A Few Words About A few words about...™ Strategic Air Command -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[OliverK]

It most definitely absolutely should be, though, that's why they're called SPECIFICATIONS!!

You kind of have a very specifc point there

VistaVision certainly did not only do itself favors by being so flexible.

 

[john a hunter]

You kind of have a very specifc point there

VistaVision certainly did not only do itself favors by being so flexible.

In trying to please everyone, it did shoot its self in the foot- to mix a few metaphors.

The whole point surely is whatever the AR of the " native" 35/4 prints were, the advised AR, where practicable, was 1.85.
There is copious evidence to that.

In the case of SAC, the 35/8 prints that were used when the film was launched with much fanfare, were 1.85.

Surely the BD should reflect this. Of course we can live with 1.66, but we wouldn't be on this website if we didn't want things to be accurate would we?

 

[OliverK]

In trying to please everyone, it did shoot its self in the foot- to mix a few metaphors.

The whole point surely is whatever the AR of the " native" 35/4 prints were, the advised AR, where practicable, was 1.85.
There is copious evidence to that.

In the case of SAC, the 35/8 prints that were used when the film was launched with much fanfare, were 1.85.

Surely the BD should reflect this. Of course we can live with 1.66, but we wouldn't be on this website if we didn't want things to be accurate would we?

I would indeed like for the Blu-ray to reflect the aspect ratio and the coverage of the height and width of the frame as it was in the premiere prints, no faux 1.85 with some addiitonal cropping on all sides, I also would like to have the perspecta sound mix.

With things being what they are which is Paramount not exactly splurging on catalog and Strategic Air Command being a rather obscure title we will however have to make do with what we got via this Olive Blu-ray, it is a small miracle that we even got this release and this kind of picture quality.

 

[RolandL]

Still it would be nice to see where those 1.66:1 prints were extracted but then it probably wasn't done the same way for all movies. It would be great if somebody had a frame from the VistaVision premiere print to see how those were framed but even then one would have to account for cropping in projection which would vary between venues.

From Marty's site:

 

[Robert Harris]

A 1.66 image in 35/4 did not mean that the image could be projected at 1.66.

It would need to be further cropped.

 

[john a hunter]

Thanks very much Robert for making that very important point.
The theatre could then chose what best for it,1.33, 1.66,1.75,1.85 or even 2.1.
Of course Paramount would like it projected at 1.85

 

[F451]

Universal mixed THIS ISLAND EARTH in very much the same way. When the jet buzzes the tower in reel one, all three speakers go from total silence to top volume and it rocks you in your seat!

Can someone contact Universal and apprise them of this so when they finally restore and release the Blu-ray of THIS ISLAND EARTH it includes both the originally intended widescreen format and Perspecta stereophonic sound?

 

[RolandL]

Thanks very much Robert for making that very important point.
The theatre could then chose what best for it,1.33, 1.66,1.75,1.85 or even 2.1.
Of course Paramount would like it projected at 1.85

That would depend on the print. In the example shown from The Ten Commandments, it's already 1.66 so, 1.85 or 2:1 would be OK. I don't think any theatre showed VistaVision films 1.33.

 

[john a hunter]

That would depend on the print. In the example shown from The Ten Commandments, it's already 1.66 so, 1.85 or 2:1 would be OK. I don't think any theatre showed VistaVision films 1.33

 

[john a hunter]

Probably not Roland but 1.33 projection was touted by Paramount when VV was released.
Hopefully theatre owners in 1953/4 were not so silly as not to upgrade at least to 1.66.

 

[Brett Lovett]

Hello all. I'm new to the forum, drawn here by the review and discussion of "Strategic Air Command." I see there has been considerable discussion on the issues of aspect ratio and Perspecta audio, both of which I find of great interest.

 

[Brett Lovett]

Why does this 35/8 VV print appear to have 2 optical audio tracks?

 

[Brett Lovett]

The only true fade that I noted was in 35/4 photography, which should have been able to be attended to. A minor point, and affected only in those areas where a Vista camera was either felt endanger or would not fit. Some models seem to have been shot in 35/4,

I noticed the same. With the exception of one, they seem to fit in very well with the VistaVision 35/8 so as not to be a jarring change. The one I found jarring was the one right in the middle of the film (the cigar scene in Alaska). Perhaps it is because it is immediately preceded by a slightly wider 35/8 VV shot of the same scene. Two 35/4 shots, including the jarring one I just mentioned, don't seem to fall under the camera in danger or would not fit scenarios. I'm going to speculate that those were reshoots at a time when the VV cameras were no longer available, and probably being used for other films.

It appears to me that all of the 35/4 photography presented was part of the original master assembly of the film rather than a later attempt to replace a damaged portion of the 35/8 VV source film. 35/4 to 35/8 blow-up. This includes the jarring shot I mentioned above, as it cleanly dissolves to a 35/8 VV shot.

 

[Brett Lovett]

Not necessarily. Depending on the elements used, a mono track without Perspecta tones would have existed prior to the creation of a Perspecta track (and yes, creation is the proper term, as it would involve "steering" the audio from channel to channel, or multiple channels at once to expand the soundstage). If the elements sourced by Olive are early enough in the generations (and they seem to be, judging from RAH's assessment), they may not have had access to the Perspecta tones, as they would be on elements further down in the chain used for creating release prints.

My initial impression, based on the clarity of the audio, was also that it might be from an element prior to optical track on the film. I have the Kritzerland CD of the score, which I expected to have better clarity. On the CD during the prelude, I hear no distinction between individual voices in the chorus and find the lyrics a little difficult to understand. On the Blu-ray I hear a bit of distinction between individual voices and find the lyrics very understandable.

However I noticed one point in the film where some visible damage is also audible. This is shortly after General Hawkes exits the DC-3. I believe this may be pretty conclusive evidence that the audio source for the Blu-ray is the optical track on the 35/8 VV film used as the image source. I'm wondering what differences there were between the optical track on the 35/8 vs. the 38/4 reduction. I would think the additional length of the optical track per frame on the 35/8 by itself might give some advantage over an optical track on 35/4. If I am correct, then this track most definitely would have carried the Perspecta tones, which Olive obviously filtered out, ideally with a 63Hz high pass filter per the Perspecta Integrator specs. Although those those tones were supposed to go unnoticed in monaural equipped theaters in 1955, I highly suspect we'd be able to detect them on some of our home theater systems today if they had not been filtered out.

There is definitely some noise in the audio track that seems consistent with an optical track as well. The most noticeable for me is the noise at the very opening just as the Prelude starts, and an apparent instantaneous dropout or break in the audio just as Henry (Harry, Col Potter) Morgan brings the B-36's engines to 100%. A bit of noise during silence between dialog is also occasionally detectable.

 

[Brett Lovett]

Based on my post above regarding the optical audio, and the quality of the image on the Blu-ray I suspect that the film source used is the most senior, fully assembled element that contains the optical audio track. Does anyone have any idea which element that would be in the production process of a VistaVision 35/8 print?

Also I believe this may be the first home video produced from a VistaVision 35/8 source of Strategic Air Command. The HD version on VUDU is most apparently sourced from a 35/4 reduction.

 

[Will Krupp]

Why does this 35/8 VV print appear to have 2 optical audio tracks?

It was a type of optical track, I believe it is the "dual bilateral variable area" type on the list linked here. I BELIEVE, without compelling evidence to back it up, that mirroring or doubling the optical signal in the same space increased fidelity and or dynamic range without an appreciable increase in noise, but someone more knowledgeable may be able to tell us for sure.

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/sound/soundsamples.htm

 

[Brett Lovett]

It was a type of optical track, I believe it is the "dual bilateral variable area" type on the list linked here. I BELIEVE, without compelling evidence to back it up, that mirroring or doubling the optical signal in the same space increased fidelity and or dynamic range without an appreciable increase in noise, but someone more knowledgeable may be able to tell us for sure.

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/sound/soundsamples.htm

It looks like that would be a good use of the real estate available on a VV 35/8 print, and might help explain the audio quality on this release, unless the reduction prints had it as well, which it appears they did.

 

[Brett Lovett]

That shouldn't the case. The 1.85:1 and 1.66:1 aspect ratios displayed a common width with differing heights regardless of whether it was a standard or horizontal presentation (which is only academic as I don't think VV was ever projected horizontally at 1.66:1.) Horizontal presentations COULD be expanded to a maximum ratio of 1.96:1 by exposing far left and far right areas of the horizontal negative not seen at any other ratio but, and this is an important but, Paramount didn't recommend it because, without a safety area, splices would be visible on the sides of the image.

Again, from Martin Hart's invaluable website www.widescreenmuseum.com:
View attachment 34726
The outer yellow lines represent the full camera aperture. Inside you can see the area used for 1.85:1 (the same right/left area that would be used to make 1.66:1 standard 4 perf reductions) and the slightly wider area used for horizontal 1.96:1. It was superfluous information as they did not recommend super wide projection because of the issues mentioned above. Since John has already told us that the Vista Vision screen at the Paramount in New York (one out of only four domestic venues I'm aware of that were ever converted to horizontal presentation) had an aspect ratio of approximately 1.82:1 it sounds like Paramount took its own advice. The right/left area should be the same for 1.85 or 1.66 and the blu-ray should be exhibiting slightly more vertical information than, say, WHITE CHRISTMAS would have. What's confusing is that, in one area of the museum, Hart contends that the height differences on standard 4 perf only affected the BOTTOM of the frame (common headroom) which seems to my mind to directly contradict the framing guide I posted above from his website. I can't figure that one out.

I've found the aspect ratio issue a bit confusing when I initially looked into it. After examining it for a while, and finding both sets of aperture diagrams in the WideScreenMuseum, the following became apparent to me. (I think this is in agreement with what you've said, but I just wanted to lay it out in a way that seems a little simpler to me.) This only applies to theatrical projection from the final prints.

Two aperture sizes were available for projecting the 35/4 reduction prints resulting in 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 aspect ratios. Those apertures were the same width, but varied in height. Two aperture sizes were available for projecting the VV 35/8 prints, resulting in 1.85:1 and 1.96:1 aspect ratios. Those apertures were the same height, but varied in width.

For the VV 35/8, since the top of the projected image is the same for both aspect ratios, the "Paramount Framing Guide" would seem to be irrelevant. I question whether it was present on the VV 35/8 prints. I'm not seeing any evidence of it on the Blu-ray, but it's possible that it would have been added at a later generation in print production, perhaps when the changeover cues were added since those also appear to be absent.

I can't find the remarks in the WideScreenMuseum regarding the aspect ratios only affecting the bottom of the 35/4 image.

 

[Brett Lovett]

Anyone else notice the varying amount of flicker present? Do any of the other VistaVision movies exhibit this? I'm wondering if it could be the result of the camera's being brand new and not getting consistent exposures on consecutive frames. I think "Strategic Air Command" was the first to use the Mitchell "Elephant Ear" cameras, wasn't it?

 

[Brett Lovett]

Sorry for so many posts, I've been holding this all in.