A Few Words About A few words about...™ Vertigo -- in Blu-ray (2 Viewers)

[Nelson Au]

There's an aspect of the 1995-1996 restoration that I am confused about. I have been indulging in the Varese Sarabande CD of the original soundtrack of Vertigo from the same time as the restoration. I was inspired to finally get it after enjoying the newly released North by Northwest soundtrack from Intrada. When listening to it, it's obvious there is a lot of areas where the ravages of time degraded the tracks. There are some drop outs here and there and one track having several big bits of sound loss called The Park at 2 min and 49 sec. It's too bad the Graveyard and Tombstone pieces are gone though. The Prelude also has a quick few drop outs. Which made me wonder how in the restored film, I don't hear it, or perhaps I never noticed it before. In looking back, I found an archive thread that Mr. Harris posted that said the master magnetic tapes were junked in 1967. But it wasn't till 1994 that the floor orchestra recordings were found at Paramount and were suffering from Vinegar Syndrome. So that made me wonder, what is that? We're the recordings found in 1994 on film verses a tape or tapes? If so, if that is the source used for the film and the soundtrack CD, how was the film's soundtrack free of the drop outs? Digital manipulation? In watching the new blu ray recently, I hadn't received the 1996 CD yet so I only knew the score from the viewings of the film on the earlier DVD and this blu-ray, and the soundtrack score sounded great and as I said I didn't notice any imperfections! It's a pretty amazing job of restoration when I re-read that the 1996 restoration was all done on the chemical side for the film elements verses digital. The sound was restored digitally though as far as I can tell.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Nelson Au
There's an aspect of the 1995-1996 restoration that I am confused about. I have been indulging in the Varese Sarabande CD of the original soundtrack of Vertigo from the same time as the restoration. I was inspired to finally get it after enjoying the newly released North by Northwest soundtrack from Intrada.
When listening to it, it's obvious there is a lot of areas where the ravages of time degraded the tracks. There are some drop outs here and there and one track having several big bits of sound loss called The Park at 2 min and 49 sec. It's too bad the Graveyard and Tombstone pieces are gone though.
The Prelude also has a quick few drop outs. Which made me wonder how in the restored film, I don't hear it, or perhaps I never noticed it before. In looking back, I found an archive thread that Mr. Harris posted that said the master magnetic tapes were junked in 1967. But it wasn't till 1994 that the floor orchestra recordings were found at Paramount and were suffering from Vinegar Syndrome. So that made me wonder, what is that? We're the recordings found in 1994 on film verses a tape or tapes? If so, if that is the source used for the film and the soundtrack CD, how was the film's soundtrack free of the drop outs? Digital manipulation? In watching the new blu ray recently, I hadn't received the 1996 CD yet so I only knew the score from the viewings of the film on the earlier DVD and this blu-ray, and the soundtrack score sounded great and as I said I didn't notice any imperfections!
It's a pretty amazing job of restoration when I re-read that the 1996 restoration was all done on the chemical side for the film elements verses digital. The sound was restored digitally though as far as I can tell.

The recordings found in the Paramount vaults were 35mm full-coat magnetic -- some stereo, others monaural, dependent upon whether they were recorded in London or Vienna.
RAH

 

[Nelson Au]

I see, I had to look up what full coat magnetic is. So the film source located in the Paramount vault was a 35mm film print that had the oxide soundtrack along the edge of the film. And the film's degradation also degraded the audio track. I get it now. It's been quite an education reading up on the music side of this film. From the musician strike that prohibited Bernard Herrmann from conducting to the score being recorded in the two locations in Europe. Then to how the tapes were destroyed to your finding the 35mm full coat magnetic. It's amazing it was mostly salvaged. Thank you for the insight.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Nelson Au
I see, I had to look up what full coat magnetic is. So the film source located in the Paramount vault was a 35mm film print that had the oxide soundtrack along the edge of the film. And the film's degradation also degraded the audio track. I get it now. It's been quite an education reading up on the music side of this film. From the musician strike that prohibited Bernard Herrmann from conducting to the score being recorded in the two locations in Europe. Then to how the tapes were destroyed to your finding the 35mm full coat magnetic.
It's amazing it was mostly salvaged.
Thank you for the insight.

No.
Full-coat mag is precisely that.
It is a roll of 35mm stock, totally covered in magnetic particles, on which, generally, multi-track audio, is recorded.
RAH

 

[Nelson Au]

I stand corrected! Was that a common means to record the music at that time, or a fortuitous happenstance and find?

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Fascinating! I never knew this. Were any other VistaVision Hitchcock films released this way?

With rare exception, ALL VistaVision films were reduction printed to standard 35mm. The point was to create a higher quality standard 35 print, not to show the films in horizontal projection.

 

[John Stockton]

With rare exception, ALL VistaVision films were reduction printed to standard 35mm. The point was to create a higher quality standard 35 print, not to show the films in horizontal projection.

But that approach totally diminished what Vista Vision was capable of.... They could have done what was done in 1996, transfer to 70 MM at full size and get the full effect.

 

[OliverK]

But that approach totally diminished what Vista Vision was capable of.... They could have done what was done in 1996, transfer to 70 MM at full size and get the full effect.

The full effect could be had later after there was the feeling that VistaVision wasn't quite wide enough - that was why they first created Technirama (wider pictures) and then Super Technirama 70 (BlowUp to 70mm).

 

[Moe Dickstein]

But that approach totally diminished what Vista Vision was capable of.... They could have done what was done in 1996, transfer to 70 MM at full size and get the full effect.

The point of VV was to create "hi-Fi" regular 35mm prints. It achieved that goal.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Moe Dickstein
The point of VV was to create "hi-Fi" regular 35mm prints. It achieved that goal.

Magnificently!
VistaVision 35/4 dye transfer prints among the finest standard 35mm prints ever produced.
RAH

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Magnificently! VistaVision 35/4 dye transfer prints among the finest standard 35mm prints ever produced. RAH

Indeed. I've had the pleasure of seeing an original release 35mm several times in the past 30 years (as well as running one once - very nervously!) and its always a treat.

 

[John Stockton]

The point of VV was to create "hi-Fi" regular 35mm prints. It achieved that goal.

One can film in 65 MM and reduction print it on to standard 35 MM print and achieve better results. My point is that while it did achieve the goal you said, The audience never got to see the full potential of what VV is capable of. Except for the rare horizontal engagements and the 70 MM Vertigo.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

But whereas a 65mm origination film was meant to be seen that way, 35mm VV films were never meant to be seen large format, outside of rare exceptions. RAH can correct me but I don't believe they had equipment in place at the time to make mass printing of VV to 70mm for screenings. If they wanted prints to go out in 70 in those days, they would film them on 65mm negative, not VV.

 

[John Stockton]

But whereas a 65mm origination film was meant to be seen that way, 35mm VV films were never meant to be seen large format, outside of rare exceptions. RAH can correct me but I don't believe they had equipment in place at the time to make mass printing of VV to 70mm for screenings. If they wanted prints to go out in 70 in those days, they would film them on 65mm negative, not VV.

What mass printing?? Only the 70 MM engagements needed the 70 prints.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Perhaps RAH can be clearer about this than I have been...

 

[John Stockton]

35mm VV films were never meant to be seen large format, outside of rare exceptions.

Perhaps RAH can be clearer about this than I have been...

Not to speak for RAH but if you watched "Obsessed with Vertigo" he did mention that since Vertigo, like all other VV films, was reduction printed for its original release, the audience can finally see the film the way it was meant to be seen, in large format.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Not to speak for RAH but if you watched "Obsessed with Vertigo" he did mention that since Vertigo, like all other VV films, was reduction printed for its original release, the audience can finally see the film the way it was meant to be seen, in large format.

My understanding is that there were never more than a handful of theaters equipped to project 8 perf vertical 35mm prints. Only 2 or 3 prints were made of some very early VistaVision films, and those were just for premieres. An optical process did not exist at the time to print from VistaVision to 70mm.There was never any intention that a mass audience would see VistaVision films in a large format. Doug

 

[John Stockton]

My understanding is that there were never more than a handful of theaters equipped to project 8 perf vertical 35mm prints. Only 2 or 3 prints were made of some very early VistaVision films, and those were just for premieres. An optical process did not exist at the time to print from VistaVision to 70mm.There was never any intention that a mass audience would see VistaVision films in a large format. Doug

Are you absolutely sure that no optical or similar process existed ?? There was never any intention that a mass audience would see 65MM in large format either, but they did release them in select theatres equipped with 70MM for those who wanted to experience the film that way.

 

[OliverK]

Are you absolutely sure that no optical or similar process existed ?? There was never any intention that a mass audience would see 65MM in large format either, but they did release them in select theatres equipped with 70MM for those who wanted to experience the film that way.

John, you are mixing things up. Movies filmed in 65mm were very much intended for a 70mm roadshow engagement and in the 50ies and 60ies this was done for almost all movies shot in 65mm. At the moment I can only think of Raintree County not being released in 70mm prints and this was at least partly thanks to the big success of other movies shot in 65mm and a relative scarcity of 70mm equipped theatres. While the early concept for VistaVision was to also show it in especially equipped theaters with VistaVision projectors it was to be on much more limited basis - VistaVision advertised that it didn't need as much changes in the infrastructure of the theater as other processes so it was clear from the beginning that a VistaVision projector in many theatres would be out of the question.

 

[John Stockton]

Oliver I fully understand what you are saying. I am just making a point that it was a big mistake not to let more people experience what VV was capable of. After seeing Vertigo in 70 MM I weep that virtually no other VV film got the chance to shine so well.