A Few Words About A few words about...™ Oklahoma! -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[FoxyMulder]

What is the difference between the Todd-AO (and non) version?

30fps instead of 24fps for Oklahoma, it was a 5 perf 70mm format, good site below for information with pictures of the camera.

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto2.htm

Those cameras were massive back then, today's filmmakers complain about using 3D cameras which are a fraction of the size of those monsters, imagine their complaints about shooting today if they shot in Todd-AO, truly it was an art form.

They saw the future and they made the Todd-AO version for those curved OLED screens.

 

[RolandL]

Todd-AO (Cinerama out of one hole) is 70mm with a 2.2 AR and was meant to be shown on a deeply curved screen. They were supposed to use a special lens when filming that would give you a 128 degree field of view (3 panel Cinerama was 146 degrees), but it was rarely used.

The other version is CinemaScope, 35mm and 2.55:1 AR.

70mm had six (five in front, one surround) tracks and 35mm CinemaScope four (three in the front, one surround) tracks of sound.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Picked this set up during the sale.

I haven't gone back to read this entire thread but a quick question:

What is the difference between the Todd-AO (and non) version? I am guessing it's a broader widescreen version since the format was developed to compete with Cinerama?

The opening scene with the Todd-AO is almost like watching a 3-D film. I prefer the Todd-AO presentation of this BD.

 

[Robert Harris]

The opening scene with the Todd-AO is almost like watching a 3-D film. I prefer the Todd-AO presentation of this BD.

Used to have that lens in my collection. It went to a more appropriate home - Wide Screen Museum. "Bugs" is happy, well and cared for.RAH

 

[Dave MJ]

I don't think he's talking about the THX DVD but rather the 50th Anniversary DVD. I concur that the Blu-ray and the 50th Anniversary DVD look roughly the same (in brightness) in terms of the scenes following the intermission. I don't own the THX DVD to see if it really is darkened in those scenes.

Yes, this must be the case. My blu ray is not darkened in those shots and matches the brightness in the DVDs (Todd-AO and Cinemascope versions) in the R&H set. I don't own the THX DVD.

 

[Techman707]

Mr. Jingles said,

"I am guessing it's a broader widescreen version...."

Actually, the scope version of "Oklahoma" is 2.35:1 and the Todd/AO version is 2.20:1, so the scope version would actually appear wider than the Todd/AO version. The main difference with OKLAHOMA in Todd/AO, when compared to later Todd/AO films, is that "Oklahoma" was filmed at 30fps (as opposed to the normal sound speed of 24fps). So the look is closer to a taped soap opera when compared to film. Fortunately, it DOES NOT have that horrible video look of a soap opera. The awful look I refer to is hard to describe, but you'll know it when you see it. In the case of this restored version of Oklahoma in Todd/AO, IT JUST LOOKS BEAUTIFUL !

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Fortunately, it DOES NOT have that horrible video look of a soap opera.

Trust me, I know that soap opera look.

My new Samsung display has a bug that changed the fps settings and
if it was not correctly adjusted, film would look like a TV soap opera. It
was downright annoying.

 

[JoshZ]

What is the difference between the Todd-AO (and non) version? I am guessing it's a broader widescreen version since the format was developed to compete with Cinerama?

Because no one else has mentioned this since you asked your question, I will also point out that the film was actually shot twice, once in each camera format, not side-by-side. What you watch when you switch from one version of the film to the other are completely different takes, with slight differences in the performances and editing.

 

[Mr. Jingles]

Because no one else has mentioned this since you asked your question, I will also point out that the film was actually shot twice, once in each camera format, not side-by-side. What you watch when you switch from one version of the film to the other are completely different takes, with slight differences in the performances and editing.

That is amazing. I never heard of that being done before. An entire film, lensed twice and separately. Other than the film's opening, has anyone been able to notice any distinct differences between the two as far as different takes are concerned?

 

[RolandL]

Used to have that lens in my collection. It went to a more appropriate home - Wide Screen Museum. "Bugs" is happy, well and cared for.

RAH

From Matt's web site:

 

[Techman707]

Because no one else has mentioned this since you asked your question, I will also point out that the film was actually shot twice, once in each camera format, not side-by-side. What you watch when you switch from one version of the film to the other are completely different takes, with slight differences in the performances and editing.

The Robe was filmed twice....just in case Cinemascope didn't work as expected or there weren't enough theatres converted. Conversion was a BIG DEAL at the time. The original Cinemascope prints only had magnetic tracks, NO OPTICAL. So if you wanted to run a Cinemascope picture, you had to convert and install magnetic penthouses and amplifier racks. After the independents sued, they finally made dual soundtrack print having both magnetic stripes and an optical track. The only problem was that half of the optical track was covered by a magnetic stripe that cut the volume in half and presenting a real problem for some theatres.

 

[RolandL]

That is amazing. I never heard of that being done before. An entire film, lensed twice and separately. Other than the film's opening, has anyone been able to notice any distinct differences between the two as far as different takes are concerned?

It was also done for The Robe, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, Carousel (at first then later they didn't have to) maybe a few other titles. Lady and the Tramp had two versions also.

 

[FoxyMulder]

It was also done for The Robe, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, Carousel (at first then later they didn't have to) maybe a few other titles. Lady and the Tramp had two versions also.

I wish they would do it for 3D movies shot today, go to town and create a great 3D experience with depth in and out of the screen and also shoot a specific 2D version with shots composed to look best for 2D, best of both worlds and two different productions optimised for your viewing. I know it's wishful thinking and cost prohibits this but it would be great.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I also find this astonishing.

Same question: From going to one version to another,
can you spot differences in the film takes? This is outside
of the opening sequences.

 

[John Maher_289910]

A clip or two around the 3:15 mark.



Also:

 

[Ronald Epstein]

John, thank you for that. Just the explanation I wanted and
supported by the comments already posted here.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I also find this astonishing.

Same question: From going to one version to another,
can you spot differences in the film takes? This is outside
of the opening sequences.

Ron:

Closely watch Gene Nelson's (and Charlotte Greenwood and cast's) dance routine during Kansas City. Imagine how difficult it would be to recreate the same exact staging, blocking and footwork when filmed twice.

Well, they do a really great job of matching things up. But there's an instance when Nelson jumps up on top of a wooden crate. I'll let you discover and enjoy the rest. Viva la difference!

 

[RolandL]

Comparison of CinemaScope 2.55 (on top) and flat 1.85 (on bottom) versions of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. Almost makes you think why didn't they just crop the flat version to 2.55 like SuperScope 255 in 1956 or like Super 35 more recently. Of course the PQ would'nt be as good as CinemaScope as your not using the full 1.33:1 frame. These came from dvdbeaver

 

[Will Krupp]

Actually, the scope version of "Oklahoma" is 2.35:1 and the Todd/AO version is 2.20:1, so the scope version would actually appear wider than the Todd/AO version.

I think the scope version is actually the even wider 2.55:1 ratio if I'm not mistaken and my memory serves me correctly. While the scope version, as you said, appears wider, in the reality of the presentation at the Rivoli in 1955, the Todd-AO screen was just as wide as the CinemaScope screen it replaced but was much TALLER.

For me, I prefer the Todd-AO version hands-down in terms of performances with the SOLE exception of Gloria Grahame and Gene Nelson's "All or Nuthin"' I think Gloria is much fresher, cuter and more on the money in the scope version of their duet, for some reason. Other than that it's Todd-AO all the way.

 

[Will Krupp]

Trust me, I know that soap opera look.

My new Samsung display has a bug that changed the fps settings and
if it was not correctly adjusted, film would look like a TV soap opera. It
was downright annoying.

I got a new Samsung display too (a 6350 just a few weeks ago and I love it!) and yeah, they default their auto-motion plus/frame interpolation setting to "on" out of the box and it's pretty jarring. I'll admit that I played with it a little to try to make AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS have the same 30fps "look" that OKLAHOMA has and, while it "sort of" worked (as an experiment) I can't imagine EVER using it for anything else. I don't watch sports and that's really all it's designed for.