Fall of the Roman Empire to be released on April 29 (1 Viewer)

[Simon Howson]

No. It is still up in the air regards whether it has been delayed or not.

Perhaps it is now three discs because they had already started pressing a two disc set, and rather than destroying those they are just going to add a third disc?

I have no idea if this is true, but DVDSavant said the release was on, and then all of a sudden not, so they must've been well into finishing the DVDs.

 

[Jon Lidolt]

I just read the announcement by the Weinstein's about their upcoming DVD release of The Fall of the Roman Empire declaring that they hope to be viewed as purveyors of classic motion pictures on DVD in the same class as Warner Brothers and Criterion. Well, I for one wish them well, but I sure hope they do a better job on The Fall than on their current DVD release of El-Cid. I was lucky enough to have seen this film in 70mm during its first-run engagements and can testify to the fact that its picture and sound are a pale imitation of the original. It's really unfortunate - all that brilliant production design and cinematography... obscured by a poor transfer.

 

[Bruce Morrison]

Last time I checked, it appeared that the release of 'The Fall Of The Roman Empire' had been postponed until later in the year. No reason was given as far as I know, but maybe they've recognised the shortcomings of the El Cid transfer and are trying to do a better job with this one.

 

[MatthewA]

Hopefully we can also get a better El Cid transfer.

 

[John Hodson]

This has been reported elsewhere. From DVD Savant (who first reported that it had been postponed):

The Hollywood Reporter sez that the Miriam Collection's The Fall of the Roman Empire will indeed come out April 29 from Genius in a three-disc set with many extras. The notice also offers the information that 55 Days at Peking and Circus World will follow. I've gotten several emails asking about Circus World, so now they know that it isn't being ignored.

 

[oscar_merkx]

Home Media Magazine - Bringing Digital Entertainment To You

 

[john a hunter]

AND NO MISSING SCENES!!!!

 

[john a hunter]

Right on the money,Jon. I eventually got my EL CID and was extremely disappointed with the transfer. If they put some of their resources that went into the extras into the actual transfer itself, it would have been a much better set.Talk about the cart before the horse!

 

[haroldS]

I'm still not clear. Will "Fall..." come out in two versions, a two and a three disc set or just the three disc set?

 

[PatrickDA]

TWO versions...a two-disc set and then a box set with three-discs.

You can't say "no missing footage" since we don't have any details on
the bonus material outside of a very general overview in the article.

 

[Jon Lidolt]

Roland, many years ago I ran a 16mm Technicolor print of Roman Empire in my basement screening room. The projected picture had an aspect ratio of 2.66:1, almost the entire width of the 2.76:1 Ultra-Panavision picture.

 

[OliverK]

Would be very interesting to know if that aspect ratio really was that wide because there was more information to the left and right of the frame or if it was due to matting down to 2.66 from scope.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

The 2.66:1 ratio was probably yielded from the 16mm print's frames having a 2:1 squeeze, thus being 1.33:1. Jon, did you use a 2:1 taking lens when projecting FOTRE ?

 

[john a hunter]

I projected lots of 16mm scope prints and they all were 2.66:1 whatever the filming format. All 16MM Scope lenses had a 2x squeeze giving that 2.66:1 aspect ratio. There were some anamorphics with a 1.5X squeeze but these were intended for 8mm projectors.

 

[Jon Lidolt]

Yes, you're right about the 2.66:1 ratio of 16mm scope prints. But standard
35mm scope features were cropped slightly at the top and bottom when they were reduction printed to 16mm resulting the 2.66:1 shape. On the other hand, the 65mm Ultra-Panavision frame was cropped ever so slightly at each side when it was reduced to 16mm which produced the 2.66:1 ratio.

 

[OliverK]

That's why I think that Fall in anamorphic 16mm might just have been matted scope, same as other regular scope movies. In any case I would be very interested in the production chain from the squeezed 70mm negative to the squeezed 16mm print.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Ah, so all anamorphic 35mm films and 65mm origination films were reformatted to the standard 1.33:1 16mm frame with a 2:1 squeeze that then yielded a 2.66:1 ratio. I have read that some 1.85:1 films were squeezed by 2:1, but have never had that confirmed. 40+ year-old 16mm Technicolor prints can look stunning, btw, just as 35mm Techni prints can.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Oh, yes, there would definitely have been cropping. But seeing as it was a Technicolor-produced print, they would have been careful in doing so.

 

[RolandL]

Someone is selling a 16mm scope print of another Ultra Panavision film Battle of The Bulge on EBAY and it looks like 2.66:1 - Item number: 280205953130

 

[OliverK]

Roland, thanks for the link, I will do a comparison of the framing with my HD-DVD. If this one is cropped scope I would expect the same from Fall.