Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo
- - - - -

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

Criterion

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

#121 of 138 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter



  • 1,958 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted October 30 2014 - 03:25 PM

Isn't 2.2 the standard for Super Technirama 70?

 

Yes it is and in fact the 70mm prints at least according to one source were supposed to be taken from an area of the negative that was a bit higher than for the scope prints but just as wide.



#122 of 138 OFFLINE   david hare

david hare

    Second Unit



  • 302 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 10 2014
  • Real Name:david hare

Posted October 30 2014 - 04:54 PM

Isn't 2.2 the standard for Super Technirama 70?

Yes, and I'm sure OliverK is right about that. But I wasn't referring to any Super Technirama titles. I really don't want to labor the point, but if people who are obviously more expert than I feel the holy grail AR for Leopard should now be 2.35 I have no argument with that, it is in fact another primary reason I like the Fox Scope US version, for the less grievously cropped LH. All I am saying about the present 2.55 BD incarnations is how satisfactory they look to me, and quite obviously also did to the restorers at L'Immagine Bologna, and Scorsese himself.

#123 of 138 OFFLINE   Lord Dalek

Lord Dalek

    Screenwriter



  • 2,328 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 04 2005

Posted October 30 2014 - 07:01 PM

Isn't 2.2 the standard for Super Technirama 70?

 

Yeah but there is no evidence of The Leopard having Super Technirama prints made.



#124 of 138 OFFLINE   Dan1664

Dan1664

    Auditioning



  • 14 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 24 2014
  • Real Name:Dan Diamond

Posted October 30 2014 - 07:49 PM

 

Here's a link to John Hunter's Technirama diagram showing camera aperture and viewfinder markings. It's the most detailed one that I've seen.

 

http://s23.postimg.o...am_May_1960.jpg

 

The specs, dating from 1960, are:
 
Technirama camera aperture (2.42:1): 1.480" x .915"  
Viewfinder markings (2.35:1): 1.306" x .835"  
Viewfinder markings (2.21:1): 1.276" x .866"  
Viewfinder markings (1.85:1): 1.082" x .866" 
 
The specs I have date from 1959, and differ somewhat:
 
Technirama camera aperture (2.25:1): 1.486" x .992"  
Viewfinder markings (2.35:1): 1.312" x .837"  
Viewfinder markings (2.21:1): 1.312" x .879"  
Viewfinder markings (1.85:1): 1.032" x .837" 
 
I now know that mine were provided by Marty Hart of The American Widescreen Museum, and assume them to be correct. I'm not exactly sure what to make of the obvious differences. My initial thought was to chalk it up to discrepancies between European and American standards for Technirama, but I wonder if there may be more to it. I'm going to try and contact Marty Hart to see if he can provide some clarification on all this.

 

 

I've heard back from Marty Hart of The American Widescreen Museum. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to provide the information I was looking for. 
 
He hadn't previously seen that diagram, which I sent him, and wasn't especially familiar with the differences between European and American Technirama standards. He didn't seem to know the extent to which European specs may have differed from American ones, at least initially, and how they may have changed over time.
 
My impression is that Marty likes to focus on the 'big picture' (not surprisingly), rather than some of the smaller things like viewfinder markings and ar specs. But his emails and newsgroup posts are always entertaining to read, and often filled with new and important information... and he's got one of the very best movie-themed websites out there.


#125 of 138 OFFLINE   Dan1664

Dan1664

    Auditioning



  • 14 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 24 2014
  • Real Name:Dan Diamond

Posted October 30 2014 - 09:44 PM

Yeah but there is no evidence of The Leopard having Super Technirama prints made.

 

Right, it seems there's no hard proof that "The Leopard" was ever exhibited in 70MM, but it easily could have been, if the filmmakers had wanted to -- even after filming was completed -- since Technirama was a various aspect ratio, multi-format, photographic system. Technicolor labs could run prints in all the popular film formats, from the same double-frame negative: Cinemascope-compatible 35MM at 2.35/2.39:1; Flat 35MM at 1.85:1; Anamorphic 16MM at 2.66:1; and Spherical 70MM at 2.21/2.20:1.
 
As I understand it, all the prerequisites for multi-format printing would be made during photography, and the choice of specific film formats could be decided on afterward. That option was one of the major selling points Technicolor first used to persuade movie studios to adopt their new system. By following Technicolor's specifications, prints in the various formats could be made from the negative of any Technirama movie, like "The Leopard" or "Gypsy". The labs even made later accommodations for wider, rectified prints that were compatible with Cinerama or Ultra-Panavision.


#126 of 138 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter



  • 1,958 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted October 30 2014 - 10:09 PM

Yes, and I'm sure OliverK is right about that. But I wasn't referring to any Super Technirama titles. I really don't want to labor the point, but if people who are obviously more expert than I feel the holy grail AR for Leopard should now be 2.35 I have no argument with that, it is in fact another primary reason I like the Fox Scope US version, for the less grievously cropped LH. All I am saying about the present 2.55 BD incarnations is how satisfactory they look to me, and quite obviously also did to the restorers at L'Immagine Bologna, and Scorsese himself.

 

It is not that now the holy grail for The Leopard should be 2.35 - it probably always was the intended aspect ratio.

 

An aspect ratio of 2.55:1 was only used for exhibiting early scope movies and later on Ultra Panavisin movies - non of those presentation formas were used for the Leopard.

 

I agree that the 2.55:1 aspect ratio with a common height works pretty well but it also is an arbitrary aspect ratio for The Leopard and not more valid than 2.5:1 or 2.6:1.



#127 of 138 OFFLINE   Peter Neski

Peter Neski

    Supporting Actor



  • 920 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 14 2005

Posted October 31 2014 - 09:40 AM

got this already  ,did I miss something??



#128 of 138 OFFLINE   bruceames

bruceames

    Supporting Actor



  • 604 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 25 2007

Posted October 31 2014 - 03:27 PM

Surprising they didn't upgrade this by using a 4K master.  They just did this with Playtime, why not this movie?



#129 of 138 OFFLINE   David Norman

David Norman

    Screenwriter



  • 2,319 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 12 2001
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted October 31 2014 - 03:45 PM

got this already  ,did I miss something??

 

I'm assuming you got the original 2010 release and not the re-release



#130 of 138 OFFLINE   Tom Logan

Tom Logan

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 171 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2003

Posted October 31 2014 - 06:11 PM

So...do we know yet if this new Criterion release is a new transfer or a re-release of their 2010 transfer?



#131 of 138 OFFLINE   haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter



  • 2,690 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted October 31 2014 - 06:25 PM

Mr. Harris can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Technicolor ever made any dye transfer prints in 70mm.  That is why every 70mm print from any era of old is faded.



#132 of 138 ONLINE   Allansfirebird

Allansfirebird

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 146 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 14 2012
  • Real Name:Sean

Posted October 31 2014 - 06:31 PM

So...do we know yet if this new Criterion release is a new transfer or a re-release of their 2010 transfer?

 

Check post #111 for the answer to this.



#133 of 138 OFFLINE   Tom Logan

Tom Logan

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 171 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2003

Posted October 31 2014 - 06:42 PM

Check post #111 for the answer to this.

Thank you.  No idea how I missed that.  Perhaps denial in action. :)



#134 of 138 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter



  • 1,958 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted October 31 2014 - 10:34 PM

Mr. Harris can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Technicolor ever made any dye transfer prints in 70mm.  That is why every 70mm print from any era of old is faded.

 

Indeed the world of classic 70mm is a heavily faded one which is a shame as many prints remain, some of them in quite good mechanical shape.



#135 of 138 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter



  • 1,958 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted October 31 2014 - 10:40 PM

Surprising they didn't upgrade this by using a 4K master.  They just did this with Playtime, why not this movie?

 

It is possible that

a) they didn't bother

b) they couldn't get access to the new 4k data

Maybe somebody can ask them?

 

Looking at their three other large format releases from 4k scans one has to say that The Leopard looks rather dated and it would have benefitted from Criterion taking on the new material to give it a classic look. Until they or another label do that we have the less than satisfactory Pathé and Medusa releases.



#136 of 138 OFFLINE   david hare

david hare

    Second Unit



  • 302 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 10 2014
  • Real Name:david hare

Posted November 01 2014 - 02:48 PM

And that's where you and I have to differ. The only even minutely unsatisfactory thing I find about the Madman/Pathe BD is the slightly pale yellow subtitles. I like the color timing, I like all the other technical specs and PQ of the image and I like the 2.55 widescreen. You don't and that's that.

 

Unless there is some major untangling of rights and rights holders for this title in the USA Crit won't be able to use the Pathe/Ritrovata 4k without licensing it from them and Film Foundation, as well as probably having to clear any existing rights in the US with Fox. It's not as simple as one might hope. And they frankly may not want to bother.



#137 of 138 OFFLINE   Dan1664

Dan1664

    Auditioning



  • 14 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 24 2014
  • Real Name:Dan Diamond

Posted November 01 2014 - 06:08 PM

Unless there is some major untangling of rights and rights holders for this title in the USA Crit won't be able to use the Pathe/Ritrovata 4k without licensing it from them and Film Foundation, as well as probably having to clear any existing rights in the US with Fox. It's not as simple as one might hope. And they frankly may not want to bother.

 

Agreed. Nothing's impossible -- Medusa acquired the 4K transfer for their Blu-ray. But Criterion have their own restoration and may not want to do the same. Despite it being ten years old, they still claim to be pretty proud of it.
 
BTW, if you're interested in purchasing THE LEOPARD Madman Blu-ray, I just came across an Australian site, fishpond.com.au, that appears to be selling it. I understand it's been OOP for a while, reportedly due to rights issues, so you may want to double-check before ordering.
 


#138 of 138 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter



  • 1,958 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted November 01 2014 - 07:20 PM

And that's where you and I have to differ. The only even minutely unsatisfactory thing I find about the Madman/Pathe BD is the slightly pale yellow subtitles. I like the color timing, I like all the other technical specs and PQ of the image and I like the 2.55 widescreen. You don't and that's that.

 

Unless there is some major untangling of rights and rights holders for this title in the USA Crit won't be able to use the Pathe/Ritrovata 4k without licensing it from them and Film Foundation, as well as probably having to clear any existing rights in the US with Fox. It's not as simple as one might hope. And they frankly may not want to bother.

 

I am not sure what you are getting at - I did not even mention the Madman release as it is out of print and therefore not easily available, I never saw the disc nor any screencaps of it.

 

And I had already mentioned that either they may not be able to get the rights and also mentioned the possibility that they just didn't bother so it is a bit unexpected that you restate that in your answer to my post.

 

And even if we do disagree we can luckily do so in a very civil manner, this is something I really appreciate about HTF.







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users