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

[skylark68]

Your questions and thoughts are very interesting. I'm learning quite a bit from your posts. Wish I had the knowledge you seem to possess from your posts. Very intriguing material.

 

[Will Krupp]

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

As much as I love it. it's sometimes it's hard to remember exactly WHERE specific information is located!

In this case, the info can be found at the beginning of the VistaVision "specs" section under "Camera Aperture and 4-Perf Print Specs."

He writes:

Whether using a 4 perforation optical reduction print or an 8 perforation Eastmancolor contact print, the recommended projector aperture ratios always maintained a common headroom with varying aspect ratios using more or less width in the case of 8 perf, and always sacrificing the lower part of the frame in both 4 and 8 perf formats. Maximum useable image width was dictated by the size of splices in the original 8 perf negative.

Now, as I read this again...he MAY be referring to the fact that there is wasted information at the bottom of the horizontal frame regardless of how it is projected. This is the first time I read it that way as, to my mind, it seemed like he was saying the lower portion of the frame was sacrificed when changing aspect ratios. I see now that it is POSSIBLE he is just referring to the superfluous info at the bottom, but why, then, would he mention common headroom?

 

[RolandL]

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.

"touted"? Why would they promote 1.33? You will not find 1.33 mentioned anywhere for the promotion of VistaVision.

 

[Will Krupp]

"touted"? Why would they promote 1.33? You will not find 1.33 mentioned anywhere for the promotion of VistaVision.

It IS mentioned in the booklet Paramount sent to exhibitors in 1954 as one of the options:

The finders on the VistaVision cameras carry a hairline framing marking in the aspect ratio of 1.66/1. There will also be a frame line marking for the 1.33/1 aspect ratio. The cameramen are instructed to compose for a loose (meaning adequate head-room) 1.66/1 picture. A picture composed in this way will play equally good at 1.85/1, it will play very satisfactorily at 2/1 and it can be played at the old standard of 1.33/1.

A transcription of the full pamphlet can be found here: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/vistavision.htm

 

[RolandL]

At the bottom of the same page, Marty writes:

"The only prints made from VistaVision negatives that were the full 1.33:1 aperture were made for television rather than theatrical presentation."

There were a number of aspect ratio's that were mentioned in various booklets that were never used. See the one below for MGM Camera 65 - later called Ultra Panavision. "3.14 to 1" for Cinerama or Road Show - never used.

 

[Will Krupp]

At the bottom of the same page, Marty writes:

"The only prints made from VistaVision negatives that were the full 1.33:1 aperture were made for television rather than theatrical presentation."

There were a number of aspect ratio's that were mentioned in various booklets that were never used. See the one below for MGM Camera 65 - later called Ultra Panavision. "3.14 to 1" for Cinerama or Road Show - never used

Yes, but 1.33 WAS mentioned by Paramount in the promotion of VistaVision to exhibitors. That's all John Hunter was saying.

 

[Mark-P]

I've always wondered exactly how 1.33:1 theatrical projection of a VistaVision print would have been achieved. Since 35/4 prints were hard-matted to 1.66:1, using a standard academy 1.37:1 projection plate would have resulted in a letterboxed image. Is that what the exhibitor booklet was meaning, that the print was projectable with academy plates?

 

[OliverK]

A 1.66:1 picture that is matted top and bottom to 2:1 or on the sides to 1.33:1 loses about the same amount of image information in each case. So 2:1 and 1.33:1 are two extremes that if possible were to be avoided but in extreme cases this was as far as one could go.

 

[Robert Harris]

1.33 is panned and scanned.

Above and below 1.85 is normally unusable information.

 

[Brett Lovett]

As much as I love it. it's sometimes it's hard to remember exactly WHERE specific information is located!

In this case, the info can be found at the beginning of the VistaVision "specs" section under "Camera Aperture and 4-Perf Print Specs."

He writes:


Now, as I read this again...he MAY be referring to the fact that there is wasted information at the bottom of the horizontal frame regardless of how it is projected. This is the first time I read it that way as, to my mind, it seemed like he was saying the lower portion of the frame was sacrificed when changing aspect ratios. I see now that it is POSSIBLE he is just referring to the superfluous info at the bottom, but why, then, would he mention common headroom?

Thank you for copying that, as I'm still missing it in the VistaVision pages for some reason. That is confusing, because as described it would also make the Paramount Framing Guide irrelevant for the 4-perf reductions, as well as confusing if present. There would only be one correct position for the top of the frame aperture regardless of aspect ratio in that case.

 

[Brett Lovett]

It IS mentioned in the booklet Paramount sent to exhibitors in 1954 as one of the options:


A transcription of the full pamphlet can be found here: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/vistavision.htm

This image is from the full pamphlet. Perhaps it will answer some of the 1.33:1 questions.

(Also note that the framing mark is depicted.)

NOTE REGARDING FIG. 2
It was not possible to project VistaVision prints with an aspect ratio of 1.33:1 as illustrated. The frame height on the print is not enough to allow projection of a ratio narrower than 1.66:1 without cropping the sides of the picture. The only prints made from VistaVision negatives that were the full 1.33:1 aperture were made for television rather than theatrical presentation.
MBH

 

[Brett Lovett]

From: This is the story of VistaVision, an explanation of the process and its many advantages. by Loren L. Ryder

"The production shooting for VistaVision sound will be handled the same as on any monaural sound picture. At Paramount all production recording is done on 17 1/2mm film in the 65-pound suitcase recorders built by Paramount. All scoring will be single sound track magnetic with as much reverberant bigness as can be obtained."

Is that why Jimmy Stewart sounds like he is speaking into a megaphone aimed directly into the microphone while he is facing away from the camera during the ballpark scene? Reverberant bigness? It actually sounds appropriate except when his back is to the camera, something I never noticed before this Blu-ray.

 

[Brett Lovett]

All domestic and possibly the foreign release prints are to be made by a new imbibition dye transfer method which Technicolor has developed and which is being introduced along with the release of WHITE CHRISTMAS. It will also be used on all subsequent VistaVision pictures.

Unless the statement above only applies to the 35/4 reductions, the following statement would seem contradictory.

Technicolor never established a dye transfer line for any large format wide screen system because the economics were unfavorable for the limited number of prints required. (Statement made in reference to an extremely faded 8 perf VistaVision print.)

What other source element than a Technicolor dye transfer print would have retained the color evident in the image from this Blu-ray? From what I understand it shouldn't be possible with an Eastman element from that time. The scan source for the Blu-ray image is obviously from an 8-perf element. I'm very curious what the source element scanned was.

 

[Brett Lovett]

"The finders on the VistaVision cameras carry a hairline framing marking in the aspect ratio of 1.66/1. There will also be a frame line marking for the 1.33/1 aspect ratio. The cameramen are instructed to compose for a loose (meaning adequate head-room) 1.66/1 picture. A picture composed in this way will play equally good at 1.85/1, it will play very satisfactorily at 2/1 and it can be played at the old standard of 1.33/1."


"As a further recommendation in this regard, it is our belief that in the very large theaters they should install screens capable of accepting the aspect ratio of 1.85/1, unless the sight line for seats at the back of the main floor is limited by a low hanging balcony. In this case the theater may elect to install a screen in the ratio of 2/1. This is the only limitation that should force the theater into an aspect ratio as high as 2/1. In theaters where the screen width is limited to under 30 feet, and where there is adequate height, we recommend a screen aspect ratio of 1.66/1, reducing the height only when necessary for good viewing."

I think this makes it crystal clear what Paramount's intentions for aspect ratios were regarding the presentation of VistaVision. This actually makes a good case for the 1.66:1 aspect ratio for home viewing, as our home theater screens are rarely going to be 30 feet wide, much less exceed that. A case for 1.78:1 could also be inferred from this, using the maximum screen width available and not having "adequate height" to accommodate the entire 1.66:1 image. However the 1.66:1 aspect ratio is definitely not what would have been seen during any full 35/8-perf VistaVision presentation (nor 1.78:1). If that is what we are trying to reproduce, then the 1.85:1 aspect ratio is necessary.

So I'm now considering what we have as being how "Strategic Air Command" would have been presented at a theater with a less than 30 foot wide screen, but with the image quality of the 35/8-perf VistaVision presentation.

 

[Brett Lovett]

It IS mentioned in the booklet Paramount sent to exhibitors in 1954 as one of the options:


A transcription of the full pamphlet can be found here: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/vistavision.htm

Thank you for providing this info as well. I'm finding that pamphlet a fascinating read as you can probably tell by my posts. That is another section of the museum that had previously eluded me.

 

[OliverK]

"The finders on the VistaVision cameras carry a hairline framing marking in the aspect ratio of 1.66/1. There will also be a frame line marking for the 1.33/1 aspect ratio. The cameramen are instructed to compose for a loose (meaning adequate head-room) 1.66/1 picture. A picture composed in this way will play equally good at 1.85/1, it will play very satisfactorily at 2/1 and it can be played at the old standard of 1.33/1."


"As a further recommendation in this regard, it is our belief that in the very large theaters they should install screens capable of accepting the aspect ratio of 1.85/1, unless the sight line for seats at the back of the main floor is limited by a low hanging balcony. In this case the theater may elect to install a screen in the ratio of 2/1. This is the only limitation that should force the theater into an aspect ratio as high as 2/1. In theaters where the screen width is limited to under 30 feet, and where there is adequate height, we recommend a screen aspect ratio of 1.66/1, reducing the height only when necessary for good viewing."

I think this makes it crystal clear what Paramount's intentions for aspect ratios were regarding the presentation of VistaVision. This actually makes a good case for the 1.66:1 aspect ratio for home viewing, as our home theater screens are rarely going to be 30 feet wide, much less exceed that. A case for 1.78:1 could also be inferred from this, using the maximum screen width available and not having "adequate height" to accommodate the entire 1.66:1 image. However the 1.66:1 aspect ratio is definitely not what would have been seen during any full 35/8-perf VistaVision presentation (nor 1.78:1).

The problem with 1.66:1 at home is that people use screens that are 1.78:1 and wider both in projection and with TV's. Just about everbody will just get a smaller picture with a 1.66:1 aspect ratio, not a taller one, same height and less width which is not what was intended. Going by the VistaVision recommendation it would make the most sense to show this in 1.78:1 on smaller screens, therefore using their maximum width and height for the biggest impact, and 1.85:1 on bigger screens. Take your pick of what constitutes a bigger screen at home and also figure in field of view. When I get my disc I will play around with this a little on my projection system.

It would be great if somebody could redo the soundtrack to include the perspecta mix - must be rather cool when all those engines are first only being heard on one channel and then on all of them!

 

[Robert Harris]

Me thinks you folks are referencing too many early sources, and allowing confusion to reign free.

Referencing the diagrams in post 91 will make heads spin, as they never happened. Please look away. There's nothing to see there.

As to dye transfer, the process was never used for 35/8.

At least one VVLA production did receive a contemporary 70mm blow-up.

The only means of achieving a 1.37 or 1.33 (broadcast) image, was to heavily crop the sides of the 1.75 or 85 image, as 1.50 never existed, nor in many cases did 1.66, except for 35/8, in the case of 66.

The "telegraph poles" were scribed into the emulsion of the camera negatives, and were useful for 35/8 as well as 35/4. Cue marks were also punched at reel ends of the OCN.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The problem with 1.66:1 at home is that people use screens that are 1.78:1 and wider both in projection and with TV's. Just about everbody will just get a smaller picture with a 1.66:1 aspect ratio, not a taller one, same height and less width which is not what was intended. Going by the VistaVision recommendation it would make the most sense to show this in 1.78:1 on smaller screens, therefore using their maximum width and height for the biggest impact, and 1.85:1 on bigger screens. Take your pick of what constitutes a bigger screen at home and also figure in field of view. When I get my disc I will play around with this a little on my projection system.

It would be great if somebody could redo the soundtrack to include the perspecta mix - must be rather cool when all those engines are first only being heard on one channel and then on all of them!

True, but I'm afraid with this particular title, this release is probably the best we're going to get with it. Hell, I'm surprise we even got this widescreen BD release which is why I bought it on HD Digital a while back.

 

[Brett Lovett]

The problem with 1.66:1 at home is that people use screens that are 1.78:1 and wider both in projection and with TV's. Just about everbody will just get a smaller picture with a 1.66:1 aspect ratio, not a taller one, same height and less width which is not what was intended. Going by the VistaVision recommendation it would make the most sense to show this in 1.78:1 on smaller screens, therefore using their maximum width and height for the biggest impact, and 1.85:1 on bigger screens. Take your pick of what constitutes a bigger screen at home and also figure in field of view. When I get my disc I will play around with this a little on my projection system.

It would be great if somebody could redo the soundtrack to include the perspecta mix - must be rather cool when all those engines are first only being heard on one channel and then on all of them!

I agree completely, and was thinking even before you replied that 1.78:1 would be the best use of the available real estate (1080x1920). The statement I quoted just makes it a little easier for me to accept the 1.66:1 that we got and have to live with. If I had my time machine handy I certainly wouldn't be going to see "Strategic Air Command" at a smaller theater where the 1.66:1 recommendation applied (if any theaters even regarded that early recommendation). It would be the rare showings of the full 8-perf VistaVision with Perspecta sound that I would be hunting down.

Just a thought. I wouldn't advocate this for 1080, but with 4k I think it might be kind of cool to have the option of applying masks to crop the image (especially when projected) to give us some of the control that the theater operators and projectionists had when SAC was in theatrical distribution (essentially build and apply our own aperture). It almost sounds like I'm saying "It's my TV and it should look the way I want it to look," which makes my skin crawl when I hear it from someone else.

 

[OliverK]

I agree completely, and was thinking even before you replied that 1.78:1 would be the best use of the available real estate (1080x1920). The statement I quoted just makes it a little easier for me to accept the 1.66:1 that we got and have to live with. If I had my time machine handy I certainly wouldn't be going to see "Strategic Air Command" at a smaller theater where the 1.66:1 recommendation applied (if any theaters even regarded that early recommendation). It would be the rare showings of the full 8-perf VistaVision with Perspecta sound that I would be hunting down.

Just a thought. I wouldn't advocate this for 1080, but with 4k I think it might be kind of cool to have the option of applying masks to crop the image (especially when projected) to give us some of the control that the theater operators and projectionists had when SAC was in theatrical distribution (essentially build and apply our own aperture). It almost sounds like I'm saying "It's my TV and it should look the way I want it to look," which makes my skin crawl when I hear it from someone else.

After reading about all the VistaVision information it seems that here we can find the instructions for properly matting Strategic Air Command to about 1.85:1:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/vvspecs.htm

It seems to be as easy as blanking enough information at the bottom to arrive at a 1.85:1 aspect ratio and zooming and recentering the image - easily doable with most projection setups these days.

Now about that homemade perspecta sound...

Regarding 1080p or 4k it is my experience that a little optical zooming isn't much of an issue when you have a projector but electronic zooming can be a bit more difficult and better results are achieved on a 4k panel, no matter if it is a 4k TV or a 4k projector.