Bronston epics and Land of the Pharaohs coming at last! (1 Viewer)

[ptb2007]

Can't turn off the subtitles, annoying, but they are in the black so I can stick a piece of black paper across the bottom of the screen while watching. Better than having the sides of the screen chopped off!

 

[ptb2007]

It says on the box it is digitally enhanced for 16:9 as well as 2.35:1 so you're probably ok if you buy a copy! I don't have a wide screen tv yet - must wait fr my current set to blow up before I get another!

 

[Cassy_w]

ELC-CID is one of my husband's favorite films of all time. He imported the Korean DVD. But he and I will wait for High Def. We won't buy a standard def DVD, remastered or not. We want it on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.

 

[jim_falconer]

I have the French release of 'Circus World' on DVD (and it's a very nice transfer), but will gladly double-dip when it becomes available in a deluxe R1 edition.

 

[OliverK]

The French versions of El Cid and Fall are the best ones I have seen and I have seen 4 scope versions of each of these movies. They are anamorphic and from the same transfers as the other scope versins I have seen. The French company who made the DVD made the best out of the transfers though with regard to colors and contrast range.

It is correct that the subs are not that easy to get rid of.

El Cid and Fall come in a coffret Anthony Mann which is pretty nice by itself.

Regarding the Weinstein release: Does anybody notive that there is no talk about how these will be done with regard to the transfer used ? Don't be too sure that Weinstein is putting too much effort into these.

And I will gladly admit that I would absolutely love to be proven wrong when they come out wth spectacular looking editions of these movies

Oliver

 

[JeffO]

It can't be worse than the VHS transfer. My copy was the worst of any VHS movie I ever saw.

 

[OliverK]

Epics always look like crap on low rez formats - LD also did not do justice to any epic I saw in that format. Something like the Big Lebowski looks good on LD, but not Fall of the Roman Empire or El Cid.

 

[ptb2007]

Just took delivery of Steve Reeves "epic", or "peplum" as they call it in France, "Last Days of Pompeii". Gorgeous 2.35:1 transfer in both French and English versions. Why do the rest of us in region 2 (or region 1) not get such great transfers? Why are not more available? I know "Collosus of Rhodes" is available in France of the 60s Sergio Leone epics, but it seems the distributors don't think the rest of us respect Sergio (or Steve Reeves) like the French do!!!!

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Paul, Warner are releasing Colossus Of Rhodes on tuesday (26th June).

 

[ptb2007]

Thanks Gordon. I see there is also a 3 dvd set called "Camp Classics" that promises along with Colossus, The Prodigal, and Land of the Pharoahs, all in 2.35:1!
Can't wait!

 

[Richard_Gregory]

They're already shipping, or at least my copies of the Sci-Fi set and Trog already did.

 

[Simon Howson]

Prodigal and Land of the Pharoahs will almost certainly both be 2.55:1.

 

[ptb2007]

Amazon says you are correct, but does this mean they were both released with magnetic sterophonic soundtracks then, making the width of the image slightly smaller?

 

[john a hunter]

As originally developed, Cinemascope was 2.66:1 AR (twice the standard 1.33:1) and some of the early screenings of THE ROBE were shown at that AR with an interlocked soundtrack.However Fox always intended to stripe the release prints with 4 magnetic tracks which they did thereby shaving the AR to 2.55;1.
The AR was again shaved to 2.23:1 a year or so later with the introduction of an optical track.

 

[Simon Howson]

The general rule is that any CinemaScope film released in the U.S. before 1956 should have an aspect ratio of 2.55:1.

 

[ptb2007]

Here's the facts from the horse's mouth as it were, the AMERICAN WIDESCREEN MUSEUM

The CinemaScope Aspect Ratio
1953 - 2.66:1. During the developmental period of CinemaScope, and before it was in any way certain that it would be possible to put the stereophonic soundtracks on the same film as the picture, CinemaScope used a conventional film with an aperture size identical to the original silent film aperture. This format uses the absolute maximum available area on the film to provide optimum image quality. The sound was carried on a separate full coat 35mm magnetic film that ran in interlock with the picture projector. Warner Bros' Warnersuperscope, (which never really got off the ground), and Carl Dudley's short lived Vistarama both also conformed to the same 2.66:1 ratio with interlock sound.

1953 - 2.55:1. By the time The Robe was ready to premiere, 20th Century-Fox had solved the magnetic stereo sound problem on the picture film with the able assistance of Cinerama sound guru Hazard Reeves. Adding the four small bands of magnetic oxide required the use of smaller perforations and a slight reduction in the width of the picture.


1955 - 2.35:1. Exhibitor resistance to investing in stereophonic sound reproduction equipment forced the use of several different sound formats for CinemaScope. There was a mono magnetic sound stripe that was located in the same area as the optical soundtrack in standard films and there were optical mono soundtracks as well. In addition, MGM utilized the crummy Perspecta system to create ersatz stereo effects. These formats used standard film perforations and necessitated a reduction in image width to yield 2.35:1. In 1957, with the adoption of the magoptical sound track, which incorporated both a narrow optical mono soundtrack along with the four magnetic stripes, finally eliminated 2.55:1 as a ratio for CinemaScope and other anamorphic 35mm systems.

1970 - 2.39:1. The height of the CinemaScope image on film, (and all other clone systems), leaves no room between frames. Consequently, splices, both done in the lab and and in the theatre, would cause flashes of light at the top or bottom, or both, of the picture. Theatres took to masking the 2.35:1 frame down slightly to cover the splices. In 1970, the SMPTE set an "official" standard that reduced the height of the projector aperture to conform to the general practice that had been in use for several years. While 2.39:1 is a wider ratio than 2.35:1, the change represents a reduction in height not an increase in width. The difference in shape is inconsequential and thus the aspect ratio of anamorphic films is interchangeably referred to as either 2.39:1 or 2.35:1. This change represents no change in the production of the film, it's a change that is done in the theatre projector and screen masking.

This ratio applies to all present day 35mm 2x squeeze anamorphic prints, be they originated in CinemaScope, Panavision, Technirama, Tohoscope, Super 35 or any other clone of the CinemaScope standards set in the 1950s.

 

[Douglas R]

They are. I've just got these.

 

[Simon Howson]

The screen caps on DVDBeaver look great. My copy of the box should arrive any day now. I've been wanting to see Land of the Pahraohs ever since I saw the excerpt in Scorsese's American Cinema documentary. Those shots of the pyramid being built are just amazing; I'll take that over any CGI infused epic any day!

 

[ptb2007]

The final scenes inside the pyramid are amazing too! The movie has some good epics scenes too, with sets and people up on screen rather than CGI.
As for CGI, are there any scenes done recently that are as "gob smacking" as the first shots of the Roman Forum in FOTRE, the chariot race in Ben-Hur, or Cleopatra's entry into Rome?

 

[Douglas R]

What a pity Warner Bros didn't use that original poster artwork of Land of the Pharaohs shown on DVD Beaver. It's so much better than the version they used - which I think was done for the laser disc (?).