more prominent, and tone down the ones put there just to flesh out the ambiance of the group. I don't even know if that is possible, just riffing here. lol.

Otherwise, how can the foley match what we see the feet doing when we can clearly see the dancers' feet are matching the beat of the music yet argue that the foley is somehow not matching the beat of the music as well? You know; A = B. B = C. Therefore, A = C, no? I'm not trying to be cute about it. I'm just saying we cannot then arrive at the conclusion that A does not = C in this case.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I hear exactly what Karl is talking about. The foley effects in the Cinemascope version sound like they are a fraction of a second behind the music beat. Just a fraction. But enough to make it sound "off." Based on the video, the mudisc is right but the fx of the dancers' sounds are off just a hair.

Not a dealbreaker for me, but it's there.

Even if the original elements were in rough shape, I would think that would be an easy fix in this non-linear age.

As I sampled the disc last night (looking forward to a full viewing sometime VERY soon), I thought the music in the Cinemascope version really jumped off my system. it sounded beautiful.

It was very interesting to watch the different takes in some of the songs by sampling the flat version. Fun!

 

[darthkarki]

There is just so much more audible foley sound for the sequence in the 2005 DVD (new mix) than in the 2000 DVD (old mix), that we are now hearing more boots and shoes hitting the floor, some of which are only meant to convey the ambiance of a large group of dancers just getting started.

If it was just more sound, you would still have taps matching the beat of the music. But there aren't. Again, if you listen close, it's the exact same sounds. They are louder and easier to hear, but they're the same. And they're not in the same place.

Otherwise, how can the foley match what we see the feet doing when we can clearly see the dancers' feet are matching the beat of the music yet argue that the foley is somehow not matching the beat of the music as well? You know; A = B. B = C. Therefore, A = C, no? I'm not trying to be cute about it. I'm just saying we cannot then arrive at the conclusion that A does not = C in this case.

^ There's your mistake. They aren't. The foley matches the video. The foley does not match the music. Therefore, the music does not match the video.

Foley = A
Video = B
Music = C

A = B
A != C
Therefore, B != C

Again, this is a separate question. I've established the foley and music are out of sync, leaving the video out of it. Your question is which one is out of sync with the video. Clearly it's the music.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I hear exactly what Karl is talking about. The foley effects in the Cinemascope version sound like they are a fraction of a second behind the music beat. Just a fraction. But enough to make it sound "off." Based on the video, the mudisc is right but the fx of the dancers' sounds are off just a hair.

Not a dealbreaker for me, but it's there.

Even if the original elements were in rough shape, I would think that would be an easy fix in this non-linear age.

As I sampled the disc last night (looking forward to a full viewing sometime VERY soon), I thought the music in the Cinemascope version really jumped off my system. it sounded beautiful.

It was very interesting to watch the different takes in some of the songs by sampling the flat version. Fun!

The question I have is would you have noticed it if it wasn't pointed out in this thread?

 

[darthkarki]

The question I have is would you have noticed it if it wasn't pointed out in this thread?

I certainly don't want to "ruin" the movie for anyone else. If others don't hear it or aren't bothered, that's fine. It does bother me though. Possibly others throughout the world as well. I'd like WB to be made aware of the issue in the hopes that it might be fixed in the future, and I don't know how else to do that but post about it where I can.

So the question I have is, if it does become fixed in the future for those of us who do care, would that somehow lessen your enjoyment?

Anyway, I'll be done now. I appreciate everyone taking the time to consider this issue, regardless of how unimportant it may seem to you.

 

[Mike Frezon]

The question I have is would you have noticed it if it wasn't pointed out in this thread?

Well, the foley track on the Cinemascope version DOES kinda make the dancers sound more like a bunch of Dutch clog dancers.

But the direct answer to your question is...I'm not sure. Maybe not. I wish I had had a chance to find out. But I can't.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, the foley track on the Cinemascope version DOES kinda make the dancers sound more like a bunch of Dutch clog dancers.

But the direct answer to your question is...I'm not sure. Maybe not. I wish I had had a chance to find out. But I can't.

My guess is that most of us wouldn't even notice it. I know once I receive my copy and I pop the disc in, I'll be too wrapped up in the film to notice foley effects.

 

[Robert Harris]

The question I have is would you have noticed it if it wasn't pointed out in this thread?

I did not. I was bowled over the the overall image and audio quality, seen here for the first time since the ‘60s!