New Superbits for September including Lawrence of Arabia (1 Viewer)

[Ken Stuart]

By the way, is there a list anywhere of all Superbit titles?

 

[RichD]

Although it's in a really annoying format...
http://www.sonypictures.com/cthe/sup...nt/titles.html

 

[Bill Burns]

I was giving myself a headache, Jon. But for whatever the recommendation is worth, Gordon, I find Cleopatra's dialogue to be some of the best written (if not the best written) of its era*, and certainly among period epics of this sort. There are line deliveries by Richard Burton in particular, but also Rex Harrison and Elizabeth Taylor, that move me to tears, not just for their content, but for the beauty of the language. And the photography is truly sumptuous. I love the picture, but I know many critics occupy the opposite emotional pole.

* Joseph Mankiewicz was known for his fastidious attention to the written word, so this isn't surprising.

 

[Bill Burns]

Oh, and lest I forget, thanks for reminding me of that chart, Damin. I read the column back when it was posted, but had forgotten just how detailed a reference that chart provides. It leaves me with one question (well, one with a few parts ):

Is the curator of The Widescreen Museum correct in saying that the introduction of a soundtrack reduced the first CinemaScope films from 2.66:1 to 2.55:1? It sounds good, as he describes it, but that chart makes it seem as if anything using a 1.33:1 "Academy" frame (which is not full aperture, as the chart demonstrates; only Super35 is full aperture) should, with 2X anamorphoses, be 2.66:1. Perhaps the magnetic soundtrack intruded further into the frame than the spacial difference between full aperture and 1.33:1 Academy aperture allowed? Or was early CinemaScope, in fact, not Academy aperture 1.33:1, but rather Super35 ("full Aperture") 1.33:1? Adding an optical track alongside the magnetic track seems, again according to TWM, to have reduced the ratio still further to 2.35:1. Is this, too, correct, or did the SMPTE change the aperture, thus accounting for the ratio change? It looks as if they changed the aperture, because Mr. Harris says that CinemaScope and Panavision both used .838 x .700, or 1.19:1, in which case TWM must be mistaken about all of this.

Okay ... that's more than one. Sorry. Just one more*, I really do promise, "that's all there is, there isn't any more" (God bless Ethel Barrymore): the aperture of a lens is not changed to account for slower film speeds (night photography), or desired visual effect dependent on light? I was always under the impression that aperture values on a camera could be changed by the operator. I'm more than happy to find correction if that's not the case, but I'd like to be certain. Thanks.

Where's that aspirin bottle ....

* Allow me to repeat just one last question from an earlier post (it isn't a new one, so it doesn't break my solemn oath above): numbers such as .838 x .700 represent a ratio no different from their simplified ratio to "1" (in this 1.19:1), is that how it plays out, or are these a set measurement, and if so, in what unit value (millimeters, centimeters, meters, parsecs ... )?

 

[Damin J Toell]

* Allow me to repeat just one last question from an earlier post (it isn't a new one, so it doesn't break my solemn oath above): numbers such as .838 x .700 represent a ratio no different from their simplified ratio to "1" (in this 1.19:1), is that how it plays out, or are these a set measurement, and if so, in what unit value (millimeters, centimeters, meters, parsecs ... )?

I'm not sure if I'm reading your question right, but measurements such as .838" x .700" are in inches.

DJ

 

[Bill Burns]

Ah, inches. That was exactly my question. Thanks, Damin.

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm afraid that I've erred on frame areas. Tiny numbers...

The correct measurements, in inches for 65mm Oneg is

2.066 x 0.906, which is further trimmed for transfer to cover horizontal splice lines.

sorry for the confusion.

A superb reference may be found at:

http://www.theasc.com/cgibin/store/a...atalogno=10108

The bible.

 

[David Glenn]

Here's a review on the upcoming Leon: The Professional Superbit

http://www.dvdfile.com/software/revi...7/leon_sb.html

Supposedly the audio isn't up to par. I'm glad I kept the last release they did but I would still like to hear other opinions of the SB audio.

"... The question remains, is this Superbit disc a worthwhile investment? The video is improved, but it's not as good as other Superbit titles or, for that matter, not as good as some conventional titles from other studios. The audio is not an improvement; one could argue that it isn't as effective as on the original release of '98. If you do choose to buy, please make an informed decision." - Dan Ramer, dvdfile.com

 

[Hank]

Anyone get there Leon Superbit. I might pick this up but I'm also considering the 99' Leon DVD if it does indeed sound better.

 

[Magnus T]

I wonder why DVDFile choose to compare the Superbit of Léon with the original disc from 98 and not the integral version that was released a couple of years ago...