Best Zulu DVD MGM's Region 1 versus prior releases? (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

John,
I merged your thread with this one and here's another thread that you might find interesting about "Zulu".




Crawdaddy

 

[John Stockton]

Thanks Robert. Reading those threads it seems that MGM was unable to find the original Multichannel soundtrack.

But that still does not explain why the DVD has a supposed aspect ratio of 2.35:1 . According to the statement MGM provided to Bill Hunt, the film was restored from the original Super Technirama sources. If that is the case, then the DVD should have original ratio of 2.21:1 .

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Remember that Technirama was not a 70mm filming system, but rather, like VistaVision, was an 8 perf 35mm horizontal filming system. The correct aspect ratio for Technirama is 2.35:1. 70mm was a print-up option later added to the original spec. Go to The American Widescreen Museum for more information.

 

[Patrick McCart]

The MGM edition is quite low on extras and only has mono sound, but the visual presentation is superb.

It's probably one of the best video transfers I've seen recently.

 

[Bill Burns]

Stephen -- TWM explains things a bit differently. The film should be 2.25:1 -- if it was actually made post Super Technirama's inception, that is, rather than up-printed after the fact.

The matter is very complicated, and had me confused for quite some time, but TWM explains it in detail here:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingtr3.htm

To paraphrase, Technirama's 2.35:1 image was altered to 2.25:1 by further opening the height of the aperture (which was originally reduced to allow for a soundtrack if it were ever projected horizontally, as it was to some degree overseas, but I'd assume most projections -- this seems to be stated on the site, but it's a bit unclear -- were anamorphic reductions to 4 perforation 35mm, which with a touch of cropping would easily yield the 2.39:1 image of latter day CinemaScope).

Thus the Super Technirama image is true 2.25:1 (rather than a further cropping of 2.35:1), and anything shot at 8 perforation 35mm for Super Technirama 70 projection should be 2.25:1. Should anything shot for standard Technirama after the advent of Super Technirama 70 also be 2.25:1? That's unclear. It would appear so, as the site states the aperture was changed for Technirama photography in general, presumably to allow for 70mm printing (Zulu saw "limited" 70mm engagements, again according to the site). My inclination is to assume, from the info at TWM described above, that any Technirama production made after the first advertised Super Technirama 70 productions should be 2.25:1, and anything before them should be 2.35:1, but TWM isn't crystal clear about this. If I'm right in that decrpytion, as it were, of facts on the site, this would undoubtedly include Zulu, but whether it would include Sleeping Beauty, for instance ... I'm not sure. If a film were made for Technirama but up-printed to 70mm as an after thought, it might have used the original Technirama aperture and would thus be correct at 2.35:1 (when printed to 70mm it would presumably take on a characteristic similar to the Todd-AO system with which TWM says it was compatible: 2.2:1 or so). If filmed after the Technirama spec was altered for Super Technirama printing, then the original 8 perf 35mm frame would have a correct aspect ratio of 2.25:1. Frames of Sleeping Beauty are provided on the site, so some enterprising mathematician might measure them and see if they're 2.25 or 2.35:1 (assuming they've been scanned uncropped) ... though this isn't of much help on Zulu.

In other words: pre-Super Technirama, all Technirama was 2.35:1. Post Super Technirama, all Technirama (at the very least all that was shot for 70mm projection, i.e. Super Technirama) was 2.25:1. This is again a true negative ratio after that negative is anamorphically unsqueezed, and doesn't reflect simple cropping (so far as I can determine from TWM). If an image is cropped from a negative area to another ratio more conducive to projection (CinemaScope 55, for instance) I always advocate restoring the full negative for home video, not a reduction print, and preserving the ratio of the negative. But in this case the projection ratio and the negative ratio (before anamorphic encoding, or rather after anamorphic squeeze has been removed) are the same or very similar: 2.25:1. If it were compatible with Todd-AO and used Todd-AO's sound spec, it would actually project at 2.2:1, but the captured image area is 2.25:1.

Rather complicated, as I said. TWM explains it fairly well, with a few minor holes as mentioned above. But it seems Zulu should be 2.25:1, and perhaps next month's Sleeping Beauty (I'd love to know if it were shot at the "old" or "new" Technirama aperture). I haven't measured the DVD, but the difference between 2.25:1 and 2.35:1 may not be readily apparent to the eye, unlike, say, Todd-AO's 2.2:1 versus CinemaScope's 2.39:1 or 2.55:1.

The above notwithstanding, my one caveat with this Region 1 disc (and so many discs, it seems) is EE. It's there, and I wish it weren't. Otherwise, the transfer looks great.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

My guess, going from my old widescreen VHS copy of Sleeping Beauty, is that the DVD will be formatted to 2.35:1. Since SB was one of the first to be printed up to Technirama 70 (you'll note the opening credits say Technirama rather than Super Technirama), it is safe to assume that the intended AR is 2.35:1 rather than 2.25:1, especially since Disney put an equal push on its CinemaScope version in the publicity materials.

 

[Bill Burns]

The widescreen VHS and laserdisc (both CLV and CAV box) of Sleeping Beauty were, by all indications, taken from four perforation 35mm reduction, which would presumably be a CinemaScope format (2.39:1 or thereabouts, credited as 2.35:1). Technirama is not, natively, conventional 35mm; it's an eight perforation 35mm format, much like VistaVision, and thus twice as tall as standard 35mm. They photograph it horizontally instead of vertically, again like VistaVision, and so the final product is twice as wide rather than twice as tall. This can be printed (the size suggests it really isn't "up-printed") to 70mm or reduction printed to four perforation 35mm. It can also be printed as eight perforation 35mm positive, but this wasn't often done (possibly never for VistaVision?).

It's all fairly complex and confusing (it certainly took me a while to iron it out), but it's been discussed in some detail on the Sleeping Beauty DVD thread:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=155202

And for direct reference, page three of The Widescreen Museum's Technirama section is particularly helpful:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingtr3.htm

According to this material, Disney specifically designed Sleeping Beauty as a 70mm Super Technirama product. Knowing this, and reading through the entire Technirama section to discover that, while the eight perforation 35mm Technirama format originally used an aperture of photography which yielded a 2.35:1 frame but changed that aperture when Super Technirama was conceived (apparently to increase the height and take advantage of some of the space previously allowed for soundtrack material on those rare eight perforation prints), yielding an image which (after anamorphosis is taken into account) is now 2.25:1 ... well, it gets convoluted again. But indications seem to be that all Technirama photography (all eight perforation 35mm Technirama and Super Technirama -- eight perf designed for 70mm printing -- photography) done after the advent of Super Technirama presentation used the new aperture, and thus all Technirama photography after 1959 or so (perhaps a bit earlier, TWM isn't really clear on this) would yield a proper ratio of 2.25:1. Any Technirama photography prior to this would be correct at 2.35:1, but of course home video transfers and even re-release prints today could be taken from either eight perforation native or four perforation reduction elements to yield approximately that ratio, and one would hope for the former to maintain maximum image clarity and character.

But Sleeping Beauty would have been shot, by all indications at TWM, in the new aperture with a final ratio of 2.25:1, and any 2.35:1 prints were either reduction prints to four perforation or cropped.

Again, it seems the old widescreen VHS and laserdiscs were reduction print sourced. This new edition on DVD has been restored, frame by frame, digitally, and I'm inclined to think Disney would only do this in eight perforation -- it's a great expense to undergo only to handicap oneself at the outset with a reduction source. Whether they've sourced their DVD from eight or four remains to be seen (the ads and box say 2.35:1, but that may be a marketing decision to avoid ratio confusion with the public, or it may simply be an error), but I very much hope it's eight, and the ratio as captured somewhere around 2.25:1, in keeping with TWM's info.

The DVD will look great either way -- digitally spruced up frame by frame, anamorphic ... it's going to be a winner. But the truest path to fidelity must begin, for the film to tape stage, at eight perforation 35mm (or a 65mm picture element). It just won't look as good as it could from a reduction source.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I guess the only way to really know is to get our hands on a 70mm print, right?