NitrateVille.com

Hi everyone,

I am working on my review for "The Sound of Music: 45th Anniversary Edition" on Blu-ray and what has made me excited is the restoration and remastering of this latest release and what this can mean for other 20th Century Fox (and hopefully other studios as well).

Back in 2005 when they released the film, the original 70 mm 6-Track was in bad shape and they had to use another print for the 40th Anniversary DVD release. I thought this film was a major improvement compared to the 2000 DVD release.

But now after watching this Blu-ray release, there are two featurettes (among the many, many featurettes included in this release) that touch upon how new technology has led them to use the badly damaged original negative and fix it up, so for this 45th Anniversary, they were able to fix the film and they were so amazed of how much detail there was in original 70mm compared to the negative printed they used in 2005 for the 40th Anniversary DVD release.

There are before and after shots and I was just surprised and granted, it helps that the release is provided on Blu-ray via HD. Strains of grass now had colors, clothing on the wool jacket are seen much clearer than before and I'm just impressed with this release. This 8K digital scanning really is wonderful for perfect restoration.

But it makes me wonder now if they can utilize this same process in other older films that had badly damaged negatives.

Oh, and the sound was incredible. I've owned several versions of this film and they really utilize this 7.1 track to full effect. Wonderful!

Anyway, I just had to chime in on this because this is such a magnificent release and I just hope 20th Century Fox continues this with some of their classics now that they have the hardware and software available to restore and remaster films that they couldn't before.

There are so many classics released on DVD prior to 2005, not sure how many classic titles we will see Fox give this special attention to for Blu-ray release.

You state that the "original 70mm 6-track print was in bad shape".
Do you mean to imply that Fox used a projection print for mastering the 2005 release?
I can understand if the original negative (65mm) or other pre-print material was bad, but if you are preparing a review of the upcoming DVD I'd think you would have correct information about source material.
There are many video reviewers who refer to the "print" used for a source in mastering. It would be very rare that a print is used.
If my supposition is wrong, please correct me.
I have seen some examples of the resoration, and agree with you that the work, done at FotoKem (who should also get credit), is quite superb.

Mr. May, now you have provoked my curiosity! I had always assumed that a positive print was scanned and digitized, and any remaining needed repairs or cleaning could be done digitally. The digital version could then be infinitely copied to DVD's.

If a positive print is not used as the basis for a DVD master, then what is used, and how is it done? The "Reader's Digest Condensed Version" will suffice! SETH

Richard P. May wrote:You state that the "original 70mm 6-track print was in bad shape".
Do you mean to imply that Fox used a projection print for mastering the 2005 release?

Oops need to clarify this one.

As for the 70mm, they had a copy that was shown to Robert Wise a few years ago which he approved but with the tools and HD software/hardware they have today, they were able to use the 70 mm camera negative and were able to scan it at 8K digitally and then make a 4K master.

With this latest release, you will be able to see the green mountains and the individual colors in the chutes of grass, you will see much clearer than ever the clothing such as the wool threading and the scene where Julie Andrews splashes the water, you will literally see those splashes of water quite clearly.

As for the audio, they had the 6-track stereo print which was badly damaged. The master tape was deemed unplayable and thus they had to use a copy which they admit was low-fidelity in the 2005 release. For the 2010 release, with new hardware/software and also using a modified machine, they were able to use the original 6-track stereo print and found out that there were things in the audio that were not previously heard at all.

So, both the video and audio received a major restoration for this 2010 release. It's quite fantastic and if anyone has a Blu-ray player and HDTV, definitely give this release a chance!

I'm wondering how much of all this is just publicity fluff; AMPAS showed a stellar restored print in 2003 that's perhaps still the best looking and sounding print I've ever seen. Was that not a "real" restoration, like the previous version of Disney's Sleeping Beauty?

Kndy - Thanks for the clarification, which requires only one small correction: the camera negative is 65mm, not 70mm. The latter size was only for prints, to accomodate the six mag sound tracks.

SethB - Video mastering is almost always done from either a negative or interpositive. Projection prints are usully too contrasty for satisfactory transfer.