New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Universal Fire - Page 3

post #61 of 70
10/8/08 at 7:37am

Re: Universal Fire

I think that the positive part of the message (if you can call it that), is that “so nothing would exist to create one from at the original aspect ratio at the present time.” As we were told several times by Universal sources that masters were lost but not negatives. It would appear that Universal would have to go back to the negative to create a new master. The question that was asked many times in this thread was what would it take for Universal to go back and make a new master or strike another print of a classic, evidently not enough for this title. Or, hopefully the DVD release does not correspond with Universal’s time frame.
Reply
post #62 of 70
10/8/08 at 8:11am

Re: Universal Fire

Yes, this is not only confusing but creating alarm for no reason. There is no such thing as an HD 16x9 print - they lost a video master, not the film. They have the film, the negative, and "at this time" they probably don't feel it's a title they need to rush out, as much as a few people would love it.
Reply
post #63 of 70
10/8/08 at 8:23am

Re: Universal Fire

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman
There is no such thing as an HD 16x9 print

I must admit that confused the hell out of me, but I didn't question it just in case it was a bit of 'industry speak' that I wasn't au fait with.

However, the warning for potential R2 purchasers is now out there.
Reply
post #64 of 70
10/8/08 at 11:13am

Re: Universal Fire

This is one of the few CinemaScope films that was actually shot twice; once in anamorphic 2.55 and another in standard 1.85 - but also protected for 1.37. I've seen an original 35mm trailer of the 1.85 version.

I wonder if this is a transfer of the non-anamorphic, 1.85 version?
Reply
post #65 of 70
10/8/08 at 11:53am

Re: Universal Fire

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Furmanek
This is one of the few CinemaScope films that was actually shot twice; once in anamorphic 2.55 and another in standard 1.85 - but also protected for 1.37. I've seen an original 35mm trailer of the 1.85 version.

I wonder if this is a transfer of the non-anamorphic, 1.85 version?

I knew it was also screened in 1.37:1 Bob, but I didn't know that it was also shot in 1.85:1 and screened in that format - I assumed that they'd shot it in Academy and 'scope, which shows that you should never assume. Now; Eureka has admitted the film is cropped, but you've got me thinking - this review has a number of screen shots (the shot of the title sequence seems to be a dead giveaway), judge for yourself. BTW, re-reading the piece the reviewer says it's 1.78:1 (hardly a 'close approximation' to 'scope...)

Eureka also trumpeted the film as 'Universal's first Cinemascope film' on their website and had the DVD ratio as 2.35:1, but has now removed both references.
Reply
post #66 of 70
10/8/08 at 12:48pm

Re: Universal Fire

Actually, I believe the trades said the flat version could be screened up to a 2:1 ratio.

At first glance, this seems sort of defeating the purpose, but you have to realize that when CinemaScope first appeared on the market, the lenses were $1,400 EACH. Flat wide-screen was a much more feasible option for theaters that were on a budget.
Reply
post #67 of 70
10/8/08 at 4:40pm

Re: Universal Fire

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Hodson
I knew it was also screened in 1.37:1 Bob, but I didn't know that it was also shot in 1.85:1 and screened in that format - I assumed that they'd shot it in Academy and 'scope, which shows that you should never assume. Now; Eureka has admitted the film is cropped, but you've got me thinking - this review has a number of screen shots (the shot of the title sequence seems to be a dead giveaway), judge for yourself. BTW, re-reading the piece the reviewer says it's 1.78:1 (hardly a 'close approximation' to 'scope...)

Eureka also trumpeted the film as 'Universal's first Cinemascope film' on their website and had the DVD ratio as 2.35:1, but has now removed both references.

Thanks for the link to the review, although I don't see a screencap of the title sequence. The rest of the caps seem reasonably framed, so maybe Jack's information is what happened - that they used the 1:85.1 negative.
Reply
post #68 of 70
10/10/08 at 5:05am

Re: Universal Fire

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman
Thanks for the link to the review, although I don't see a screencap of the title sequence. The rest of the caps seem reasonably framed, so maybe Jack's information is what happened - that they used the 1:85.1 negative.

Eureka confirm that the words 'A Cinemascope Production' are in the title sequence, which would appear to preclude that possibility?
Reply
post #69 of 70
5/27/10 at 9:08pm

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid301778988?bctid=88505586001

Reply
post #70 of 70
5/27/10 at 9:42pm

Thanks for sharing the link Adam.  It was interesting.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DVD