Search results

It is a bit hard to imagine that George Stevens would accidentally cut off parts of the picture he would have wanted in the frame in the 1.66:1 aspect ratio that he liked and supported. Maybe this is another case of cutting off too much from ALL sides just to arrive at a certain aspect ratio...

That's a lot and makes me even more curious about the improvements that we will be able to see in a future Blu-ray release.

That would have been a lot I guess but probably less than 100? Still a tremendous amount of wear and tear on the negative.

I can imagine that Warner wanted to lose as little resolution as possible considering the low quality source they were working with but it must have been hard on the negative.

You guys keep bringing it up, please stop ;) Back to Giant and a full frame version: While it may be possible to release it like that I do not think that George Stevens and his cinematographer would have appreciated such a release, let's stick to what was intended when Giant was produced.

Samsara is definitely not what I would call a Hollywood movie. I remember that when it was released even striking a handful of 70mm prints was deemed too expensive - too bad.

Last post about this as I guess it is a bit unfair to Giant to carry this on over here. Movies shot in MGM Camera 65 / UP70 did not fare too well overall in their presentations with only Ben-Hur and Mutiny on the Bounty having been released in contact prints that could be shown with correct...

Correct. The long version is available only on VHS and I might add it does not even look good by VHS standards.