- Joined
- Jul 3, 1997
- Messages
- 66,478
- Real Name
- Ronald Epstein
The link below will take you directly to the product on Amazon. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.
Last edited by a moderator:
Almost certainly the former. If they had a new transfer/disc being released they would say as much on criterion.comCharles Smith said:Maybe just a change from the digipack to a plastic case?
Because if it's a new transfer, they should sure as hell be clearly stating that.
Unfortunately Rotunno has become such a revisionist on a number of pictures I can no longer take his word on "True" ARs at face value. Something that has always bothered me about the 2.20 35mm Italian language prints (and BFI and Crit BDs) is the very frequent cropping of the left hand in wide groups shots. The very first appearance of Pierre Clementi in during the opening Rosary Scene almost totally slices him out of the image even though he later moves into center frame from the original mark for dialogue. This just happens far too often in the "first" Storaro revision. For all its defects (including Deluxe/Eastman printing) I think the US dub and cut is an invaluable extra on the Criterion Box, not only for completeness and the chance to see a wider aperture, but also the chance to hear some native English line readings from Lancaster, Leslie French and Delon (who speaks excellent English, but not Italian.)Lord Dalek said:Both transfers are pretty inaccurate. The Leopard was shot in 8-perf horizontal Technirama with a neg ratio of 2.25:1 which would of then be either reduced to 35mm 2.35:1 or blown up to 2.20:1 Super Technirama 70. The Criterion and BFI blu-rays use the later ratio at the request of original cinematographer Giuseppi Rotunno as Visconti had apparently composed this specifically for 70mm release at the time. The problem is such a release does not appear to have occurred at the time so who knows if Rotunno was being accurate in his claim.
The Pathe/Film Foundation restoration is an even odder story. Although it uses a new 8k scan of the 8-perf, the aspect ratio is significantly wider than expected at 2.55:1 (the old Cinemascope ratio). While 2.20:1 seems like a realistic and accurate framing choice, nobody was making movies in 2.55 in 1963. What's even more confusing is once again, Rotunno has supervised and approved this transfer.
Basically that leaves Medusa's old R2 Italy dvd as the only one that presents The Leopard in its proper theatrical OAR. The problem with that though is the transfer is dark and out of focus.
The 8-perf Technirama negative, when unsqueezed, gives you a 255 aspect ratio. This is vividly demonstrated in the special features of Disney's Sleeping Beauty, which also used Technirama photography. The Blu-ray of Sleeping Beauty is therefore 255. Disney made a point that this is the first time people could see "all" of the animation that was originally drawn.Lord Dalek said:The Pathe/Film Foundation restoration is an even odder story. Although it uses a new 8k scan of the 8-perf, the aspect ratio is significantly wider than expected at 2.55:1 (the old Cinemascope ratio). While 2.20:1 seems like a realistic and accurate framing choice, nobody was making movies in 2.55 in 1963. What's even more confusing is once again, Rotunno has supervised and approved this transfer.
Incorrect. The AR of Technirama is 8 perfs (1.50:1) with a 1.5X anamorphic squeeze resulting in 2.25:1. The reason Sleeping Beauty was 2.55:1 was because it was hard-matted to the wider ratio on the negative.rsmithjr said:The 8-perf Technirama negative, when unsqueezed, gives you a 255 aspect ratio. This is vividly demonstrated in the special features of Disney's Sleeping Beauty, which also used Technirama photography. The Blu-ray of Sleeping Beauty is therefore 255. Disney made a point that this is the first time people could see "all" of the animation that was originally drawn.
As to what the "correct" or "intended" AR is for The Leopard, that is always a difficult question I find. I only saw it in 235 35mm optical sound.
In any case, I think the choice to use all of the information on the negative is a justifiable one.
The previous Blu-ray is not very good so I would hope that Criterion has improved it rather than just repackaging. I would buy the 255 if it is otherwise an improvement.
Indeed it is and we should stop this nonsense now.Mark-P said:Incorrect. The AR of Technirama is 8 perts (1.50:1) with a 1.5X anamorphic squeeze resulting in 2.25:1. The reason Sleeping Beauty was 2.55:1 was because it was hard-matted to the wider ratio on the negative.
Technirama Specs: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/techniramaspecs.htm