AIRPORT in TODD-AO? (1 Viewer)

[trajan]

My understanding is that AIRPORT will be released on bluray in September. It would be really nice if the TODD-AO elements were used in the transfer. I hope Universal goes the full nine yards on this one. Maybe someone with industry contacts could give us an answer if a TODD-AO transfer will happen. BTW- will we see SWEET CHARITY anytime soon?

 

[John Stockton]

Oh Please Universal, do not foul up this release. I have been waiting for a Todd-Ao version sourced from the original 65 MM negative for a long time. The sound should also be six channel discreet derived from the original stems.

 

[David Coleman]

Different studio, but wasn't SOUND OF MUSIC sourced from the 65mm Tood-AO negative?

 

[John Hermes]

I received my BD copy of Airport yesterday from England. It is a 2.35 AR transfer with a DTS HD Master 5.1 soundtrack. The sharpness is good and the color and contrast are excellent, looking very much like late-1960s Technicolor to me. I'm sure not having the 70mm AR, and apparently not being sourced from the 65mm materials, will put some people off. I am pretty happy with the image myself. It was late at night when I checked it out so I can't tell you much about the sound yet.

 

[RolandL]

Review on dvdbeaver

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by John Hermes /t/319144/airport-in-todd-ao#post_3948397
I received my BD copy of Airport yesterday from England. It is a 2.35 AR transfer with a DTS HD Master 5.1 soundtrack. The sharpness is good and the color and contrast are excellent, looking very much like late-1960s Technicolor to me. I'm sure not having the 70mm AR, and apparently not being sourced from the 65mm materials, will put some people off. I am pretty happy with the image myself. It was late at night when I checked it out so I can't tell you much about the sound yet.

As far as I'm aware, this was scanned from a 65mm element. Aspect ratio is irrelevant.

2.35 would be very close to correct for 65mm.

RAH

 

[John Stockton]

As far as I'm aware, this was scanned from a 65mm element.  Aspect ratio is irrelevant.
2.35 would be very close to correct for 65mm.
RAH

Is it possible that the 2.21 frame was opened up to show the picture information that would normally be missing to accommodate the magnetic soundtracks on the sides of the frame??

 

[Douglas R]

Review on dvdbeaver

That's what I like to see! An obvious huge improvement over the DVD which makes it a worthwhile upgrade.

 

[NY2LA]

As far as I'm aware, this was scanned from a 65mm element.  Aspect ratio is irrelevant.
2.35 would be very close to correct for 65mm.
RAH

How so? Native aspect for 65mm/Todd-AO is 2.21. In the current 16x9 dominant world of homevid, and an Imax-aping time where pretty much every current cinema emphasizes height over width, IF they are going to all the trouble of mastering from 65, WHY would they deliberately throw away the extra picture height by cropping to 2.35?

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by NY2LA /t/319144/airport-in-todd-ao#post_3966358
How so? Native aspect for 65mm/Todd-AO is 2.21. In the current 16x9 dominant world of homevid, and an Imax-aping time where pretty much every current cinema emphasizes height over width, IF they are going to all the trouble of mastering from 65, WHY would they deliberately throw away the extra picture height by cropping to 2.35?

If a film is scanned from a 65mm element, and the image area normally hidden by mag stripes is exposed, one is very close to 2.35.

 

[NY2LA]

If a film is scanned from a 65mm element, and the image area normally hidden by mag stripes is exposed, one is very close to 2.35.

Is this evident in the screen caps (from a source many of you often criticize)?
I see no reason for exposing that much more than theatres were ever intended to show. Warner did that with the letterboxed How the West was Won - taking an already extra wide film and making it ridiculously wide, so even on a 16x9 screen it looked like a ribbon across a black field.
Being shot in Todd-AO, the preferred AR would be 2.21, while it would have been protected for 2.35, but WITHIN that 2.21 frame. Right, Robert? So whatever goes out beyond the frame to the sprocket holes was never meant to show. Adding unintended width only makes the picture unnecessarily smaller on current TVs. What would have been wrong with, say, oh, idunno, presenting the picture in its native AR - the way it was originally shown in its original theatrical engagements?

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by NY2LA /t/319144/airport-in-todd-ao#post_3966399
Is this evident in the screen caps (from a source many of you often criticize)?
I see no reason for exposing that much more than theatres were ever intended to show. Warner did that with the letterboxed How the West was Won - taking an already extra wide film and making it ridiculously wide, so even on a 16x9 screen it looked like a ribbon across a black field.
Being shot in Todd-AO, the preferred AR would be 2.21, while it would have been protected for 2.35, but WITHIN that 2.21 frame. Right, Robert? So whatever goes out beyond the frame to the sprocket holes was never meant to show. Adding unintended width only makes the picture unnecessarily smaller on current TVs. What would have been wrong with, say, oh, idunno, presenting the picture in its native AR - the way it was originally shown in its original theatrical engagements?

I have no info re: the mindset involved. I can tell you, however, that the DVDs of My Fair Lady, which were created from a special 35mm IP, exposing the entire 65mm area, was released at 2.35. My personal preference would be 2.21:1.

RAH

 

[NY2LA]

I have no info re: the mindset involved.  I can tell you, however, that the DVDs of My Fair Lady, which were created from a special 35mm IP, exposing the entire 65mm area, was released at 2.35.  My personal preference would be 2.21:1.
RAH

Right with you there. Could it be something like that old phrase "a little information is a dangerous thing" meaning someone who has learned the some of basics, but not all about something... Might there be some people who think 2.35 is better because it's "wider"? That could maybe explain why Fox F'd up Oklahoma! by favoring the 35mm version over the 70mm. I have dealt with some studio people who thought they knew it all about things of which they really had only limited understanding.
PS: does anyone else hate Uni's bland generic menus as much as I do? Looking at the Beaver caps, even if they were less than ideal, the older DVD menus for Airport at least tried to present the picture with its own identity, where as Uni just makes every movie look like something you called up on a computer from a database - just another piece of software. To me that's television and not movies. I probably sound like I should take a swig of Geritol and go to bed. (not a bad idea. Good night Gracie)

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by NY2LA /t/319144/airport-in-todd-ao#post_3966414
Right with you there. Could it be something like that old phrase "a little information is a dangerous thing" meaning someone who has learned the some of basics, but not all about something... Might there be some people who think 2.35 is better because it's "wider"? That could maybe explain why Fox F'd up Oklahoma! by favoring the 35mm version over the 70mm. I have dealt with some studio people who thought they knew it all about things of which they really had only limited understanding.
PS: does anyone else hate Uni's bland generic menus as much as I do? Looking at the Beaver caps, even if they were less than ideal, the older DVD menus for Airport at least tried to present the picture with its own identity, where as Uni just makes every movie look like something you called up on a computer from a database - just another piece of software. To me that's television and not movies. I probably sound like I should take a swig of Geritol and go to bed. (not a bad idea. Good night Gracie)

Fox "favored" the 35mm version because it was printable, while the 65mm Todd-AO was faded.

RAH

 

[NY2LA]

Fox "favored" the 35mm version because it was printable, while the 65mm Todd-AO was faded.
RAH

The 65mm what? OCN or interpos? What has printability to do with the ability to produce a good video transfer? You can always color correct, and the large format would have better resolution. The laserdisc was done from 65mm elements. I was around then, and I don't recall anyone saying that was faded or any mention of problems with it. And they do have YCMs on Oklahoma!, no?

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by NY2LA /t/319144/airport-in-todd-ao#post_3966699
The 65mm what? OCN or interpos? What has printability to do with the ability to produce a good video transfer? You can always color correct, and the large format would have better resolution. The laserdisc was done from 65mm elements. I was around then, and I don't recall anyone saying that was faded or any mention of problems with it. And they do have YCMs on Oklahoma!, no?

OCN.

Not printable = heavy lifting and digital expense. The laserdisc was produced from a new print derived from the faded neg. It was not a pretty picture, and would be far less pretty above 480i.

RAH

 

[NY2LA]

OCN.
Not printable = heavy lifting and digital expense.  The laserdisc was produced from a new print derived from the faded neg.  It was not a pretty picture, and would be far less pretty above 480i.
RAH

I seem to recall a statement being made about South Pacific that the 65mm roadshow elements weren't in the best shape, but no such explanation was given at the time for featuring a smaller version of Oklahoma! on DVD than we got previously and reducing the original to a supplement. Not even after the outrcy that came from its release. Having heard their large format titles were "restored" (though not sure if that means in the original RAH definition or the more prevalent current interpretation meaning struck a new print or did some digital work on video) one might hope that the Blu-Rays would be done from 65mm in OAR for higher resolution.
Back to topic of Airport, I still wonder what Uni was thinking - if indeed they went as far as mastering from 65mm, why they would include extra width that wasn't intended, especially in a time when Imax has influenced the whole industry to think that height is better than width. Look around at today's cinemas and count how many have top masking that makes widescreen movies smaller, as opposed to side masking that served the original intent of wider being bigger.

 

[JohnMor]

The difference in width is pretty negligible and the blu ray does feature more information at the top and bottom of the frame than the previous releases.

 

[Brian Sharp]

Perhaps I am missing something here. However,I do wonder why there is so much interest in seeing the "full frame" on dvd and blu ray when, in the cinema, part of the image is cut off by the aperture plate for various reasons.

 

[NY2LA]

The difference in width is pretty negligible and the blu ray does feature more information at the top and bottom of the frame than the previous releases.

Did you get an early copy too or are you going from The Beaver caps?