It's a mad mad mad mad world (1 Viewer)

[Charles Smith]

At the tender age of 13 or thereabouts, I was taken by my parents to the roadshow engagement in Miami Beach, and something I always recalled over the years was seeing Spencer Tracy eating the ice cream. For some reason that moment struck me enough that I noticed its absence in subsequent viewings...and I'm mighty glad it did, for what it's worth.

Is that one of the scenes cut very early in the roadshow run (which would indicate that we didn't waste much time getting out to see this one), or did it hang in there for a while?

 

[plinfesty]

When you say "lens refractions" are you referring to the optical distortion they introduce into the print to compensate for the curved screen horizon and keystone?

No, that would be referred to as a rectified print. The print the Dome showed was unrectified and was a brand new 70mm print struck off of the cut UP70 (65mm) negative (allegedly, claimed, etc). It was projected with a UP70 lens on loan from Panavision. Several other 70mm equipped theatres has shown this print along with the lens (or pair of lenses, if doing changeover). There were NO changeover cues on this particular print, although they may have been added when changeover houses played it. Of COURSE nagative flashed and refractions (the very slight part of the top and bottom of each frame) wouldn't be seen on MGMHD. Any competent operator would be doing a slight crop to eliminate these, essentially the digital equivalent of the apeture plate. For whatever reason, the Dome was intent on NOT doing the apeture plate cropping on this particular presentation, revealing the entire frame including the negative flashes. The theatre created special screen masking that started at the bottom of the screen and reached upward toward the edges to prevent from having to use their normal butterfly shaped plates. Although they have never seemed to have a problem doing this before or after.

Now, the reason I mentioned the negative splices as a way of explaining that I was pretty much seeing the enitre frame of the 70mm UP 70 image and that gave me a reference point to notice how much more image I was seeing than in any 35mm Panavision print I ever saw. And it resembles the image shown on the MGMHD presentation. Therefore, it had to have come from a 70mm source, not a 35mm one, whuich would have had far less imagry to work from.

BTW, this particular print had the police calls built into the print. They were on a 20 minute black slug of 70mm film. There were three of them and each one was repeated twice. The DOME was running them into the restrooms during the intermission as well as the lobby (and of course, the house). The print also had the overture, intermission, entracte and exit music. But the actual body of the film was the general release (as well as most of the roadshow run) cut. The Cinerama Dome was obviously one of those theatres that ended up with a cut version. After a couple of months (if you checked the LA Times ads) the film started doing FOUR reserved seat showings on Saturdays, with 3 hr 15 min spreads between showings. Not sure how that could have been accomplished on a non-continuous schedule with intermission, clearance, seating, etc.

 

[OliverK]

Just a reminder that MGM HD airs 14 Mbit MPEG2 with only DD2.0 and that in effect leads to some filtering in one way or another of film grain and in the process probably also ultrafine detail. So it is hard to say how good the master looks that was used for the airing - it could look not much better than what was aired but it could also look spectacular. The same goes for Khartoum by the way, although I was told that Khartoum really was only scanned at 2k except for the title sequences!

For those who already thought that this was very good or spectacular I suggest to set expectations higher - they surely could be met with a proper Blu-Ray of IAMMMMW.

 

[Techman707]

Originally Posted by plinfesty

No, that would be referred to as a rectified print. The print the Dome showed was unrectified and was a brand new 70mm print struck off of the cut UP70 (65mm) negative (allegedly, claimed, etc). It was projected with a UP70 lens on loan from Panavision. Several other 70mm equipped theatres has shown this print along with the lens (or pair of lenses, if doing changeover). There were NO changeover cues on this particular print, although they may have been added when changeover houses played it. Of COURSE nagative flashed and refractions (the very slight part of the top and bottom of each frame) wouldn't be seen on MGMHD. Any competent operator would be doing a slight crop to eliminate these, essentially the digital equivalent of the apeture plate. For whatever reason, the Dome was intent on NOT doing the apeture plate cropping on this particular presentation, revealing the entire frame including the negative flashes. The theatre created special screen masking that started at the bottom of the screen and reached upward toward the edges to prevent from having to use their normal butterfly shaped plates. Although they have never seemed to have a problem doing this before or after.

Now, the reason I mentioned the negative splices as a way of explaining that I was pretty much seeing the enitre frame of the 70mm UP 70 image and that gave me a reference point to notice how much more image I was seeing than in any 35mm Panavision print I ever saw. And it resembles the image shown on the MGMHD presentation. Therefore, it had to have come from a 70mm source, not a 35mm one, whuich would have had far less imagry to work from.

BTW, this particular print had the police calls built into the print. They were on a 20 minute black slug of 70mm film. There were three of them and each one was repeated twice. The DOME was running them into the restrooms during the intermission as well as the lobby (and of course, the house). The print also had the overture, intermission, entracte and exit music. But the actual body of the film was the general release (as well as most of the roadshow run) cut. The Cinerama Dome was obviously one of those theatres that ended up with a cut version. After a couple of months (if you checked the LA Times ads) the film started doing FOUR reserved seat showings on Saturdays, with 3 hr 15 min spreads between showings. Not sure how that could have been accomplished on a non-continuous schedule with intermission, clearance, seating, etc.

More confused than ever.........

So the print run at the Dome was NOT even a complete roadshow print (which I define as what was run after the initial cutting after the premiere)? Is the print that was run at the Dome "identical" in content to what was run on MGM-HD? While the MGM-HD version looks very nice, it just doesn't look like it came directly from 65mm elements. Nobody seems to know the source of the 70mm print that was run at the Dome. I know you assume it came from a 65mm negative, however, I ran Star Wars years ago in 70mm and it looked "good". However, it was made from a 35mm liquid gate blow-up, like many other pictures that have been run in 70mm.

I found it interesting what Charles Smith says about Spencer Tracey eating the ice cream, which I also remember. When Guess Who's Coming To Dinner premiered in NY at the Victoria Theatre (the Astor & Victoria were real dumps), I was the projectionist. At that time I met Stanley Kramer (and Katharine Houghton) before the picture and again after when he came up to the booth. I remember joking that in all his pictures he had Spencer Tracy was always eating ice cream. Now I know that scene isn't in the MGM-HD version. He only makes reference to wanting an ice cream sunday with whip cream and a cherry. So what version was that in, original version, roadshow version?

My final question is this; Did the Dome print have the correct colors for the titles, intermission and end? If they WERE correct and the MGM-HD version came from the same source, why would the colors still be wrong on the MGM-HD version?

How can a restoration take place if it's not clear what the "original" is. Is there any agreement as to what the original is? Personally, with a couple of small exceptions, I happen to like the picture the way it is. I certainly didn't like the additions that were added into the Laser disc version, but then again, that's why Mr. Kramer didn't use them. It's really unfortunate that Mr. Kramer isn't here to answer these questions.
Edit-7/31- I must be getting more senile than I thought. My wife pointed out that it was the "Forum" ( Bwdy & 47th ST) that I was working in when Guess Who's Coming To Dinner premiered. But the Astor & Victoria were STILL dumps.-lol

 

[Techman707]

Originally Posted by OliverK
Just a reminder that MGM HD airs 14 Mbit MPEG2 with only DD2.0 and that in effect leads to some filtering in one way or another of film grain and in the process probably also ultrafine detail. So it is hard to say how good the master looks that was used for the airing - it could look not much better than what was aired but it could also look spectacular. The same goes for Khartoum by the way, although I was told that Khartoum really was only scanned at 2k except for the title sequences!

For those who already thought that this was very good or spectacular I suggest to set expectations higher - they surely could be met with a proper Blu-Ray of IAMMMMW.

That's a good point. They are only doing 2K scans for DCI theatres with no talk of anything higher, despite theatres putting in 4K projectors for 3D.

Since it appears that the print run at the Dome has nothing more than the MGM-HD version and it doesn't seem like they're going ahead with any further restoration in the near future, why don't they at least put out a Blu-ray of the best version they have?

 

[plinfesty]

I know you assume it came from a 65mm negative

No, i'm assuming it, I was told it. John Sittig said during the booth tour of How the West Was Won that the print they would be showing in a few weeks of IAMMMMW was a new 70mm print struck off the ON. It was an outstanding picture, exept for the titles, which were in bad shape (just like what was shown on MGMHD). Sittig has also stated in other blogs that IAMMMMW prints playing in both Los Angeles and NYC were physically cut by editors from UA making booth visits a few weeks after the premiere in which more than 30 minujtes were cut. They then proceeded to cut the 65mm negative to match these print cuts for subsequent printing. I'm not sure where your confusion lies.

BTW, the soundtrack was DTS special venue format (5 screen channels, 1 surround) and the onlhy change they made was to boost the level to the surrounds, claiming that today's audiences liked louder surrounds.

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by plinfesty

No, i'm assuming it, I was told it. John Sittig said during the booth tour of How the West Was Won that the print they would be showing in a few weeks of IAMMMMW was a new 70mm print struck off the ON. It was an outstanding picture, exept for the titles, which were in bad shape (just like what was shown on MGMHD). Sittig has also stated in other blogs that IAMMMMW prints playing in both Los Angeles and NYC were physically cut by editors from UA making booth visits a few weeks after the premiere in which more than 30 minujtes were cut. They then proceeded to cut the 65mm negative to match these print cuts for subsequent printing. I'm not sure where your confusion lies.

BTW, the soundtrack was DTS special venue format (5 screen channels, 1 surround) and the onlhy change they made was to boost the level to the surrounds, claiming that today's audiences liked louder surrounds.

I'm not certain that I believe the "booth visit" concept, as the prints would have had to be degaussed and re-recorded. Some reels were heavily re-cut.

 

[Techman707]

Quote:

Originally Posted by plinfesty

No, i'm assuming it, I was told it. John Sittig said during the booth tour of How the West Was Won that the print they would be showing in a few weeks of IAMMMMW was a new 70mm print struck off the ON. It was an outstanding picture, exept for the titles, which were in bad shape (just like what was shown on MGMHD). Sittig has also stated in other blogs that IAMMMMW prints playing in both Los Angeles and NYC were physically cut by editors from UA making booth visits a few weeks after the premiere in which more than 30 minujtes were cut. They then proceeded to cut the 65mm negative to match these print cuts for subsequent printing. I'm not sure where your confusion lies.

BTW, the soundtrack was DTS special venue format (5 screen channels, 1 surround) and the onlhy change they made was to boost the level to the surrounds, claiming that today's audiences liked louder surrounds.

I find the claim of cutting the 70mm prints in the booths and then cutting the 65mm negative to conform, incredible. Since they wouldn't have made subsequent prints from the 65mm negative. They would have had an internegatives or master positives to cut on FIRST.

It seems to get more confusing the deeper I look into it, so I guess the answer will never be known before I die, if ever. However, speaking with someone who was involved with Fox's "restoration" of the Cinemascope 55 musicals (The King and I & Carousel), when they did the liquid gate transfer, they had to change the aspect ratio slightly. The same type process could have been used on this "mystery" print of IAMMMMW, causing the negative flashes you say were visible in the final print.

Whatever the answer is to this whole mystery, I still say that the way ALL these classic films have been handled over the years borders on criminal. As for color accuracy, the only prints that are a reliable reference are the Technicolor IB prints. Wherever they got the titles from that they used for the MGM-HD version of IAMMMMW, you can be certain it didn't come from a 65mm negative (which appears to have had a lot of damage on the left side). It's also clear that they had NO reference for some of the colors on those titles. As for the rest of the picture, as long as the skintones look reasonable, it's nearly impossible to know whether it's correct or not.

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Techman707
Quote:
I find the claim of cutting the 70mm prints in the booths and then cutting the 65mm negative to conform, incredible. Since they wouldn't have made subsequent prints from the 65mm negative. They would have had an internegatives or master positives to cut on FIRST.
 
It seems to get more confusing the deeper I look into it, so I guess the answer will never be known before I die, if ever. However, speaking with someone who was involved with Fox's "restoration" of the Cinemascope 55 musicals (The King and I & Carousel), when they did the liquid gate transfer, they had to change the aspect ratio slightly. The same type process could have been used on this "mystery" print of IAMMMMW, causing the negative flashes you say were visible in the final print.
 
Whatever the answer is to this whole mystery, I still say that the way ALL these classic films have been handled over the years borders on criminal. As for color accuracy, the only prints that are a reliable reference are the Technicolor IB prints. Wherever they got the titles from that they used for the MGM-HD version of IAMMMMW, you can be certain it didn't come from a 65mm negative (which appears to have had a lot of damage on the left side). It's also clear that they had NO reference for some of the colors on those titles. As for the rest of the picture, as long as the skintones look reasonable, it's nearly impossible to know whether it's correct or not.

Actually, determining correct color and densities on this film is quite easy.

 

[Techman707]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Quote:
Actually, determining correct color and densities on this film is quite easy.

LOL/img/vbsmilies/htf/laugh.gif- Somebody should tell that to whoever did the titles on the MGM-HD version IAMMMMW.
 
Maybe you'll get to correct them someday./img/vbsmilies/htf/biggrin.gif

 

[plinfesty]

 

The same type process could have been used on this "mystery" print of IAMMMMW, causing the negative flashes you say were visible in the final print.

Why do you find this print such a mystery? It was a newly struck 70mm print. It was a UP70 (not rectified, but anamorphic 1.25 squeeze) print. There is NO mystery as to why the negative splices were showing. As I stated earlier, the Dome was NOT using their normal butterfly plates to project the film. THey were using a different set of lenses than normal to get all of the UP70 image on the screen. They were using NO cropping of the film image in then booth, but used strangely shaped screen masking to do the job (and the top masking wasn't lowered enough to hit the top part of the image). The negative flashes were being projected because the theatre was not using the standard crop.

 

[Techman707]

 

Originally Posted by plinfesty
Â
Why do you find this print such a mystery? It was a newly struck 70mm print. It was a UP70 (not rectified, but anamorphic 1.25 squeeze) print. There is NO mystery as to why the negative splices were showing. As I stated earlier, the Dome was NOT using their normal butterfly plates to project the film. THey were using a different set of lenses than normal to get all of the UP70 image on the screen. They were using NO cropping of the film image in then booth, but used strangely shaped screen masking to do the job (and the top masking wasn't lowered enough to hit the top part of the image). The negative flashes were being projected because the theatre was not using the standard crop.

I find it a mystery because all your statements are unsubstantiated. You say it was a "newly struck 70mm print", but, you don't really know the source. When you say there was no cropping, since you don't really know the source, you can't say what they did or how they did it. The fact that it has a 1.25 squeeze means nothing. They can do that to ANY print. They could easily take an old 35mm Cinemascope print that was 2.55 and with a little cropping, reprint it liquid gate in 70mm with a 1.25 squeeze. If you were unfamiliar with the picture and it was run as UP70, what would you say then? Because you say you saw it, I accept the fact that it was a "new 70mm print" that was run UP70, that tells me nothing of the source for that print./img/vbsmilies/htf/cool.gif
 
The reason I mentioned Fox's Cinemascope 55 transfers of The King and I and Carousel is because they had to crop those pictures when they did the liquid gate transfer. Although I saw prototype 55mm Simplex XL and E7 heads at Deluxe, NY, years ago, because they were not viable in the theatres, they wound up exhibiting them in 70mm (they actually called it Grandeur 70mm at the time). Those prints were CROPPED, but if someone didn't tell you that, you would NEVER know it.
 
So until the source is known and HOW IT WAS MADE, to me, it will remain a mystery./img/vbsmilies/htf/eek.gif
 

 

[plinfesty]

 

The reason I mentioned Fox's Cinemascope 55 transfers of The King and I and Carousel is because they had to crop those pictures when they did the liquid gate transfer. Although I saw prototype 55mm Simplex XL and E7 heads at Deluxe, NY, years ago, because they were not viable in the theatres, they wound up exhibiting them in 70mm (they actually called it Grandeur 70mm at the time)

AFAIK, only THE KING AND I was released in what was called Grandeur 70, not CAROUSEL, and it wasn't the original release that this was performed for, but for one in 1960-61.
 
But of course this has nothing to do with IAMMMMW and the print that many people saw at both the Dome, in 2003 and just this past year, as well as showings at the Egyoptian and Aero. It doesn't change the fact that the print, as well as what MGMHD showed, featured far more information than the standard 35mm "scope" release version.

 

[Techman707]

 

Originally Posted by plinfesty
 
AFAIK, only THE KING AND I was released in what was called Grandeur 70, not CAROUSEL, and it wasn't the original release that this was performed for, but for one in 1960-61.
 
But of course this has nothing to do with IAMMMMW and the print that many people saw at both the Dome, in 2003 and just this past year, as well as showings at the Egyoptian and Aero. It doesn't change the fact that the print, as well as what MGMHD showed, featured far more information than the standard 35mm "scope" release version.

So maybe I misunderstood what I was told. However, the point is, you don't have A CLUE what the source of that so called "new" print that was run at the Dome, Egyptian, Aero or what have you. Your statement that the MGM-HD print "featured far more information than the standard 35mm "scope" release version" remains to be seen. When you can say how, where and what the print was made from, please let me know. Until then, there is really nothing to argue about.
 

 

[plinfesty]

 

Your statement that the MGM-HD print "featured far more information than the standard 35mm "scope" release version" remains to be seen.

Maybe to you, but I DID see it, as have others here, and the MGMHD print showed far more info on the sides and a little bit more on the top and bottom than the 35mm release prints. Apparently, its something you'll have to see and experience for yourself.

 

[OliverK]

Bruce, you can find out a bit more about the new print (if it is not faded and in 70mm it must be new) of IAMMMMW here:
http://www.in70mm.com/news/2003/mad_world/index.htm
 
So maybe I misunderstood what I was told. However, the point is, you don't have A CLUE what the source of that so called "new" print that was run at the Dome, Egyptian, Aero or what have you. Your statement that the MGM-HD print "featured far more information than the standard 35mm "scope" release version" remains to be seen. When you can say how, where and what the print was made from, please let me know. Until then, there is really nothing to argue about.
 

 

[Techman707]

I guess a Blu-ray of the general release version of IAMMMMW is still a dead issue, let alone the roadshow version, is that correct? Has anyone heard anything further on this?


P.S. OliverK-Thanks again.

 

[Sam Posten]

Man I hate when I see a bump of this thread with a question and not new info =)

Sadly, I've heard nothing. Still hoping!

 

[RCinOttawa]

It's coming out on bluray on July 5 !

http://www.walmart.com/ip/16878537

(WalMart exclusive, like "The Big Country")

 

[RolandL]

Originally Posted by RCinOttawa
It's coming out on bluray on July 5 !

http://www.walmart.com/ip/16878537

(WalMart exclusive, like "The Big Country")

At 161 minutes its the same as played on MGM HD - http://www.cineramahistory.com/iammmmwhddvd.htm