Mary Poppins DVD disappointment......

[Luke]

The following was posted by Atomobile today:

Hello,
I watched the Mary Poppins DVD in "Enhanced Home Theater" sound. I was disappointed. First the picture... while this is the best presentation of the picture on home video, it is not perfect. Some of the skin tones make people look like they have skin cancer. Many of the scenes look overly processed and soft. Other than that it looks good. They have nicely cleaned up the special effect shots that looked so bad before. The soundtrack: I like most of what was done to "enhance" the soundtrack. But I was dissapointed with the EXTREME amount of new sound-effects added to the picture. Many of the sound-effects where replaced with new ones and many more where added for no reason. Everytime there is an outdoors scene there is this loud wind noise added. By the time the picture was over, I felt like I had been in a tornado. Couldn't they have made the new sound effects less audible and made to sound like the rest of the soundtrack? The music.... The biggest disapointment came in the sound of the music. The old 5.1 remix was decent enough, but in an attempt to get rid of hiss, they cut off all highs and mixed the sound with LOTS of low end. It reminds me of the time they "enhanced" the Tiki Room. All boom....
If they had only included a nice 5.1 mix WITHOUT the new sound-effects, I would have been happy. I was looking forward to this release so much. Now I'll have to keep the old DVD just for the good 5.1 soundtrack
Anybody else found this troublesome? I mean, it's one thing when they tinker with 90s released like they have (which I don't mind since I prefer Walt's era), but to change Walt Disney's Masterpiece is another thing all together...
Before anyone says..."Well, Louis, you can always listen to the original mix in 2.0 on the new DVD..." We are used to nice 5.1 mixes from Disney, they have released a good 5.1 mix of Mary Poppins before... why did they make us stick with a 5.1 "enhanced" mix and not give us an option for a 5.1 with the original soundtrack intact? They even included a 2.0 "enhanced" mix. Why? So you can hear the hurricane coming in Stereo too?
Just my humble opinion...
Your friend,
Louis

<hr>

This reply was posted by Jack:

It's probably just because I hadn't seen the film in a long while, but the only new sound effects that stood out for me were those in the beginning, while Bert was doing his one-man-band routine. I have no doubt that there are plenty more, but I didn't notice them.

As for the music, I disagree with you. For a 40 year old movie, the music was astoundingly clear and well-balanced, and the instrumentals sounded like they could've been recorded yesterday.

In the end, there are always pluses and minuses to a 5.1 remix of an older film. However, as long as the original track is provided, I think its great to have on the DVD. While Poppins may not succeed as well as others, its still a wonderful surround track that is quite dynamic, and I'll probably always choose it over the 2.0 audio.

[humphreybear]

If someone has the old dvd (and two vhs versions as well for that matter) is it worth getting the new one? We figured we would, because we seem to end up getting Mary Poppins for some reason over and over, but with these issues brought up I'm sort of having second thoughts.

[Jack]

Humphreybear: Absitively posilutely. Despite little problems with the sound and picture, the movie still looks and sounds better than it ever has. And the extras are spectacular. Deffinately worth another buy!

[Atomobile]

I didn't mean to discourage anyone from buying this DVD. By all means RUN to get yourself a copy. You will never find a more perfect Disney movie. I love the film and it's soundtrack. I'm just disappointed that Disney has such a hard time making everything perfect all the time. They always manage to screw up because they don't want to spend too much money on things. Their video division has made some very bad decissions but they have also made AMAZING box sets. It's hit or miss. Dumbo looked like crap on DVD, Alice and SLeeping Beauty look great.
If I was ever to watch the movie with friends, I would definetly play the "Enhanced" mix just because it's 5.1. It's not the end of the world. But my favorite way to experience the film has now reverted back to listening to the soundtrack. Especially since Randy's new version came out!
Buy the DVD, buy the 2-CD set, and even buy the Karaoke (sp?) CD (uses original soundtrack songs in instrumental version). I hope Bambi and Cinderella look great next year. I hope they don't add wind sounds throughout all of Bambi! I hope they don't re-record the sound effects in Cinderella or re-record the gun shot in Bambi to ricoche (sp?) from Rear Left to Rear Right to Front Left to Front Right....you get the picture...
Your friend,
Louis

[deathie mouse]

Missing in action is also That1GuyPictures review of the disc he posted on the Mary Poppins PRESS Release thread after he got it which was a very interesting post in a similar vein. I hope when he reads this he'll repost his thoughts. I also think someone else replied to that, and gave an opinion but i can't remember who was it.

About the sound mix, well it's a new special edition, so they made a new one I guess. I agree, i think it woulda been a better choice to give the old 2.0, the old 5.1 and the new 5.1 instead of a new 2.0 enhanced remix (the player can do one for you from the 5.1 if you ask it nicely ) Actually as I stated in the other thread, the original soundtrack must have been MONO opical so anything thats not true mono is in sense a remix.
From what i've read from some of the members comments, seems this new remix used NoNoise or some other noise reduction proccess in a way a little not completely transparent.. (Many CD remasters suffer from the same "philosophy" and audiophiles and music lovers seek the older "non digitally remasterd" versions) I guess Disney video editions are like different book editions with different ilustrations sizes typesetting bindings etc. or like snowflakes. I thinik it was mvealf who said not two Disney video editions are ever the same.

About the image quality i have only seen Luke's captures since i dont have the dvd but compared to the Gold DVD capture and mvealf's Japanese LD capture (which i still have, and have it also digitally "dethimastered", among several images i was preparing for the OAR thread) the new DVD image structure seems to look the best (the one with more "clarity") (notwithstanding cropping/color issues, that i'll adress later ). At least on the captures.

[humphreybear]

Thanks for the info and the replies, we'll get it for sure.

[Jordan]

Atomobile, you could also pick up the French set of this 40th Anniversary Edition which, I think, features the original English 5.1 sound instead of the Enhanced Home Theater Mix, but with the French track in 5.1 DTS.

[Atomobile]

Hello,
I don't have a region-free player. Does anyone know if this was released in Mexico? When I was there last summer, I picked up the restored Pinocchio and So Dear to my heart. Both look and sound AMAZING, and they are Region 1 & 4 so I can play it here!!!
Your friend,
Louis

[Lumiere]

yes!
it has already been released here in Mexico...

it is region 1 and 4, with the same cover art, but without slipcover, and you can put the menus in spanish, english, and portuguese, and the documentaries are in english with spanish subtitles.

(also MULAN II and ALADDIN II & III collection has been released here in Mexico, all of them region 1 & 4)...
http://www.disneylatino.com/DisneyVideo ... flash.html

[Atomobile]

It's available in Mexico? Could you please tell me exactly what the audio options are? Is there an English 5.1 soundtrack that is not the "Enchanced" mix? THanks in advance!
Your friend,
Louis

[rb_canadian181]

I asked for it for Christmas. Now i'm not so sure that i want it. How bad is the picture and video. I don' t think i'll be comparing it to any previous transfers, and mainly i just liek the movie and i'm a collector. should i still want it?

[Poppins#1]

Actually as I stated in the other thread, the original soundtrack must have been MONO opical so anything thats not true mono is in sense a remix.

Deathie, I'm not sure if that is your comment or if you are quoting sombody else, but quite frankly I'm shocked that anyone would make such an innaccurate comment. Mary Poppins was originally released in MAGNETIC STEREO which consisted of three or four discrete tracks (depending on whether they opted for a fourth rear/effects track). While film prints no doubt contained an optical mono track as well (a process called Mag-optical which used a ½ width optical track alongside the magnetic tracks), it was still originally mixed it stereo!

I have the new 40th anniversary disc, but unfortunately I've only been able to preview it on my computer. I'm in the process of moving from San Diego to New York City and my home theater system is dissasembled and packed away. So I have to wait 'til I get to New York before I can watch Mary Poppins and Lord of the Rings - Return of the King - Extended edtion. Then I will be able to hear for myself if the EHT mix is as bad as everyone on the net is saying.

[deathie mouse]

No, it's my own statement. Dethi can be wrong, you know.


So you knew for sure Poppins was released in 4 channel, Great!

I found this after i read your post:

"Cinerama at the Syosset was history after that run. The equipment and screen was removed and we went back to 35/70mm operation on the original Todd AO screen, which was rebuilt with a traveler type curtain track that operated also as a side mask for common height, variable width picture formats. The alterations were completed in time for the premier of Walt Disney’s “Mary Poppins” in 35mm 1.85 format and 4 track magnetic stereo sound, in 1964."

So Mary Poppins was released with magnetic tracks in 35mm?!? With those Cinemascope (CS) type smaller sprocket holes (perforations) to make space for the mag tracks? This form is used only for positive stock on which release prints with four magnetic sound-tracks are made. So.. I'm thinking, how would this affect the width of the film! Cus those magnetic tracks took some space out of the image area even on the original Cinemasope format that used the greater Silent Aperture width and no optical track. I thought Mag was only used for Anamorphic films. So also for standart Widescreens?

Of the 4 magnetic tracks (left center right surround), 2 were placed outside the smaller sprockets and 2 were placed inside them, taking up partially the space of the original Silent aperture image area. That's why magnetic Cinemascope prints were only 2.55 wide instead of 2.66 wide (Silent 1.33 x 2(Anamorphisis) = 2.66), some area was covered by the mag tracks even with the extra space recovered from the smaller perforations, and as you know on those there was no optical track. The sprocket wheels and film movement pin mechanisms on the projectors had to be changed for those prints otherwise the sprocket hole would be ripped and torn by the bigger Kodak (KS) or Bell & Howell (BH) type sprocket pins for the standart films.
I'm not up to date on mag-optical prints but, then, what was called Mag-Optical format, was it 2 separate different releases for the same film? One only magnetical (like the image below) and one standart optical 35mm?

Here's a Cinemascope 2.55 mag print, with the reduced size perforations to make space for the mag tracks:




So there were 35mm Magnetic type prints made for Mary Poppins.. Would they be optically recentered to make space for the rightmost magnetic track? Or shot in the camera protecting for that?? Is this the reason or explanation for the misterious rumoured greater shot width than projected Poppins? TA TA TAN! Actually i have been thinking about this possibility but didn't give it much thought cus nobody had mentioned a 4-track mag release.

Even if there where some mag prints made, Mary Poppins must have been released in its great mayority of engagements in standart 35mm optical sound Widescreen prints.

Or IF any of those were magnetic stripped, then at least one of the stripes would have to fall on the image area and cover some of it. In this case, as opposed to optical prints made of early 2.55 wide Cinemascope that had the left side of the photographed image covered, the mag track would cover the right side! <- (In the area between the central image and the right sprocket). I'm trying to visualize one magnetic track falling on the left side between the optical track and the left sprocket too but there's too little space! (That's one reason of the CS type smaller perforation being used for mag Cinemascope.) So i'm thinking they would have to be two totally separate releases and not one with both optical and mag tracks in the same print? (as it is done these days with digital sound havingf simoultaneously 4 types of soundtrack) (Optical DD DTS and SDDS)

yeah the dethi is not so up to date in the million possible combinations of 35mm releases since all the multiple channel combinatons coulda fit into 6 track mag 70mm

Well if you know more about this please do tell us

Well anyway, apart of the confirmation that MP indeed had a magnetic track release, it wouldn't be 2 channel STEREO then, no? Doesn't that make it actually be multitracked 3 or 4 track surround? (unless it used only 2 tracks?) Also since the majority of prints woulda been only optical mono, they would haveyo have made a separate mono mix and that woulda been what the majority of people heard. So Poppins then has BOTH an original MONO and and original MULTI mix.... Interesting.. .(heh almost kind of like a Beatles album )

So then the Stereo 2.0 is NOT the original mix neither! Only a (multi) 4.0 Surround and Mono!
So the original 5.1 might have been made from the real original mix then??
(you only have to pan pot or spread a little the mono surround channel of a 4.0 track to make it 5 channel)

Of course all films soundtracks are made from multiple elements but if there was no stereo release there's usually no stereo mix.

Do you have a list or web site with all mag track releases?

My reference books are all in storage boxes also so mm i can't go look there
so dethi awaits with glee the next Poppins#1 Poppins post
Specially in how this would relate to the Poppins Aspect ratio question cus i can't find a place for those mag tracks on a widescreen print without covering up at least some of the image photographed in the negative!

It's interesting you brought this up. That1GuyPictures mentioned that the minipan/scan of the dvd was sometimes on the left and sometimes on the right, not just centered. If it were on the right only for example that might indicated a space reserved for that rightmost inner sprocket mag track..
(It happens that the frame Luke chose to compare has the right side cropped...)


Mmm does this mean I might have to put on hold my next scheduled Poppins OAR dethi post?

oh no!

which brings me to the reason I came here:

I asked for it for Christmas. Now i'm not so sure that i want it. How bad is the picture and video. I don' t think i'll be comparing it to any previous transfers, and mainly i just liek the movie and i'm a collector. should i still want it?

I think you should still want it

You can have a pretty good notion how the video looks by looking at Luke's captures in this site's Mary Poppins review.

Not exactly like my sig...
_________________
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious OAR pic comparisons now <a href="http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... 524">up</a>.

[Poppins#1]

Deathi, I grabbed this pic off the Widescreen Museum website. It is an example of the mag-optical process which is supposed to be compatible with both formats. As I understand it, this process was quite common in the industry. The Internet Movie Data Base lists Mary Poppins as being recorded in stereo. Since magnetic stereo was the only stereo process available in 1964 (Dolby stereo didn't surface until 1976) one can assume Poppins was in magnetic stereo.

As you can see by the side-by-side comparison, the mag-optical process (left) took up no more space from the picture that traditional optical process (right).

Also I don't know why you thought magnetic stereo was limited to CinemaScope only. "Kiss Me Kate", "House of Wax" and "The Time Machine (1960)" are several examples of non-CinemaScope movies in magnetic stereo.



One more little tidbid, this is just for you Deathi. You will notice that early CinemaScope movies (from 1953-1956) had 2.55:1 aspect ratios. That is because they were magnetic stereo only. But when the industry switched to mag-optical process, the addition of the ½ width optical track next to the magnetic track to the left of the picture, required that a bit of the picture be sacrificed (as did standard optical) resulting in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

[deathie mouse]

Ahhh! Thanks Poppins#1! I needed that!

Last night i went into the widescreenmuseum web site after i read your post but obviously
I didn't search well enough!

I knew about the 2.55 -> 2.35 reduction due to the optical track but i always thought they did separate mag stripped ones (I guess I just thought the image area taken up by the optical track on the regular prints would be matted down/left blank on the mag stripped prints after they switched over to shooting 2.35 Cinemascope, specialy with standart sound aperture cameras.) Obviously I didn''t know of the narrow half width optical track!!

Now i see what you meant by "the * width optical track" I thought that had been a typo! My web browser apparently can't handle the 1/2 character (I'm guessing that's what was under the * originally!)

Heh maybe I read about it sometime before on the net and my web browser always showed a * in any text i read, and i was all the more the blissful fool for it all this time!

Cus I thought the full optical occupied the place of the mag track so it woudn't be compatible, and with that added to the cost of mag stripping they could do only one or the other not both at the same time! (And since they seem to abandoned mag stripping after while, I thought it was because having 2 uncompatible systems they choose the cheaper more common one over the best propietary one) That was another reason i thought it was used for Scope only. Limited releases due to non compability. (Cinemascope movies tended to be showcase ones)
Oh well a vacuum in my head has been filled

mmmm very clever the mag-optical system. By just halving the width of the optical track (Just a loss of 3dB's signal to noise ratio) they suddenly could do simultaneously a compatible release and have full magnetic quality 4-channel hi fidelity surround sound!

So no i didn't know (or remembered if i had seen it somewehre before) that they did mags for standart widescreens, so i hadn't thought of Kiss Me kate, House Of Wax, and the Time Machine too. The reissues i saw of The House of Wax (in 3-D) and the Time Machine where in mono . (or played in a regular optical theaters if the copies where mag stripped) In fact the only mag stripped celluloid i seen during my work was 70mm.. .

So if mag could be used for all 35mm formats, this makes it possible for ALL movies after 1953 to've been in full 4 channel multitrack surround!

(Great, and we went about 30 years going to the movies with only optical mono or just matrixed optical dolby surround :/ Go figure. )

(btw, apart that the home videos of Kiss Me Kate are not in 3-D, i've already seen it released in 4 different asppect ratios/framings. dont know if the last one finally got it right! )

And talking of aspect ratios and Mary Poppins ,
when I overlayed the two formats frames you posted, which as you say, are almost identical, what I thought would be covered on the right by the mag stripe's width turned to be only the extra non visible unused camera aperture area., if at all. (See? thats why it's there folks. One of its many advantages. ::twisted:)

So this brings to a close the final chapter of the Mary Poppins OAR. Since both regular optical prints and mag-opt ones would show the same basic image area, there's no wider shot narrower composed image at all. And a good thing too! That means I don't have to do another round of croppings/framings for the Poppins OAR pics I posted on the other thread this morning!!!

This case is settled. *Plack. Next!

which brings us to:


What >IS< Poppins' OST??

The Internet Movie Data Base lists Mary Poppins as being recorded in stereo. Since magnetic stereo was the only stereo process available in 1964 (Dolby stereo didn't surface until 1976) one can assume Poppins was in magnetic stereo.

and on the previous post:

While film prints no doubt contained an optical mono track as well (a process called Mag-optical which used a * width optical track alongside the magnetic tracks), it was still originally mixed it stereo!

I suppose you said that, in relation to confirming that Poppins had a mag 4-track release, no? You know i belive ya!, ya know

But well, hesitating to contradict a esteemed UD colleague that just showed me something I didn't know (I love learning stuff. That's why i love this site too) I'm shocked someone (or a database) could make such an inaccurate statement I'm just teasing, Poppins#1 , but i truly think that Mary wasn't mixed/recorded to stereo, you know. I'll explain.

You refering to the 4 -track mag format as "magnetic stereo"?

Maybe it's a confusing of our terms.

But i don't think Mary Poppins as recorded in "stereo". That's why I said in the previous posts that I thought the stereo 2.0 mix was not an original one.

When I say Stereo, i mean one of two things:
Recorded in two channels with two microphone heads at least slightly separated (True Stereo recording) or recorded with several microphones/elements into different tracks (multitracks, anything 2 tracks and over) and remixed into a two channel carrier (also called pan potted stereo) for reproduction in only two channels.

Since multitrack magnetic recording had been used for a while, even before the Cinemascope 4-track mag and the 70mm 6-track mag and CINERAMA's 7-track (tho right now I don't remember if the separate 35mm fullcoat was mag or optical) releases in the early 50's, studios were recording soundtracks in multitrack (even those separate music dialogue effects elements for mono films are multitracks)

So Mary Poppins wouldn't have been recorded in stereo but as separate multitrack elements (even if it's 2 channels for music, 1 dialogue and 1 effects, it's 4 track, and the music could have been recorded in 3 tracks or more..)

(For studios, synching diferent tracks was easy cus film is sprocketed so it's movement is fixed mechanically and travels controled by those sprockets and the 24 frames so you could synch multitude of tracks ad infinitum to make more than one channel mixes (witness Fantasound) so they were doing it before record companies too.
I'm sure you know all that, i'm just doing an exposition )

And those multis were mixed to mono for optical prints before Cinemacope and Todd-AO 70 and CINERAMA came around

Since now that you made ME aware that Mary Poppins had 4-track magnetic/optical release, I still say it wasn't done in Stereo, cus then those multitracks elements would have been mixed into 4-track surround. and mono; not Stereo, cus as you said Dolby stereo didn't surface until 1976.*

Unless you mean that the 4-track mag print mix left two channels unused and it was mixed only in true Stereo but wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of making special 4 track magnetic stripped prints in the first place?
(or they also could have recorded the same thing twice into the 4 channels so only 2 were different (hence Stereo) but that last method would be prone to head azymuth problems) (if you ever played a dolby cassette in mono and lost all the highs well that's one of the problems with azymuth)
Also theater sound has always used a center channel to anchor the sound (dialogue) to the screen cus if you have only 2 channels, with speakers at the sides of the screen it could cause a "hole in the middle" or the sound would follow the moviegoer if he sat to the left or to the right. (thats why Dolby Surround with it's matrixed center channel is prefered and used over Dolby stereo too)*

*(by my definition Dolby stereo is stereo and Dolby Surround is not, cus Dolby Surround is multichannel matrixed (coded) into 2 channels for later reproduction on 4 channels)

Maybe it used just 3 channels? (Left Center Right) but 3 channel is not stereo

Well anyway all this diatribe is to say that i think the only "original" stereo mixes were those done for the Lp record

Maybe/probably the 2.0 was made later for Dolby Stereo (or matrixed for Dolby Surround) theatrical rereleases after the 70's, and/or for home video (Dolby stereo VHSs (I have only one stereo VHS tape!), VHS HiFi, Laserdiscs, MTS broadcasts, etc. ?)

So my point is (and ammended too) then, since Poppins what a magneto-optical release, the original Mix (or Mixes) are the Mono one (probably the one heard by the majority of people thru the world then) and the 4.0 Multichannel Surround one. (heard by the people going to a magnetic surround equiped theater) (And hopefully maybe this was the basis for the old 5.1 on the dvd?)

Ahhh UD discussions

What do you think?

[Poppins#1]

Okay Deathi, here's a quick rebuttal. While the term "stereophonic sound" technically means two channels, when it comes to the motion picture industry, it has always been used to describe the 4-track magnetic stereo process. So when I say "magnetic stereo", I am referring to 4-track.

Below is a screencap from Mary Poppins original theatrical trailer. Note the use of the term "stereophonic sound" which we know is 4-track magnetic.



Now, moving on to Dolby: "Dolby Surround" is the moniker that was created for home video. "Dolby Stereo" was the term used for the 2-track optical process used on films. "Dolby Stereo" is and always has been a 4-channel matrix encoded process (2 discrete channels with the center and surround channels being extracted from the matrix.) "Dolby Surround" is just the name used for home video as the exact same mix that was on the 35mm film was duplicated for home video. After digital sound systems finally came to theaters the term "Dolby Stereo" finally died. But "Dolby Surround" continues to be used to describe 2-channel matrix encoded mixes.

[deathie mouse]

just one word to say!
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!