"Superbit" couldn't claim to be definitive if it didn't offer the director's preferred edition of a movie! (though, as I say that, the Superbit of Das Boot is the extended "theatrical" edit, rather than the full miniseries version from Germany). Still, I think C/T will be doing right by Besson fans, who have much to celebrate between this and the recent, anamorphic re-release of La Femme Nikita (MGM).
Those who argue that 35mm is just as good as 65mm on DVD are arguing, not with me, but with comments made by Mr. Harris, with studios who have spent good money transferring from 65I have never said that it is 'as good as' - I have said that it is good enough for DVD. In an ideal world, all VistaVision films would be transfered from the highest quality 35/8 element(s) and all 65mm/Ultra Panavision films would be transfered from the highest quality 65mm element(s) and... How The West Was Won would be transfered from each 6-perf 35mm interpositive of the restored negative, but all of this is costly and requires more time and care than using a high/maximum-quality 35mm reduction.
Great stuff, Bill!
Gordy
My Fair Lady measures 2.40:1 on DVD. It is an edge-to-edge transfer of the 65mm frame - showing slightly more horizontal information than can be shown in theatrical projectionThis is impossible, Gordon. Super Panavision is shot flat. It fills a 65mm frame, which at the aperture used in such photography thus has an approximate ratio of 2.2:1. Reducing it to a 1.37:1 frame would eliminate much picture information, but happily Panavision 35 is not flat, it's anamorphic. While printed to 1.37:1, it projects (in scope) at 2.35:1, again approximately. You must either have dead space to the sides (I was wrong about needing the dead space all around -- that's strictly in Super35) the 2.2:1 image (allowing for full anamorphoses in recording and projecting the image) or remove a small portion of the image above or below to make Super Panavision project properly (i.e. fill the screen) as 35 Panavision scope.
An edge to edge transfer of 2.2:1 to 2.35:1 would remove screen real estate from the top and/or bottom of the frame (assuming we measure edge to edge horizontally). If edge to edge is measured vertically, we leave dead space on the left and right of the 2.35:1 frame (or 2.40:1, whatever -- Panavision scope). I was completely wrong, though, in thoughts of different compression schemes for the lenses: I don't see how any new anamorphic spec would affect how much of a 2.35:1 frame is filled by a 2.2:1 frame. What I believe I was envisioning was a scheme that would project at 2.2:1 in 35mm, but this is getting very theoretical, and needn't. To make a 2.2:1 flat film into an anamorphic 2.35:1 film, you must either eliminate picture information from the top and/or bottom or leave dead space to the sides. There's no way to "find" new picture information on the sides, and if there were (there isn't
But all of that math aside (and it's the math I see no way around when dealing with ratios here), quality does suffer. I couldn't disagree more that My Fair Lady looks stellar on disc. Both My Fair Lady and Lawrence of Arabia were shot in Super Panavision in the 60's, and while shot under different conditions by different individuals, the processes can be roughly compared for clarity without losing all critical credibility. My Fair Lady, aside from its correct color timing, has none of Lawrence's depth or large format brilliance. Compare the two on disc (the discs already on the market). I don't see how we could argue that they aren't worlds apart in overall clarity.
Incidentally, mastering from 65 for home video isn't new to DVD. It yielded a phenomenal result for Vertigo on laser, and earlier for the Todd-AO version of Oklahoma!, from Fox (I'm certain this was taken from 65mm original elements; the transfer fails to hold up today primarily due to what appears to be a failing yellow layer, and the film needs to be restored and reissued anamorphically from 65, but in terms of clarity, it's magnificent, and this is the transfer also used for the existing DVD).
65 has been used, is still used, and hopefully will always be used for 65 films transferred to DVD. Resolution isn't the sole difference (thus my discussion of "character" and look) -- if it were, we couldn't tell the difference between 16mm and 35mm on DVD, because the DVD spec doesn't even fully capture the resolving capacity of modern 16mm film. When 65 isn't used for a 65 film, I am disappointed as a customer, and with good cause.
But would such a gain translate into print form, where a soundtrack must be reapplied (does a 35 soundtrack take up less negative space than a 65? It seems it would, but not by enough to account for the full difference in ratio)? One way or the other, it's more than we were meant to see, is it not? This all came up on another thread in great detail not long ago; I'll edit this and link when I have a bit more time.
70mm projection frame with mag stripes: 1.912 x 0.970
65mm Oneg area: 2.066 x0.906 = AR 2.28:1, which is further cut vertically to hide splice linesI opened myself to a mathematical headache by bringing math into the discussion earlier, I do fully realize that
How is it that the projected frame has greater vertical area (.970) than the original negative (.906)? The projected frame has lesser horizontal area due to the presence of the soundtrack, of course.
And one more question: on a projected 35mm reduction, a soundtrack must be reintroduced, as I mentioned earlier. How much of this spacial gain is then lost again to the reintroduced 35mm soundtrack? And was the DVD transfered from an element that had already reintroduced the soundtrack (would an interpositive have a printed soundtrack, or would it strictly exist as a picture element? I'm still trying to get to the precise bottom of the difference between an IP and a release print, and also the function of an internegative, if such a thing is at all distinct from a duplicate negative, the function of which I certainly understand).
This gain to the sides fills in the dead space of a 2.2:1 (or 2.21:1) transfer (would enough vertical information be lost in projection to take us from 2.28:1 to 2.39/2.40:1, though? That seems like quite a bit to hide splice marks), but again alters the composition the cinematographer expected audiences to see (in a situation such as The Robe, where the film was apparently shot with the expectation that release prints would feature the soundtrack on a separate strip of film, an argument can be made that the film was composed for, and should be shown at, full aperture, which with early CinemaScope anamorphoses would be 2.66:1; but in a 65mm flat mag soundtrack situation such as My Fair Lady's, the cinematographer would almost certainly compose the film for the ratio audiences would see after the soundtrack had been applied to the film). And A/B-ing this with (particularly, to be as fair as possible, interiors of) Lawrence of Arabia two years later, also Super Panavision, one simply looks like large format on DVD, and one does not. And I'm watching this at 32"! I have to imagine the gains of 65mm mastering are all the more evident in large screen and projection viewing.
Given Vertigo's transfer parameters, and Criterion's for Spartacus, and the lasers I've mentioned ... I have to assume this decision for My Fair Lady's DVD master was financial first and foremost, but also a decision of the available technology for anamorphic encoding, something Warner Bros. has supported from the beginning on pictures wider than 1.66:1. I'm grateful for the DVD, which is of course much superior to transfers which predate the restoration, but with great respect I must nevertheless continue insisting that all available evidence, as a consumer looking at 65mm transfers to disc over the course of the past decade, leads me to believe My Fair Lady would notably benefit from a careful anamorphic transfer from 65. The expense may not be practical on a film that will not sell through the roof, but whatever forces united to make the expense manageable on Vertigo, Spartacus, and others, I hope will again unite to bring us another edition of My Fair Lady, at its 65mm framing and sourced from 65mm. When it's re-transfered for HD-DVD, at the very least, I trust 65mm will be the source of preference, but I for one would gladly buy a new edition on DVD which was so transfered.
I eagerly anticipate news of how the new transfer of Lawrence has been sourced (I'm again fairly certain the box is correct and the current edition was taken from 65?), and do not mean any of this as an undue criticism of financial and technological necessities of the past, but rather as an informed consumer expectation for the future.
But really, it's quite simple: anamorphic Panavision is compressed to a ratio of 2:1 (2x), and thus halving its ratio gives you its "flat" spec, in this case 1.19:1 or 1.20:1 (vertically stretched). Flat Panavision (which is never squeezed anamorphically) continues to record to 1.37:1 or right at it; major alterations in this ratio would negatively affect television broadcasts, etc... Panavision gains vertical height and does not record beneath the soundtrack of 35mm film; if it did, it would be wider than 2.40:1). That's nothing new. Panavision has had a similar ratio since the beginning (was it always 2.40:1, or did it start off at 2.35:1? I'm thinking the aperture recommendations have changed over the years). It doesn't sacrifice width to achieve this, but rather gains height on the original negative. Correct? Then I was wrong to assume that it was printed to 1.37:1; it's printed to 1.19:1. And always has been (approximately). Okay. That makes sense.). Unlike Vertigo and Hamlet, though, I've never seen Cleopatra theatrically, so if this is a reduction transfer, it might improve further still in a large format transfer (which I doubt we'll see, given the film's general critical standing -- but then, I'd have though an elaborate special edition was out of the question for the same reason, and Fox came through nevertheless, so ... hope springs eternal). You knew I had to get it in one last time.
That almost sounds like it came from a sane man. The inside of my head isn't for the faint of heart ....
Not my cup of tea at all!
A piece of exposed film, 35mm, has a ratio (in flat photography) of 1.37:1. Yes? Yes. What, then, does this number represent? Does it represent picture (as the 1.33:1 number does), or picture + sound? If picture ... then ... then ... hmmm ... oh, I'm ready to give up.The 1.37:1 Academy aperture just represents the exposed picture. The area reserved for the soundtrack is not included. In the pre-sound days, the full exposed 1.33:1 apertrue was .980" x .735" (which is now the full potential Super35 aperture). The 1.37:1 Academy apeture is .825" x .600". This is clearly both shorter and thinner than the full aperture. Since the aperture needed to be made thinner to accomodate the soundtrack, I would imagine that it was also simultaneously made shorter in order to keep it in rough proportion with the previous standard.
You can find a lovely SMPTE chart that Robert Harris has kindly supplied to all of us in this column he wrote for The Digital Bits.
I am almost afraid to see what manner and length of posts will result from you being exposed to this chart, Bill.
DJ
