- Joined
- Feb 8, 1999
- Messages
- 18,397
- Real Name
- Robert Harris
I first saw Cleopatra in 70mm at a theatre in Miami, Fl. in the fall of 1963. The version that I saw was uncut, and I will never forget how I marveled at look and textures of Leon Shamroy's 65mm cinematography. So much so, that I'm certain that I bored my date to invisible tears.
The film, which I've always respected highly for it's breath-taking scope and the literacy brought to it by director Joseph L. Mankiewicz, has taken the long road to Blu-ray, but at least it has made an appearance.
Derived from large format elements, and with audio in DTS-HD Master, it looks and sounds very nice. But I wondered if it might look better, and did a comparison to other 65mm Blu-ray releases.
Here's what I'm seeing.
The Sound of Music looks to be the best. Mad World very nice, but not quite matching in quality. Then come Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, West Side Story and with a very similar look, Cleopatra.
While differences may not show up on smaller screens (I've not had the time to check), in projection there are two different looks, which led me to a bit of research. It seems that the two looks, one with far more film-like grain structure, and a more cinematic feel came from one post facility, and the second group, from another. In the former, the images are more highly resolved.
Cleopatra, which looks fine, does not come close to matching the look of The Sound of Music. Might the domestic release be re-scanned. Doubtful, but not out of the realm of possibilities, should the studio wish to hold full-rez data files on the subject.
The differences, in a general sense, can be night & day when it comes to Blu-ray, and far more intensive and important when it comes to restoration and archiving.
The better scans come from Foto-Kem, which is not a surprise.
Speaking of full-rez, one might ask the meaning. Marketing has been around the web referencing scans at 2k, 4k, 6k and 8k. And 4k is generally considered full resolution for 35mm, and is measured perf to perf.
4k is four times the resolution of 2k. 8k four times the resolution of 4k in 35mm, and only used, as far as I'm aware, for the prime harvest of an image, which will then be down-rezzed to 4k. Files can be huge. The added resolution enables the scanner to see, and reproduce, everything on the film element.
When one refers to an 8k 65mm scan, the reference is correct, but has a different meaning than it would for 35mm / 4 perf. With a image approximately twice the width, a larger scanner is necessary, and that mechanism scans at 8192 pixels, vs. 4096 in 35mm.
But the actual scan is still roughly 4k, as the actual area scanned for 65mm is 8192 x 3584. The scanned area for 35mm 4k is 4096 x 3144.
The scan of a large format production affects viewing pleasure precisely the same way that it would in film projection. With an image that is enlarged only half as much as standard 35mm, resolution, dependent upon the quality of projection and optics, should be at least three times the quality, and possibly more than an anamorphic 35mm image.
Just for fun, let's make things just a bit more complex.
VistaVision is usually scanned at 4k, which is more than enough to capture the image. But some post facilities or marketing firms will refer to it as a 6k scan.
Which is it.
But isn't.
A VVLA scan is still 4096, but with twice the area, now 4096 x 6144.
Hence... 6k.
Sort of.
But not really.
Back to Cleopatra.
One of the most important films ever produced, and possibly the largest production. Beautifully photographed, directed, and played. It was originally planned as a two part production of close to six hours, but was released as a single show.
Image: 4
Audio: 5
Recommended.
RAH
The film, which I've always respected highly for it's breath-taking scope and the literacy brought to it by director Joseph L. Mankiewicz, has taken the long road to Blu-ray, but at least it has made an appearance.
Derived from large format elements, and with audio in DTS-HD Master, it looks and sounds very nice. But I wondered if it might look better, and did a comparison to other 65mm Blu-ray releases.
Here's what I'm seeing.
The Sound of Music looks to be the best. Mad World very nice, but not quite matching in quality. Then come Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, West Side Story and with a very similar look, Cleopatra.
While differences may not show up on smaller screens (I've not had the time to check), in projection there are two different looks, which led me to a bit of research. It seems that the two looks, one with far more film-like grain structure, and a more cinematic feel came from one post facility, and the second group, from another. In the former, the images are more highly resolved.
Cleopatra, which looks fine, does not come close to matching the look of The Sound of Music. Might the domestic release be re-scanned. Doubtful, but not out of the realm of possibilities, should the studio wish to hold full-rez data files on the subject.
The differences, in a general sense, can be night & day when it comes to Blu-ray, and far more intensive and important when it comes to restoration and archiving.
The better scans come from Foto-Kem, which is not a surprise.
Speaking of full-rez, one might ask the meaning. Marketing has been around the web referencing scans at 2k, 4k, 6k and 8k. And 4k is generally considered full resolution for 35mm, and is measured perf to perf.
4k is four times the resolution of 2k. 8k four times the resolution of 4k in 35mm, and only used, as far as I'm aware, for the prime harvest of an image, which will then be down-rezzed to 4k. Files can be huge. The added resolution enables the scanner to see, and reproduce, everything on the film element.
When one refers to an 8k 65mm scan, the reference is correct, but has a different meaning than it would for 35mm / 4 perf. With a image approximately twice the width, a larger scanner is necessary, and that mechanism scans at 8192 pixels, vs. 4096 in 35mm.
But the actual scan is still roughly 4k, as the actual area scanned for 65mm is 8192 x 3584. The scanned area for 35mm 4k is 4096 x 3144.
The scan of a large format production affects viewing pleasure precisely the same way that it would in film projection. With an image that is enlarged only half as much as standard 35mm, resolution, dependent upon the quality of projection and optics, should be at least three times the quality, and possibly more than an anamorphic 35mm image.
Just for fun, let's make things just a bit more complex.
VistaVision is usually scanned at 4k, which is more than enough to capture the image. But some post facilities or marketing firms will refer to it as a 6k scan.
Which is it.
But isn't.
A VVLA scan is still 4096, but with twice the area, now 4096 x 6144.
Hence... 6k.
Sort of.
But not really.
Back to Cleopatra.
One of the most important films ever produced, and possibly the largest production. Beautifully photographed, directed, and played. It was originally planned as a two part production of close to six hours, but was released as a single show.
Image: 4
Audio: 5
Recommended.
RAH