New Superbits for September including Lawrence of Arabia (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

According to the back cover of the LoA 2-discer, it says it was transferred from a 65mm interpositive in high-def.

2001: A Space Odyssey was also transferred from 65mm, according to PacTitle.

 

[Bill Burns]

That's what I thought, Patrick. Criterion's Spartacus also states it was transferred from 65mm. There may be others. Vertigo and Lawrence both, in my opinion, exemplify the resolution and "character" (overall look and feel) that can be obtained by mastering from an original source element, rather than a reduction element (modern stock, so far as I've been given to understand, differs considerably in both grain structure and overall chemical composition from vintage 50's and 60's stock, and to optically reduce a vintage 65mm film to modern 35mm will introduce new characteristics to the transfer; I don't see any way around that. To master from a vintage 35mm reduction would be to master from a source lacking in much of the original's resolution and to alter its overall character; when 65mm original elements survive for a film shot in -- rather than optically enlarged to -- 65mm, or when a process such as VistaVision has been restored to 65mm, returning to 65mm eliminates unnecessary steps between the original and final product, minimizes changes in character and resolution, and allows the digital precision of DVD to best suggest the large format precision of the film as it was shot ... which is why so many studios have gone to the extra expense of doing this, and why I strongly encourage it in the mastering of all large format productions for DVD) ... I'd still like to see Vertigo remastered anamorphically from 65mm, but again that's another thread.

 

[Robert Harris]

"Vertigo" was mastered from a combination of 65mm and 35/8 interpositive to save generation loss in some shots.

 

[MikeHughes]

Well, well. I would rather die than to dump my french 3-Disc-LE of LoA. But since Lawrence is one of my all-time favourites, the new Superbit will join my collection. That's sure as hell.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

2001: A Space Odyssey was also transferred from 65mm, according to PacTitle.

I have the region 2 hard-cardboard edition (with CD soundtrack) and there is an 'about the transfer' in the booklet (not included in the snapper edition) which states that a 35mm interpositive was made from the 65mm neg @ 2.21:1 and that the ratio was reatained in the film-to-tape transfer.


Gordy

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

I would rather die than to dump my french 3-Disc-LE of LoA.

What is this?! What does this 3-disc set contain?


Gordy

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Vertigo and Lawrence both, in my opinion, exemplify the resolution and "character" (overall look and feel) that can be obtained by mastering from an original source element, rather than a reduction element (modern stock, so far as I've been given to understand, differs considerably in both grain structure and overall chemical composition from vintage 50's and 60's stock, and to optically reduce a vintage 65mm film to modern 35mm will introduce new characteristics to the transfer; I don't see any way around that.

Film-to-tape transfers aren't always made from original elements. And even if the negative survives, you can't transfer it on it's own; you'd have to make a new print from it - on modern filmstock! And Vertigo isn't from an original source element: the 65mm restoration/preservation negative is a composite of surviving prints from various sources up to, I believe, a 5th generation element.

A lot of transfers of vintage films are created from a new print from either the original negative, dupe neg, interpositive(s), etc.

Tricky stuff!


Gordy

 

[Vincent Matis]

The 3rd disk is a 83min documentary ("In Love With The Desert") on the locations used in the movie, we get to see how they look now,...
It's one of the assistant of David Lean who guides this visit (made in early 2000 IIRC). Very interesting... It was a French magazine exclusive at the time ...
http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASI...022596-5253759

Cheers,

Vincent

 

[MikeHughes]

Yeah, Vincent is right. Apart from this documentary on the third disc(which is very interesting), it's the same release as everywhere else. It comes in a lovely Digipack and is limited to 15.000 units. :b I looove this thing.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Wow! That is a nice bonus documentary, if ever I saw one!

Beautiful packaging, too.

Why do I get the feeling the Superbit Edition will have lame packaging, though? All that silver logo shit everywhere. The canvas-case edition is beautiful, too. But I'd like everything all in one case. Hmmm.

Cheers, Vincent.


Gordy

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Maybe this is a job for Link Removed.

 

[Britton]

Looks like those of you who liked the art for the LE more than the art for the single disc release are in luck when it comes to the Superbit art.
http://www.davisdvd.com/images/covers/gallery_k.htm

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Thank God!

Thanks for the link Britton!

 

[Richard Kim]

The LOA cover is nice. I hope the inner keepcase art looks just as nice.

And the Hook Superbit cover looks sweet! Much better than the original DVD cover.

 

[greg_t]

Here's a pretty good one too!

They also have a trio of great new Superbit releases on the way, including Léon: The Professional, Hook and Lawrence of Arabia (2-discs). Each will feature high bit rate anamorphic widescreen video and both Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 surround sound. Our own Robert A. Harris, who originally restored Lawrence in the 1990s under the supervision of director David Lean, is personally involved in the transfer and remastering of the new Superbit version, so you can be sure it will be the very best presentation of the film yet released on DVD. We'll hear more from Robert on this in the coming weeks.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

 

[Rob Tomlin]

We'll hear more from Robert on this in the coming weeks.

Excellent.

Starting to feel warm and fuzzy inside....

 

[Deepak Shenoy]

That's great news ! RAH's active involvement in the new Superbit edition will make it the definitive LOA release. I wish they would throw in the extras from the CE (add a 3rd disk if they need to) and make it a Superbit Deluxe (so that I don't have to keep the LE around just for the extras).

-D

 

[Carlo_M]

First of all: Phew! I can finally buy an R1 LOA! Thank you Mr. Harris!

Secondly: I was iffy about Hook (didn't buy the initial DVD, am only a moderate fan of the movie) but I gotta admit that is a sweet cover for the DVD. I'm actually thinking of buying just to support "good cover art" that doesn't feel the need to plaster the stars' faces all over the front (witness most recent Mel Gibson DVDs).

 

[TonyD]

tonyd said:

TonyD...

Make no assumptions.

RAH
...

did i get the scoop on this on june 28th

 

[Bill Burns]

Gordon, as Robert Harris explains above, they used 65mm and 35/8 to avoid quality loss in 35/4. That's my point, I have no other. A new interpositive from a vintage 65mm element (on a 65mm film; Vertigo was restored to 65mm from original 35/8 VistaVision) preserves more of the original than an optical reduction to 35mm followed by a new interpositive. One less generation with its attendant loss. Pure and simple.

Thus I trust Hamlet (modern 65) is transferred to DVD from 65, without reduction, as anything less would be criminal (as seen on Columbia/TriStar's mediocre-to-good laserdisc, taken from 35mm reduction, which could have been great if taken from original elements*, as was the laser of Vertigo). And given his comments above, I would expect the new Lawrence has been again mastered from 65. As is only right.

Gordon wrote:

Bill, when a 65/70mm film element is reduction-printed to 35mm, the full image can be preserved at 2.21:1, with empty space at the left and/or right of the frame. This is how the original 35mm prints of 2001: A Space Odyssey were created in 1968. The remastered DVD of 2001 was created from a 35mm, 2.21:1 print made from the original 65mm Super Panavision negative.

Why, then, was Hamlet reframed at 2.35:1 in 35mm (this according to the printed information of the back of Columbia/TriStar's laserdisc)? And more recently (on DVD) WB's My Fair Lady? (I don't recall the image fitting a 2.2:1 frame; anyone with a specific measure of the DVD, please chime in; if I'm mistaken in assuming the decision to go to a reduction element here was financial, rather than artistic, and a 65mm element would not have been preferred, I invite correction from Mr. Harris). I'm sure there are other examples of Super Panavision represented as 2.35:1 in its optical reduction. This is a question for someone who's performed such a reduction, of course, but while flat 65mm Super Panavision can be preserved in its original ratio on flat Super35 (losing still more image resolution with unused negative), doesn't the anamorphic squeeze of a Panavision "scope" print require a 2.35:1 ratio? Special optics with lesser anamorphoses would be needed to keep a 2.20:1 film in its correct ratio during the reduction process, unless you left dead negative space on all sides (top and bottom as well) of the reduction, which of course would lose still more resolution in such a process. You could also reduce it to 2.35:1 and then crop the sides, but then you've cropped three or possibly all four sides, an even worse solution than simply cropping the bottom and/or top (probably just the bottom) in going from 2.2 to 2.35.

This is why I asked not to get into this again. Those who argue that 35mm is just as good as 65mm on DVD are arguing, not with me, but with comments made by Mr. Harris, with studios who have spent good money transferring from 65 -- which you're suggesting was wasted -- and with what I consider to be clear visual evidence on disc. Why anyone would want to hold image quality to a lower standard puzzles me. And given the facts, the discussion of such is a dance to which the music never stops. My feet are tired!

* In restorations, I'm referring (and I think I suggested this in discussing, briefly, the restoration of Vertigo in an earlier post) to the first generation of restored elements as "original," because you can't get any closer to the original than this without bypassing the restoration, and naturally to do such a thing would be highly counterproductive. Vertigo was restored to 65mm, and I presume that certain portions of its original 8 perforation 35mm VistaVision form were also usable, given Mr. Harris' earlier comments; thus the original form was used when possible, the 65mm form when that original form was not used, but at no time was a 35/4 element (a reduction print) used, because the generational loss would adversely affect the transfer. If I have any of that wrong, I of course once again invite Mr. Harris' correction, but I believe this is what he has indicated, and I couldn't agree more with the philosophy of fidelity that lies behind these decisions. I trust it will continue in the large format product of other studios on DVD.