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

[Brett Lovett]

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.

I'm sorry if I added confusion by posting that image. There seemed to be varying responses to Mark-P's statement "I've always wondered exactly how 1.33:1 theatrical projection of a VistaVision print would have been achieved," that weren't really answering his specific question. I was trying to use the image to show what Paramount intended when they referenced an option of 1.33:1 projection in that early booklet, and the red note below to show why that was no more than an early idea.

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

Hence my curiosity regarding what 35/8 element would have retained those brilliant colors for all these years to be usable for Olive's Blu-ray. Or might I be mistaken in my assumption that a 35/8 element was scanned for this transfer? The striking difference in image quality between the Blu-ray and the HD version on Vudu lead me to that assumption, so now I'm wondering if you might be suggesting that.

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.

Very interesting. I would have expected at least the cue marks to be within the 1.85:1 aperture area and therefore very apparent on the Blu-ray image. Maybe I'm wrong in my assumption that Olive wouldn't have gone to the trouble to digitally erase those as well. Did the vertical part of the Paramount framing guide "telegraph pole" also denote the correct horizontal edge of the 1.85:1 image? That is where I see that it would be useful in framing adjustment on a horizontal 35/8 projector.

Would the optical sound track have been added onto the original camera negative as well? My impression is that it would have been added to a later element since i believe it covers part of the 1.5 image area on the camera negative.

Thank you for your review and all of the additional comments. They are a large part of what drew me to this forum and discussion.

 

[Brett Lovett]

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.

It was just a wild idea that popped into my head, probably best ignored.

 

[OliverK]

It was just a wild idea that popped into my head, probably best ignored.

No it isn't this is exactly what I plan to do

 

[Brett Lovett]

"Negative cutting of Paramount VistaVision pictures will be by the so-called A and B process, so that all dissolves and fades will be made from the original negative without duping."

I was wondering why the dissolves on the Blu-ray were so perfect and clean. Of course I don't know what the "so-called A and B process" is, but I'm pretty sure duping would not have achieved those results. This would also seem to indicate the possibility of the original camera negative being the source used for the image scan. I was dismissing the possibility of a fully assembled camera negative due the very apparent lack of duping in the dissolves.

 

[Robert Harris]

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.

Presuming that the 1.66 extract from the 1.5 frame was properly rendered.

 

[Brett Lovett]

Presuming that the 1.66 extract from the 1.5 frame was properly rendered.

I was wondering that too, and I'm hoping that it was.

 

[Robert Harris]

"Negative cutting of Paramount VistaVision pictures will be by the so-called A and B process, so that all dissolves and fades will be made from the original negative without duping."

I was wondering why the dissolves on the Blu-ray were so perfect and clean. Of course I don't know what the "so-called A and B process" is, but I'm pretty sure duping would not have achieved those results. This would also seem to indicate the possibility of the original camera negative being the source used for the image scan. I was dismissing the possibility of a fully assembled camera negative due the very apparent lack of duping in the dissolves.

It sounds like the time is right for you to spend a year or so at GEH, UCLA or NYU.

 

[Brett Lovett]

It sounds like the time is right for you to spend a year or so at GEH, UCLA or NYU.

Wow! I can't begin to express how surprised and honored I am to receive that kind of compliment. My primary passion is aviation, but I find it way to easy to become overly interested in historical and technical aspects of many other things.

 

[Alan Tully]

Working with 16mm for twenty years, A&B rolls were part of my working life. All those neg cutting companies, all no more. I hope not all the cement joiners & synchronisers & rewind machines went for scrap. I wonder if anyone's running a film handling course?

 

[OliverK]

Presuming that the 1.66 extract from the 1.5 frame was properly rendered.

It would be nice if we had a frame of two of an original 8-perf print for comparison.
Looking at the caps at DVDbeaver all of them look as if they have some room to spare at the bottom although two of the frames with airplanes would seem to place them a bit lower in the frame than expected when protecting for a 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

 

[Robert Harris]

Please keep in mind, that with most VVLA productions, peer outside of 1.66 or less, and you're looking outside of the frame. Much like films shot 35mm open matte, with info outside the set in the track area

 

[OliverK]

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.

Agreed, very unexpected. If needed I am pretty variable in framing and zooming of any movie so I do not have a big problem with the 1.66 aspect ratio.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

 

[OliverK]

Nice post Bob, maybe somebody should remind the good folks at Paramount about it?

In the meantime I peeked into my old 1.33:1 HDTV recording of Strategic Air Command and compared to it the new Blu-ray as per the Beaver caps. The Blu-ray mostly adds a lot of picture information to the left and to the right with little to no picture information missing at the top or bottom compared to the old 1.33:1 version, sometimes it is even a bit more.

 

[john a hunter]

View attachment 34783

So as I said sometime ago, wouldn't it be nice to have SAC in 1.85?

 

[Robert Harris]

So as I said sometime ago, wouldn't it be nice to have SAC in 1.85?

Or 1.78

 

[Brett Lovett]

So as I said sometime ago, wouldn't it be nice to have SAC in 1.85?

I just realized that a properly framed 1.66 or 1.78 image should not be available from an 8-perf element containing the optical audio track, as the top of the 1.85 image area borders that track. This make me wonder if my suspicion of the source for this Blu-ray being 35/8 with the optical track (based on hearing noise/distortion that seems to be associated with film damage visible in the image) is correct. My suspicion would then seem to negate the possibility of the 1.66 presented being properly framed.

Would the level of clarity presented be possible using a preserved reduction print as the image source? It would seem to better explain the color quality of the image. However, whatever was used certainly has better clarity than the image source used for VUDU, which is what led me to the suspicion of an 8-perf source.

 

[OliverK]

Or 1.78

How about we settle for 1.78 with instructions for what part of the image to crop / blank for a proper 1.85 presentation for those who can?

And yes, I know this will never happen but I like the thought of it.

 

[Brett Lovett]

I did a little homemade test with an image capture from the Blu-ray of the title card to evaluate the framing thoughts I mentioned in the last post. If I extract the 1.85 image from the very top of the BR's 1.66 image (cropping the bottom of it off), the SAC shield is vertically centered (equal space above and below). If I extract the 1.85 from the middle, only the text (all 5 lines) is vertically centered with the SAC shield being high. The extraction from the top is certainly more aesthetically pleasing to me, but I'm not sure this is indicative of the correct framing. I'm somewhat tempted to rig a temporary mask for my TV to see how the whole movie would look cropped to 1.85 from the bottom, but I have a few bigger fish to fry with my home theater system right now.

 

[Robert Harris]

I just realized that a properly framed 1.66 or 1.78 image should not be available from an 8-perf element containing the optical audio track, as the top of the 1.85 image area borders that track. This make me wonder if my suspicion of the source for this Blu-ray being 35/8 with the optical track (based on hearing noise/distortion that seems to be associated with film damage visible in the image) is correct. My suspicion would then seem to negate the possibility of the 1.66 presented being properly framed.

Would the level of clarity presented be possible using a preserved reduction print as the image source? It would seem to better explain the color quality of the image. However, whatever was used certainly has better clarity than the image source used for VUDU, which is what led me to the suspicion of an 8-perf source.

SAC is most likely harvested from a 35/8 wet IP. Lovely image.