Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

AIRPORT in TODD-AO?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#1 of 99 trajan

trajan

    Supporting Actor

  • 599 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 01 2009

Posted March 09 2012 - 05:38 AM

My understanding is that AIRPORT will be released on bluray in September. It would be really nice if the TODD-AO elements were used in the transfer. I hope Universal goes the full nine yards on this one. Maybe someone with industry contacts could give us an answer if a TODD-AO transfer will happen. BTW- will we see SWEET CHARITY anytime soon?

#2 of 99 John Stockton

John Stockton

    Second Unit

  • 364 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 09 2000

Posted March 11 2012 - 03:30 PM

Oh Please Universal, do not foul up this release. I have been waiting for a Todd-Ao version sourced from the original 65 MM negative for a long time. The sound should also be six channel discreet derived from the original stems.

#3 of 99 David Coleman

David Coleman

    Supporting Actor

  • 757 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 05 2000

Posted March 14 2012 - 01:36 PM

Different studio, but wasn't SOUND OF MUSIC sourced from the 65mm Tood-AO negative?

#4 of 99 John Hermes

John Hermes

    Supporting Actor

  • 695 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 01 2007
  • Real Name:John Hermes
  • LocationLa Mesa (San Diego) CA

Posted July 13 2012 - 04:45 AM

I received my BD copy of Airport yesterday from England. It is a 2.35 AR transfer with a DTS HD Master 5.1 soundtrack. The sharpness is good and the color and contrast are excellent, looking very much like late-1960s Technicolor to me. I'm sure not having the 70mm AR, and apparently not being sourced from the 65mm materials, will put some people off. I am pretty happy with the image myself. It was late at night when I checked it out so I can't tell you much about the sound yet.

#5 of 99 RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter

  • 2,147 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted August 24 2012 - 07:23 AM

Review on dvdbeaver

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#6 of 99 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,320 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted August 24 2012 - 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by John Hermes 

I received my BD copy of Airport yesterday from England. It is a 2.35 AR transfer with a DTS HD Master 5.1 soundtrack. The sharpness is good and the color and contrast are excellent, looking very much like late-1960s Technicolor to me. I'm sure not having the 70mm AR, and apparently not being sourced from the 65mm materials, will put some people off. I am pretty happy with the image myself. It was late at night when I checked it out so I can't tell you much about the sound yet.


As far as I'm aware, this was scanned from a 65mm element.  Aspect ratio is irrelevant.


2.35 would be very close to correct for 65mm.


RAH


"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#7 of 99 John Stockton

John Stockton

    Second Unit

  • 364 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 09 2000

Posted August 24 2012 - 05:49 PM

As far as I'm aware, this was scanned from a 65mm element.  Aspect ratio is irrelevant. 2.35 would be very close to correct for 65mm. RAH

Is it possible that the 2.21 frame was opened up to show the picture information that would normally be missing to accommodate the magnetic soundtracks on the sides of the frame??

#8 of 99 Douglas R

Douglas R

    Screenwriter

  • 1,769 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 30 2000
  • Real Name:Doug
  • LocationLondon, United Kingdom

Posted August 24 2012 - 07:56 PM

Review on dvdbeaver

That's what I like to see! An obvious huge improvement over the DVD which makes it a worthwhile upgrade.

#9 of 99 NY2LA

NY2LA

    Screenwriter

  • 1,352 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 03 2011

Posted August 24 2012 - 08:29 PM

As far as I'm aware, this was scanned from a 65mm element.  Aspect ratio is irrelevant. 2.35 would be very close to correct for 65mm. RAH

How so? Native aspect for 65mm/Todd-AO is 2.21. In the current 16x9 dominant world of homevid, and an Imax-aping time where pretty much every current cinema emphasizes height over width, IF they are going to all the trouble of mastering from 65, WHY would they deliberately throw away the extra picture height by cropping to 2.35?

#10 of 99 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,320 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted August 24 2012 - 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by NY2LA 


How so? Native aspect for 65mm/Todd-AO is 2.21. In the current 16x9 dominant world of homevid, and an Imax-aping time where pretty much every current cinema emphasizes height over width, IF they are going to all the trouble of mastering from 65, WHY would they deliberately throw away the extra picture height by cropping to 2.35?

If a film is scanned from a 65mm element, and the image area normally hidden by mag stripes is exposed, one is very close to 2.35.


"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#11 of 99 NY2LA

NY2LA

    Screenwriter

  • 1,352 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 03 2011

Posted August 25 2012 - 02:10 AM

If a film is scanned from a 65mm element, and the image area normally hidden by mag stripes is exposed, one is very close to 2.35.

Is this evident in the screen caps (from a source many of you often criticize)? I see no reason for exposing that much more than theatres were ever intended to show. Warner did that with the letterboxed How the West was Won - taking an already extra wide film and making it ridiculously wide, so even on a 16x9 screen it looked like a ribbon across a black field. Being shot in Todd-AO, the preferred AR would be 2.21, while it would have been protected for 2.35, but WITHIN that 2.21 frame. Right, Robert? So whatever goes out beyond the frame to the sprocket holes was never meant to show. Adding unintended width only makes the picture unnecessarily smaller on current TVs. What would have been wrong with, say, oh, idunno, presenting the picture in its native AR - the way it was originally shown in its original theatrical engagements?

#12 of 99 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,320 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted August 25 2012 - 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by NY2LA 


Is this evident in the screen caps (from a source many of you often criticize)?
I see no reason for exposing that much more than theatres were ever intended to show. Warner did that with the letterboxed How the West was Won - taking an already extra wide film and making it ridiculously wide, so even on a 16x9 screen it looked like a ribbon across a black field.
Being shot in Todd-AO, the preferred AR would be 2.21, while it would have been protected for 2.35, but WITHIN that 2.21 frame. Right, Robert? So whatever goes out beyond the frame to the sprocket holes was never meant to show. Adding unintended width only makes the picture unnecessarily smaller on current TVs. What would have been wrong with, say, oh, idunno, presenting the picture in its native AR - the way it was originally shown in its original theatrical engagements?


I have no info re: the mindset involved.  I can tell you, however, that the DVDs of My Fair Lady, which were created from a special 35mm IP, exposing the entire 65mm area, was released at 2.35.  My personal preference would be 2.21:1.


RAH


"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#13 of 99 NY2LA

NY2LA

    Screenwriter

  • 1,352 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 03 2011

Posted August 25 2012 - 03:06 AM

I have no info re: the mindset involved.  I can tell you, however, that the DVDs of My Fair Lady, which were created from a special 35mm IP, exposing the entire 65mm area, was released at 2.35.  My personal preference would be 2.21:1. RAH

Right with you there. Could it be something like that old phrase "a little information is a dangerous thing" meaning someone who has learned the some of basics, but not all about something... Might there be some people who think 2.35 is better because it's "wider"? That could maybe explain why Fox F'd up Oklahoma! by favoring the 35mm version over the 70mm. I have dealt with some studio people who thought they knew it all about things of which they really had only limited understanding. PS: does anyone else hate Uni's bland generic menus as much as I do? Looking at the Beaver caps, even if they were less than ideal, the older DVD menus for Airport at least tried to present the picture with its own identity, where as Uni just makes every movie look like something you called up on a computer from a database - just another piece of software. To me that's television and not movies. I probably sound like I should take a swig of Geritol and go to bed. (not a bad idea. Good night Gracie)

#14 of 99 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,320 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted August 25 2012 - 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by NY2LA 


Right with you there. Could it be something like that old phrase "a little information is a dangerous thing" meaning someone who has learned the some of basics, but not all about something... Might there be some people who think 2.35 is better because it's "wider"? That could maybe explain why Fox F'd up Oklahoma! by favoring the 35mm version over the 70mm. I have dealt with some studio people who thought they knew it all about things of which they really had only limited understanding.
PS: does anyone else hate Uni's bland generic menus as much as I do? Looking at the Beaver caps, even if they were less than ideal, the older DVD menus for Airport at least tried to present the picture with its own identity, where as Uni just makes every movie look like something you called up on a computer from a database - just another piece of software. To me that's television and not movies. I probably sound like I should take a swig of Geritol and go to bed. (not a bad idea. Good night Gracie)

Fox "favored" the 35mm version because it was printable, while the 65mm Todd-AO was faded.


RAH


"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#15 of 99 NY2LA

NY2LA

    Screenwriter

  • 1,352 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 03 2011

Posted August 26 2012 - 12:13 AM

Fox "favored" the 35mm version because it was printable, while the 65mm Todd-AO was faded. RAH

The 65mm what? OCN or interpos? What has printability to do with the ability to produce a good video transfer? You can always color correct, and the large format would have better resolution. The laserdisc was done from 65mm elements. I was around then, and I don't recall anyone saying that was faded or any mention of problems with it. And they do have YCMs on Oklahoma!, no?

#16 of 99 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,320 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted August 26 2012 - 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by NY2LA 


The 65mm what? OCN or interpos? What has printability to do with the ability to produce a good video transfer? You can always color correct, and the large format would have better resolution. The laserdisc was done from 65mm elements. I was around then, and I don't recall anyone saying that was faded or any mention of problems with it. And they do have YCMs on Oklahoma!, no?

OCN.


Not printable = heavy lifting and digital expense.  The laserdisc was produced from a new print derived from the faded neg.  It was not a pretty picture, and would be far less pretty above 480i.


RAH


"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#17 of 99 NY2LA

NY2LA

    Screenwriter

  • 1,352 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 03 2011

Posted August 26 2012 - 02:13 AM

OCN. Not printable = heavy lifting and digital expense.  The laserdisc was produced from a new print derived from the faded neg.  It was not a pretty picture, and would be far less pretty above 480i. RAH

I seem to recall a statement being made about South Pacific that the 65mm roadshow elements weren't in the best shape, but no such explanation was given at the time for featuring a smaller version of Oklahoma! on DVD than we got previously and reducing the original to a supplement. Not even after the outrcy that came from its release. Having heard their large format titles were "restored" (though not sure if that means in the original RAH definition or the more prevalent current interpretation meaning struck a new print or did some digital work on video) one might hope that the Blu-Rays would be done from 65mm in OAR for higher resolution. Back to topic of Airport, I still wonder what Uni was thinking - if indeed they went as far as mastering from 65mm, why they would include extra width that wasn't intended, especially in a time when Imax has influenced the whole industry to think that height is better than width. Look around at today's cinemas and count how many have top masking that makes widescreen movies smaller, as opposed to side masking that served the original intent of wider being bigger.

#18 of 99 JohnMor

JohnMor

    Producer

  • 3,069 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2004
  • Real Name:John Moreland
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted August 26 2012 - 03:33 AM

The difference in width is pretty negligible and the blu ray does feature more information at the top and bottom of the frame than the previous releases.



#19 of 99 Brian Sharp

Brian Sharp

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 222 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2005
  • LocationRobin Hood Country

Posted August 26 2012 - 03:39 AM

Perhaps I am missing something here. However,I do wonder why there is so much interest in seeing the "full frame" on dvd and blu ray when, in the cinema, part of the image is cut off by the aperture plate for various reasons.

#20 of 99 NY2LA

NY2LA

    Screenwriter

  • 1,352 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 03 2011

Posted August 26 2012 - 03:40 AM

The difference in width is pretty negligible and the blu ray does feature more information at the top and bottom of the frame than the previous releases.

Did you get an early copy too or are you going from The Beaver caps?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users