The Leopard (1963) (Criterion) (Blu-ray) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[FoxyMulder]

I think the Criterion has had some sharpening applied to it, if anyone wants to compare the framing then a good source below.

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=561&disc2=562&hd_multiID=178#auswahl

Look at the outline of the dog and the woman's right hand and arm, in the Criterion you can see some edge halo's, a clear sign of sharpening somewhere in the chain, i hate that, the Pathe is clearly a superior transfer whatever you think of the framing.

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=561&disc2=562&cap1=5684&cap2=5696&art=full&image=4&hd_multiID=178&action=1&lossless=#vergleich

 

[john a hunter]

Puerto Rico was considered a foreign market when it came to film distribution. It didn't abide by the Code rules, and cuts were not applied.
It played the same prints that showed in Europe, not the USA. The ads for The Leopard in the paper read Technirama 70mm Technicolor. And it played full length. Unfortunately, I don't have access to those sources.
That's why I saw versions of films that were never seen by US audiences, such as: the complete The Devils, Queimada, Once upon a Time in the West, The Dance of the Vampires (Fearless Vampire Killers), Blood and Roses, Ryan's Daughter, etc.
You may or may not take my word on this. That's all.

No offensive but where there is no record of a print run in 70mm, to have one turn up in Puerto Rico and no where else, is extremely unlikely.
Newspaper adds are not a reliable source. Hercules conquers Atlantis was also advertised as being released in 70mm Technirama when it certainly wasn't.

 

[bujaki]

No offensive but where there is no record of a print run in 70mm, to have one turn up in Puerto Rico and no where else, is extremely unlikely.
Newspaper adds are not a reliable source. Hercules conquers Atlantis was also advertised as being released in 70mm Technirama when it certainly wasn't.

John, you are right. Newspaper ads are not always trustworthy. However, I need to ask you this: are you saying that there was no 70mm print of The Leopard struck anywhere, anytime in the world (not just the USA)? Maybe in Italy or France? The prints we got in Puerto RIco were in the original language (italian dub in this case) with Spanish subtitles. This definitely did not come from the USA. I remember watching Never on Sunday with a mixed audience of Puerto Ricans and English-only speakers. Well, the film played in Greek/English with Spanish subtitles translating the Greek dialogue. The English-only speakers were not happy. I just mention this to prove that our prints came from another source, not necessarily the USA.
But you may be right and no 70mm prints of The Leopard were ever struck. I have no way of knowing any differently.

 

[Lord Dalek]

I also saw an original 58 70mm print of Beauty in the mid 80's . It was 2.20 and not hard matted to 2.55.
What I suspect happened was that the animation was prepared for 2.55 based upon Disney's existing set up for Lady and the Tramp and the switch from Scope to Technirama was made late in the game.

Yeah production on Sleeping Beauty started in 1954 when 2.55 was the standard. The Technirama system wouldn't make its debut for another two years and then wouldn't be used on anything American until 1957. So more likely then not Disney just simply adapted it to the new format with some minor in camera matting (plus the fact that Technicolor wanted to use Sleeping Beauty as a test case for their 70mm conversion process).

Now as that film and The Leopard are AFAIK the only two transfers directly from original 8-perf elements (all the rest use 4-Perf 35mm or, in the case of Criterion's Sparticus, 65mm ip masters) we may be completely wrong about that, but until someone more knowledgeable about the subject comes along or Disney does a new 8k scan of Black Cauldron yeilding 2.55, I'm going with 2.25 as the proper neg.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Now as that film and The Leopard are AFAIK the only two transfers directly from original 8-perf elements (all the rest use 4-Perf 35mm or, in the case of Criterion's Sparticus, 65mm ip masters) we may be completely wrong about that, but until someone more knowledgeable about the subject comes along or Disney does a new 8k scan of Black Cauldron yeilding 2.55, I'm going with 2.25 as the proper neg.

The full negative is 2.55:1 but you are not supposed to see the full negative image, The Leopard works very well at 2.55:1.

 

[Dr Griffin]

I think the Criterion has had some sharpening applied to it, if anyone wants to compare the framing then a good source below.

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=561&disc2=562&hd_multiID=178#auswahl

Look at the outline of the dog and the woman's right hand and arm, in the Criterion you can see some edge halo's, a clear sign of sharpening somewhere in the chain, i hate that, the Pathe is clearly a superior transfer whatever you think of the framing.

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=561&disc2=562&cap1=5684&cap2=5696&art=full&image=4&hd_multiID=178&action=1&lossless=#vergleich

Good observations. Any information on the color differences?

 

[FoxyMulder]

Good observations. Any information on the color differences?

You'll have to page Bruce as he is the colour expert, i can't comment on the colour using this laptop but you would think being the newer film scan and restoration, if restoration is the right word, it would be closer to the original intent for colour.

 

[Dr Griffin]

You'll have to page Bruce as he is the colour expert, i can't comment on the colour using this laptop but you would think being the newer film scan and restoration, if restoration is the right word, it would be closer to the original intent for colour.

The French is very pleasing to look at, but, is it correct? BRUUUUCE!

 

[john a hunter]

The full negative is 2.55:1 but you are not supposed to see the full negative image, The Leopard works very well at 2.55:1.

This is rubbish.
As I said before, check the maths. Go to the American Widescreen website and work it out for your self!
Based on the full camera aperture, the maximum aspect ratio is 2.26. The only way to get 2.55 is to mask the frame down and this did not happen as verified by the original 70mm print I saw.

 

[john a hunter]

John, you are right. Newspaper ads are not always trustworthy. However, I need to ask you this: are you saying that there was no 70mm print of The Leopard struck anywhere, anytime in the world (not just the USA)? Maybe in Italy or France? The prints we got in Puerto RIco were in the original language (italian dub in this case) with Spanish subtitles. This definitely did not come from the USA. I remember watching Never on Sunday with a mixed audience of Puerto Ricans and English-only speakers. Well, the film played in Greek/English with Spanish subtitles translating the Greek dialogue. The English-only speakers were not happy. I just mention this to prove that our prints came from another source, not necessarily the USA.
But you may be right and no 70mm prints of The Leopard were ever struck. I have no way of knowing any differently.

I am not an expert on the Leopard, Jose, but I have researched Technirama and from what I have read, there is no evidence of any 70mm prints of Leopard anywhere. Certainly not in the US where, as you rightly state, Fox really ruined the director's intent by printing the cheapest way possible.
Another pointer to there being no 70 prints is, as far as I can trace, the lack of a proper stereo 6 or 4 track sound track.
At the time of release , it would be unthinkable not to have a proper stereo track with a 70 print.

 

[john a hunter]

Yeah production on Sleeping Beauty started in 1954 when 2.55 was the standard. The Technirama system wouldn't make its debut for another two years and then wouldn't be used on anything American until 1957. So more likely then not Disney just simply adapted it to the new format with some minor in camera matting (plus the fact that Technicolor wanted to use Sleeping Beauty as a test case for their 70mm conversion process).

Now as that film and The Leopard are AFAIK the only two transfers directly from original 8-perf elements (all the rest use 4-Perf 35mm or, in the case of Criterion's Sparticus, 65mm ip masters) we may be completely wrong about that, but until someone more knowledgeable about the subject comes along or Disney does a new 8k scan of Black Cauldron yeilding 2.55, I'm going with 2.25 as the proper neg.

You have hit the nail on the head. Thank you , your Lordship.

 

[FoxyMulder]

This is rubbish.
As I said before, check the maths. Go to the American Widescreen website and work it out for your self!
Based on the full camera aperture, the maximum aspect ratio is 2.26. The only way to get 2.55 is to mask the frame down and this did not happen as verified by the original 70mm print I saw.

On the one hand you say you saw a 70mm print, which incidentally would be a blow up, on the next post you say none were made.

I mean someone made a decision, someone was informed enough to do that, i'll stick my neck on the line and say the full negative area is 2.55:1 and what you refer to when you talk about 70mm is the blow up and it would be 2.20:1, i think i am right.

In fact i have just checked my Sleeping Beauty disc from Disney, guess what, it's Super Technirama 70 and it's 2.55:1, i think that clears up any confusion and proves the case for The Leopard at 2.55:1, far from being rubbish it's the full negative aspect ratio and the screencaps, which you probably didn't even check, look correct at that ratio too, of course 70mm prints would still be 2.20:1.

Incidentally there is no major masking of the frame from 2.20:1 to achieve the 2.55:1 aspect ratio and the caps prove this.

Now this doesn't confirm it played at cinemas with that aspect ratio, it just confirms the full negative area is 2.55:1.

 

[john a hunter]

On the one hand you say you saw a 70mm print, which incidentally would be a blow up, on the next post you say none were made.

I mean someone made a decision, someone was informed enough to do that, i'll stick my neck on the line and say the full negative area is 2.55:1 and what you refer to when you talk about 70mm is the blow up and it would be 2.20:1, i think i am right.

In fact i have just checked my Sleeping Beauty disc from Disney, guess what, it's Super Technirama 70 and it's 2.55:1, i think that clears up any confusion and proves the case for The Leopard at 2.55:1, far from being rubbish it's the full negative aspect ratio and the screencaps, which you probably didn't even check, look correct at that ratio too, of course 70mm prints would still be 2.20:1.

Incidentally there is no major masking of the frame from 2.20:1 to achieve the 2.55:1 aspect ratio and the caps prove this.

Now this doesn't confirm it played at cinemas with that aspect ratio, it just confirms the full negative area is 2.55:1.

If you read the above properly, you will note that I refer to an original 1958 70mm print of Beauty.
I have not seen a 70mm print of Leopard.

Obviously maths was never your strong suit. Using the camera aperture, it is impossible to obtain 2.55 without masking off some of the area. Yes, the BD of Beauty is 2.55 and no one has disputed that. What is quite clear is that, as released, the ratio was the usual 70mm aspect ratio of 2.20. How ever, you can argue a case for 2.55 for Beauty because that was what the animation was designed for even if it was never commercially shown in that ratio.

That does not apply to The Leopard.
Any BD should be 2.20. That or 2.35, not 2.55.

 

[Brian Sharp]

Sleeping Beauty was not full frame in 70mm; full width but not full height.

 

[dpippel]

Wow, some of the posts in this thread are getting pretty pissy and bordering on personal attacks IMO.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Wow, some of the posts in this thread are getting pretty pissy and bordering on personal attacks IMO.

Yes, this stuff could be explained informatively, without the personal rancor.

 

[FoxyMulder]

If you read the above properly, you will note that I refer to an original 1958 70mm print of Beauty.
I have not seen a 70mm print of Leopard.

Obviously maths was never your strong suit. Using the camera aperture, it is impossible to obtain 2.55 without masking off some of the area. Yes, the BD of Beauty is 2.55 and no one has disputed that. What is quite clear is that, as released, the ratio was the usual 70mm aspect ratio of 2.20. How ever, you can argue a case for 2.55 for Beauty because that was what the animation was designed for even if it was never commercially shown in that ratio.

That does not apply to The Leopard.
Any BD should be 2.20. That or 2.35, not 2.55.

Is there any need for the insults John, i mean take out the maths part and just stick with the rest of your post.

Super Technirama 70 is a 35mm process, it is not 70mm, all 70mm prints would be blow ups.

I agree to disagree regarding The Leopard, i think it should be 2.55:1, i'll just add that the compositions fit perfectly within the frame at 2.55:1 but things are cut off at 2.20:1, that to me says the wider aspect ratio is correct, now of course there is a very small amount masked off, i can see that when i look at the screencap comparison but it's a tiny amount.

2.40:1 would probably work really well too but 2.20:1 looks cramped to me.

 

[john a hunter]

Is there any need for the insults John, i mean take out the maths part and just stick with the rest of your post.

Super Technirama 70 is a 35mm process, it is not 70mm, all 70mm prints would be blow ups.

I agree to disagree regarding The Leopard, i think it should be 2.55:1, i'll just add that the compositions fit perfectly within the frame at 2.55:1 but things are cut off at 2.20:1, that to me says the wider aspect ratio is correct, now of course there is a very small amount masked off, i can see that when i look at the screencap comparison but it's a tiny amount.

2.40:1 would probably work really well too but 2.20:1 looks cramped to me.

Sorry if you have taken this badly. It was not meant to be insulting.
I am only stating the obvious when you have a camera aperture of a certain aspect ratio,you are limited to the maximum aspect ratio possible without cropping. It's all in the maths.

Have you checked out the forum I suggested?

If you want to crop the Leopard to an aspect ratio in which it was never shown or composed for, it may look fine to you, but you must admit that it was never how it was intended to be seen.

Surely you can accept that, my friend.

 

[FoxyMulder]

@John


It's Pathe who chose 2.55:1, it was a new restoration so they had to have had input from someone, i'm just the messenger don't shoot me, i would like to know why they chose that ratio and their reasoning behind it but i will say the caps show it works well.

 

[john a hunter]

@John


It's Pathe who chose 2.55:1, it was a new restoration so they had to have had input from someone, i'm just the messenger don't shoot me, i would like to know why they chose that ratio and their reasoning behind it but i will say the caps show it works well.

So would I like to know what made them choose this aspect ratio given what has been said above. Cheers