AIRPORT in TODD-AO?

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by trajan, Mar 9, 2012.

  1. trajan

    trajan Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,198
    Likes Received:
    466
    My understanding is that AIRPORT will be released on bluray in September. It would be really nice if the TODD-AO elements were used in the transfer. I hope Universal goes the full nine yards on this one. Maybe someone with industry contacts could give us an answer if a TODD-AO transfer will happen. BTW- will we see SWEET CHARITY anytime soon?
     
  2. John Stockton

    John Stockton Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2000
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    19
    Oh Please Universal, do not foul up this release. I have been waiting for a Todd-Ao version sourced from the original 65 MM negative for a long time. The sound should also be six channel discreet derived from the original stems.
     
  3. David Coleman

    David Coleman Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2000
    Messages:
    770
    Likes Received:
    3
    Different studio, but wasn't SOUND OF MUSIC sourced from the 65mm Tood-AO negative?
     
  4. John Hermes

    John Hermes Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    760
    Location:
    La Mesa (San Diego) CA
    Real Name:
    John Hermes
    I received my BD copy of Airport yesterday from England. It is a 2.35 AR transfer with a DTS HD Master 5.1 soundtrack. The sharpness is good and the color and contrast are excellent, looking very much like late-1960s Technicolor to me. I'm sure not having the 70mm AR, and apparently not being sourced from the 65mm materials, will put some people off. I am pretty happy with the image myself. It was late at night when I checked it out so I can't tell you much about the sound yet.
     
  5. RolandL

    RolandL Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,327
    Likes Received:
    701
    Location:
    Cromwell, CT
    Real Name:
    Roland Lataille
  6. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    9,195
    Likes Received:
    5,006
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    As far as I'm aware, this was scanned from a 65mm element. Aspect ratio is irrelevant.

    2.35 would be very close to correct for 65mm.

    RAH
     
  7. John Stockton

    John Stockton Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2000
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    19
    Is it possible that the 2.21 frame was opened up to show the picture information that would normally be missing to accommodate the magnetic soundtracks on the sides of the frame??
     
  8. Douglas R

    Douglas R Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,041
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    Real Name:
    Doug
    That's what I like to see! An obvious huge improvement over the DVD which makes it a worthwhile upgrade.
     
  9. NY2LA

    NY2LA Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,352
    Likes Received:
    4
    How so? Native aspect for 65mm/Todd-AO is 2.21. In the current 16x9 dominant world of homevid, and an Imax-aping time where pretty much every current cinema emphasizes height over width, IF they are going to all the trouble of mastering from 65, WHY would they deliberately throw away the extra picture height by cropping to 2.35?
     
  10. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    9,195
    Likes Received:
    5,006
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    If a film is scanned from a 65mm element, and the image area normally hidden by mag stripes is exposed, one is very close to 2.35.
     
  11. NY2LA

    NY2LA Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,352
    Likes Received:
    4
    Is this evident in the screen caps (from a source many of you often criticize)?
    I see no reason for exposing that much more than theatres were ever intended to show. Warner did that with the letterboxed How the West was Won - taking an already extra wide film and making it ridiculously wide, so even on a 16x9 screen it looked like a ribbon across a black field.
    Being shot in Todd-AO, the preferred AR would be 2.21, while it would have been protected for 2.35, but WITHIN that 2.21 frame. Right, Robert? So whatever goes out beyond the frame to the sprocket holes was never meant to show. Adding unintended width only makes the picture unnecessarily smaller on current TVs. What would have been wrong with, say, oh, idunno, presenting the picture in its native AR - the way it was originally shown in its original theatrical engagements?
     
  12. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    9,195
    Likes Received:
    5,006
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    I have no info re: the mindset involved. I can tell you, however, that the DVDs of My Fair Lady, which were created from a special 35mm IP, exposing the entire 65mm area, was released at 2.35. My personal preference would be 2.21:1.

    RAH
     
  13. NY2LA

    NY2LA Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,352
    Likes Received:
    4
    Right with you there. Could it be something like that old phrase "a little information is a dangerous thing" meaning someone who has learned the some of basics, but not all about something... Might there be some people who think 2.35 is better because it's "wider"? That could maybe explain why Fox F'd up Oklahoma! by favoring the 35mm version over the 70mm. I have dealt with some studio people who thought they knew it all about things of which they really had only limited understanding.
    PS: does anyone else hate Uni's bland generic menus as much as I do? Looking at the Beaver caps, even if they were less than ideal, the older DVD menus for Airport at least tried to present the picture with its own identity, where as Uni just makes every movie look like something you called up on a computer from a database - just another piece of software. To me that's television and not movies. I probably sound like I should take a swig of Geritol and go to bed. (not a bad idea. Good night Gracie)
     
  14. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    9,195
    Likes Received:
    5,006
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    Fox "favored" the 35mm version because it was printable, while the 65mm Todd-AO was faded.

    RAH
     
  15. NY2LA

    NY2LA Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,352
    Likes Received:
    4
    The 65mm what? OCN or interpos? What has printability to do with the ability to produce a good video transfer? You can always color correct, and the large format would have better resolution. The laserdisc was done from 65mm elements. I was around then, and I don't recall anyone saying that was faded or any mention of problems with it. And they do have YCMs on Oklahoma!, no?
     
  16. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    9,195
    Likes Received:
    5,006
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    OCN.

    Not printable = heavy lifting and digital expense. The laserdisc was produced from a new print derived from the faded neg. It was not a pretty picture, and would be far less pretty above 480i.

    RAH
     
  17. NY2LA

    NY2LA Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,352
    Likes Received:
    4
    I seem to recall a statement being made about South Pacific that the 65mm roadshow elements weren't in the best shape, but no such explanation was given at the time for featuring a smaller version of Oklahoma! on DVD than we got previously and reducing the original to a supplement. Not even after the outrcy that came from its release. Having heard their large format titles were "restored" (though not sure if that means in the original RAH definition or the more prevalent current interpretation meaning struck a new print or did some digital work on video) one might hope that the Blu-Rays would be done from 65mm in OAR for higher resolution.
    Back to topic of Airport, I still wonder what Uni was thinking - if indeed they went as far as mastering from 65mm, why they would include extra width that wasn't intended, especially in a time when Imax has influenced the whole industry to think that height is better than width. Look around at today's cinemas and count how many have top masking that makes widescreen movies smaller, as opposed to side masking that served the original intent of wider being bigger.
     
  18. JohnMor

    JohnMor Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,065
    Likes Received:
    1,295
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Real Name:
    John Moreland
    The difference in width is pretty negligible and the blu ray does feature more information at the top and bottom of the frame than the previous releases.
     
  19. Brian Sharp

    Brian Sharp Second Unit

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Robin Hood Country
    Real Name:
    Brian Sharp
    Perhaps I am missing something here. However,I do wonder why there is so much interest in seeing the "full frame" on dvd and blu ray when, in the cinema, part of the image is cut off by the aperture plate for various reasons.
     
  20. NY2LA

    NY2LA Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,352
    Likes Received:
    4
    Did you get an early copy too or are you going from The Beaver caps?
     

Share This Page