DVDizzy Forum

Who have seen the movie "The Sound of Music"?
What have you collect for the movie?
Do you like the movie?
Which character is your favourite character(Not including the children)?
Which children is you favorite children?

About Me:

Q:What have you collect for the movie?
A:DVD(Five Stars Collection),CD(35th Anniversary Collector's Edition ),Script,and the Music Score.
Q:Do you like the movie?
A:I'd love it! It's My favourite Live Action Movie.
Q:Which character is your favourite character(Not including the children)?
A:Maria
Q:Which children is you favorite children?
A:Liesl

Who have seen the movie "The Sound of Music"?

Unfortunately I've been subjected to it more than once. It was a form of childhood torture inflicted by my mother. I think that is partly why I am so strange now.

What have you collect for the movie?
Well, somehow we wound up with a video and DVD of it, but no.

Do you like the movie?
I think it is responsible for more evils on this planet than organized religion and the Bush administration combined.

So, no.

Which character is your favourite character(Not including the children)?
The curtains. They double as dresses.

Which children is you favorite children?
The quite ones.

Hi Ariel Western! Welcome to the forum. Don't let Loomis scare you, he's gloomy sometimes

's at Loomis

I seen Sound of Music in the theater in 70mm and in school in 16mm or 35mm (i think it was 16mm)

I have Sound of Music in widescreen Laserdisc. The Laserdisc said it preserves the "golden" look the director wanted, but i don't know if that's different from the 5-Star DVD cus i haven't seen the DVD. Or if the "golden" look was on purpose or just print fading on the source of the Laserdisc

I like the movie (i like musicals and widescreen ) Do a Deer o/~

Mmm favorite character i don't think i have one, of the children maybe the one played by Angela Cartwright

I listen to the soundtrack when Im alone on long drives.


Also stayed here for a night in Stowe... that left me broke for a while. :}

Isn't WB supposed to be working on a new 65th anniversary hi-def transfer for dvd?

STASHONE wrote:Isn't WB supposed to be working on a new 65th anniversary hi-def transfer for dvd?

If they are, they need to re-think those plans, because I doubt we'll be buying DVDs still in 2030!

(Oh and it's a Fox movie.)

He musta been thinking 1965 40th and got them mixed up.

How was the 5-Star transfer done? Only from 35mm and/or into SD video?

By 2030 I hope we have a 2000 x 4400 pixel one

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the film elements literally fall apart when making the DVD transfer.

http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_rep ... view/2000/

As a runner up, I think it's fair to say that The Sound of Music may not be a perfect reference disc, but its restoration effort is THE reference of how to restore a print that's 35 years old. It looks terrific and may never look better considering the DVD's transfer was the last given the final, toxic film elements.

haha woops, deathie knows what Im talking about..

Hopefully whatever we have in 2030 DVD's will be able to run on the same machine and won't be a useless relic of the past.

unlikely.

They have kept the 12cm (5") size for 21 years, so they may keep using it for a long while, but by 2030 i think they will have changed other stuff or make them minidiscs with multiple layers/other laser wavelegths apart from the encoding codecs. The codecs can be dealt with in the playe'rs chips, the size in the trays of non portable players. But the lasers, or other methods of reading them... well, maybe players will have multiple wavelenght lasers.

Mmm and by the 23rd century we'll have DPhD (Phaser DVDs! )

DVDFile wrote:The Sound of Music may not be a perfect reference disc, but its restoration effort is THE reference of how to restore a print that's 35 years old. It looks terrific and may never look better considering the DVD's transfer was the last given the final, toxic film elements.

uh oh..

If that's the last transfer it's a tragedy, cus even the PAL dvd would be only about roughly the quality of a 16mm print. And that's what's gonna be the best quality ever???

Netty, do you know of anywhere else that talks about this?
He says a 35 year old *print* , but he must be refering to something else, cus before the print there are internegatives, interpositives and the negative. And there could be b/w separations, specially if 35mm Technicolor reduction prints were ever made somewhere.

No b/w separations? No Technicolor 35mm Scope prints?

I hope this film doesn't suffer the fate R. Harris says it's happening (or has already happened) to the roadshow edition trims of Wayne's The Alamo and It's a Mad Mad Mad World

Those things should be deep frozen and thrown into a vault to arrest the desintegration till technology might appear and become so cheap they can be thawed and transfered inmediatly. A 70mm negative occupies about 12-15 cubic feet of space. Get a meat freezer!

I really can't believe a studio wouldn't even do such a cheap, desperate measure for something that cost millions, made millions and could still make millions more through the ages. (Hey if we could buy discs of Shakespeare plays done live back then, or Greek tragedies more than 2000 years old or the original Olympic Games in 70mm we would. woudn't we? )


________________________
Get a freezer!

Netty, do you know of anywhere else that talks about this?

At the time I remember reading it in a few places online. Sadly, the above example was the only link I could find today.

Oh ok, no problem, thanks

I'll try to find more about this then

Heh, this upset me, i even got some parts on my post mixed up . It's one thing to loose trims (well they are important trims) but to loose a WHOLE movie...

I hope Ariel Western isn't as upset as I am.
(Sound of Music is not my favorite movie but i don't wanna loose any, much less a 70mm, 2000 x 4400 one for a 395 x 870 PAL one) (If the PAL one is 2.20 wide, not 2.35 wide which would make it even smaller)


_________________
Get a freezer!

deathie mouse wrote:Hi Ariel Western! Welcome to the forum. Don't let Loomis scare you, he's gloomy sometimes

's at Loomis

Awwww, why won't you let me be scary, deathie?

I do have a genuine distaste for SoM, and it isn't just me being gloomy (I was in a particualrly good mood when I posted that, having just been to the films and found $20).

I have to admit though, from the copy of the DVD (which I gave AS A GIFT) it does look pretty impressive.

Loomis wrote:

deathie mouse wrote:Hi Ariel Western! Welcome to the forum. Don't let Loomis scare you, he's gloomy sometimes

's at Loomis

Awwww, why won't you let me be scary, deathie?

I do have a genuine distaste for SoM, and it isn't just me being gloomy (I was in a particualrly good mood when I posted that, having just been to the films and found $20).

I have to admit though, from the copy of the DVD (which I gave AS A GIFT) it does look pretty impressive.

Forum Members: What do you when a Loomis is scaring you MMBoy?

MMBoy: Well think of my favorite things! like whiskers of kittens! warm wooden mittens!

::MMBoy breaks out in song::

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens
Brown paper packages tied up with strings
These are a few of my favorite things

Cream colored ponies and crisp apple strudels
Door bells and sleigh bells
And schnitzel with noodles
Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings
These are a few of my favorite things

Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes
Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes
Silver white winter that melts into spring
These are a few of my favorite things

When the dog bites
When the bee stings
When I'm feeling sad
I simply remember my favorite things
And then I don't feel...so bad!!!!!!

::MMBoy and forum members singing in joy:: until......

::Loomis comes in and stops the singing::

And for a moment there I thought you were gonna include anamorphicaly enhanced PAL b. as one of your favorite things

Loomis wrote:wwww, why won't you let me be scary, deathie?

You can scare 'em all you want! I particulary remember how funny it was when you wore that sky mask and was chasing some new members. (I don't remember exactly who, Sekaino Jasmine? or a friend? It was a while ago)

On the other hand, you realize Ariel W. hasn't been back after you posted....

deathie mouse wrote:

And for a moment there I thought you were gonna include anamorphicaly enhanced PAL b. as one of your favorite things

Loomis wrote:wwww, why won't you let me be scary, deathie?

You can scare 'em all you want! I particulary remember how funny it was when you wore that sky mask and was chasing some new members. (I don't remember exactly who, Sekaino Jasmine? or a friend? It was a while ago)

On the other hand, you realize Ariel W. hasn't been back after you posted....

lol, Loomis scares everyone!

deathie mouse wrote:I have Sound of Music in widescreen Laserdisc. The Laserdisc said it preserves the "golden" look the director wanted, but i don't know if that's different from the 5-Star DVD cus i haven't seen the DVD. Or if the "golden" look was on purpose or just print fading on the source of the Laserdisc

Which Laserdisc edition do you have deathie, the earlier dreadful looking widescreen version where the color timing was very warm (reddish tones) or the later box set edtion that was personally supervised by Robert Wise and was color-timed much cooler (bluish tones)? I bought both. Then I bought the 5-star edtion DVD which blew them both away, but I've heard some reviewers complain that it wasn't up to par.

I wrote:The Laserdisc said it preserved the "golden" look the director wanted, but i don't know if that's different from the 5-Star DVD cus i haven't seen the DVD. Or if the "golden" look was on purpose or just print fading on the source of the Laserdisc

And then Poppins#1 asked me:
Which Laserdisc edition do you have deathie, the earlier dreadful looking widescreen version where the color timing was very warm (reddish tones) or the later box set edtion that was personally supervised by Robert Wise and was color-timed much cooler (bluish tones)?

Mine must be the earlier, warmer one. (The cover was the CBS/2oth/Fox one with the grey letterbox on it, I think. I don't have it in front of me. It wasn't the box set one that came later.).

The interesting part is (if I recall correctly) that either this laserdisc's cover or some magazine reviews of the time, alluded this warmness was due to the "golden tone" prefered by Robert Wise. Then, after a few years came the boxed set saying the same thing with a totally different look. Which goes to show, never wholy trust cover blurbs or Studio doubletalk.

With a little tweaking of the TV controls my Laserdisc looked acceptable on my TV, but I remember a local TV channel showing a pan/scaned very old transfer (probably 10-20 years older) that looked much better all Technicolory. Anyway i kept the LD as "reference" in case there was some truth about the "goldiness", for when on a later day came out a better element transfer. Which can be made to look golden again if you want to
(Like I do with Beauty and the Beast's ballroom scene) And skipped the box set one cus DVD's would soon be around.



Ok now for the good news. (and some gloomy deathie ones too )

I saw some of the reviews than criticized the Sound of Music DVDs (both PAL and NTSC) . All of them kept saying something like "the original print has deteriorated badly and color correction was needed and done to make it look better but it wasnt good enough, cus the DVD altho looking incredibly good, looks very bad for a DVD"


Ok first things first. There's NO 'The original print', there are SEVERAL hundred to thousands of 'original prints' being done when a movie is released. This thing about 'the original print is faded', sounding as it's the lonely one/last one/only, best, source (and it being faded) is pure vapor. Anyway, unless it's a Technicolor IB print and the negatives were destroyed in a fire or something, original prints are the WORST version of a movie.

deathi quick review: Three methods of making prints. Simplified diagram :

Best quality element <----------------------------------------> worst quality element

1-Technicolor b/w RGB Negatives ------------------------> theatrical Technicolor IB Print
2-Eastmancolor Negative -> Technicolor b/w Separation -> theatrical Technicolor IB Print
3-Eastmancolor Negative -> Interpositive -> Internegative -> theatrical Print

(The earliest the source element of the transfer, all else being equal, the better the transfer)
(btw, color negatives and intermediates have an orange mask and low contrast that preserve the colors the best way achievable by dye technology. Color prints, since they can't look orange, don't have this.) (Technicolor B/W RGB separations and negatives, and Technicolor IB Prints don't even need this, of course)


The main complaint about the DVDs in the reviews seems to be edge enhancement, grain/noise and muddy black levels. As I haven't seen the DVDs myself, I can't truly comment on them, but I saw some comparison captures from the DVD and from the (supposedly the boxed one) laserdisc transfer master that were downrezed to VGA video 480 x 656 size (letterboxed) which would be like around 3/4 the size the PAL, and 8/10 the size of the NTSC, discs images as would be seen on a 4:3 tv, and they look good. Yes they have a little edge enhancement and grain but nothing out of the ordinary for NTSC transfers . None of the captures are of dark scenes so mmm can't really say anything about that.
The (supposedly box set) Laserdisc captures look atrocious in comparison. I think my old non boxed Laserdisc looked better much better than those, cus if a LD looked like that i'd think it's VHS! Must be the capture dudes.

Here's the good news.
The DVD transfer was made from 65mm (70mm is the print film's width to carry the magnetic soundtracks on the extra 5mm) interpositives variously made trough the ages (I would guess from the 65mm negative mostly, but some might be from 35mm dupes in some cases) And apparently THAT interpositive material is not desintegrating (To me desintegrating means phisically turning into goo) (you can't scan or rephotograph goo ) it's just faded or badly copied from the negative. Given some new spanking Lowry like algorithms controlled by a hoarde of dead mouses , they could extract a better image than the DVD one, some day. And that's not even talking about doing it from the 65mm negative itself, which if it hasn't turned into goo yet, being the original generated in the camera image, could even give better results. (like maybe less grain, which could be coming from copying the negative into interpositive)


But that's not all the good news. The transfer made fromm the 65mm interpositives wasn't done into NTSC or even PAL. It was done into HDTV. So that's the good news. The semi deathie gloomy new is that's about 870 x 1920 pixels. Not yet quite as 35mm , but close. And if they were clever mouses (not mice or monkeys they might have used the whole 1080 x 1920 area doing an anamoorphic squeeze.... Then the resulting image wuould be equivalent to 970 x 2136, about as sharp as the Super35 format (the lowest quality 35mm format) but not even close to Cinemascope, much less 70mm

Well at least if it desintegrated into goo, we have something preserved a little better than only 16mm (Which would be an horrible thing, and very ironic, cus 16mm is what we had easily available in school showings)

It's only logical they made it into HDTV, cus we have a (aproximately) 400 vertical scan lines widescreen NTSC DVD, and 480 vertical scan lines pan/scan NTSC and widescreen PAL DVDs (Yes the PAL widescreen DVD at 2.20 wide supposedly would have the same vertical resolution than the NTSC pan/scan one ) That would have meant 3 passes for a supposedly desintegrating on the fly "original print"

So they did the HDTV transfer and downconverted into PAL widescreen 480, NTSC pan/scan 480, and NTSC widescreen 400. (Guess which one I would get )

Apparently then they applied a somewhat little more than needed amount of edge enhancement to those "reduced" video masters to make them look sharper from what I've read in a couple of reviews. That won't help any with the grain/noise either Of course, maybe the DVD reviewer had his sharpness setting wrong. (You'd be amazed at the amount of ppl that have it wrong)

STASHONE (paraphrased) wrote:Isn't 20th supposed to be working on a new 40th anniversary hi-def transfer for dvd?

Well from what I read it seems they did it already 4 years ago

Unless, they mean they wanna really upgrade it and scan the negatives at "4k" or "8k" in a Lowry like thing. (Which they should do right now if the negatives are fading and they don't have a freezer )



(Deathie note: when they say 1K, 2K, 4K, 8k they mean 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192 pixels across the WIDTH of the image

So when deathie says regular 2.20 wide 70mm projected on screen is 2048 pixels tall x 4506 pixels wide he means a 4.5K transfer So a 4K transfer, specially one optimally done from the ORIGINAL negative would be probably just about right. (no, deathie is not gonna whine if he gets a 1862 x 4096 Blue-Ray DVD from the negative instead of a 2048 x 4506 one It would be a million times better than a current (aprox) 400 x 880 DVD (And 4 times better than the current S-35 Lord of the Rings in the theaters . But of course, 2K x 4.5K wouls be bettah )

8k wide should be good for archiving it for future generations and downconverting to 4k (or 4.5K ) Presentation DVD format. )



ok more strange deathie weirdness. Apparently the PAL dvd specs say 2.35 (wrong ratio) and the NTSC specs say 2.20 (correct ratio)

It could be a typo. But the strange thing is the DVD/Laserdisc comparison captures, well there were three of them

Capture 1: Laserdisc- 2.24 DVD- 2.26
Capture 2: Laserdisc- 2.24 DVD- 2.39
Capture 3: Laserdisc- 2.21 DVD- 2.42

(2.39 is the current 35mm Panavision projection ratio)

And on the opposite side, dvdtown measured it a 2.13 (Which means that if that measurement was done from a software capture it realy measures 2.19 by NTSC standarts)

But then, the capture dvd town posted on it's page measures 2.07... which is interesting cus there are some people that swear 70mm TRUE aspect ratio is 2.00 to 2.04 (usinng all the vertical image on the negatives, INCLUDING areas where you can see splice lines.)

Then there's this thing about the 6 mgnetic tracks in 70mm prints. Well 4 of those tracks fall on the extra 5mm wiidth of the 70mm print format. But the two innermosrt magnetic tracks cover some of the 65mm negative camera image. Without them the 2.20 standart width becomes 2.28 wide on the 65mm camera negative...

So mmm maybe Poppins#1 can check this image areas and aspect ratios with his discs.
Or someone with the Pal disc.


Which brings us full cirlcle.
I bet Ariel didn't expect to find so many teachie stuff about her favorite movie! *waves to Ariel

And Deathie wonders which 5-star DVD edition Ariel has? PAL Widescreen, NTSC Widescreen, or NTSC Pan/Scan (Full Frame)?

The Hills Are Alive ... With The Sound Of Loomis

Well, deathie mouse, I do love your tirades! I'll bet I'm the only reader on the forum who reads every word of your posts.

deathie mouse wrote:The interesting part is (if I recall correctly) that either this laserdisc's cover or some magazine reviews of the time, alluded this warmness was due to the "golden tone" prefered by Robert Wise. Then, after a few years came the boxed set saying the same thing with a totally different look. Which goes to show, never wholy trust cover blurbs or Studio doubletalk.

I remember an interview Robert Wise did at the time of the release of the laserdisc box set (which by the way was the 30th anniversary ed.) I'm sorry I can't recall exactly if it was a print interview or a TV interview (it possibly could be from the supplementals of the box set itself, I just don't have the time to sift through them to find out.) Anyway what he said was that the first wide-screen laserdisc with the warmer tones was done without his participation or even his knowledge, and when he saw it he was horrified saying it was totally opposite to what the prints looked like in the theaters. So he contacted Fox and begged them to re-do it with his participation, which eventually they did.

As far as measuring the aspect ratio of the LD, I don't have the software to make screen captures of a LD, so I can only guess and I would say that it looks like 2.20:1, but who knows?

By the way, Ariel Western, please forgive us for hi-jacking your topic with stuff I'm sure you don't care about. Um.... my favorite character is Maria?