What's new

The Leopard (1963) (Criterion) (Blu-ray) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

Vincent_P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,147
Since the Criterion is heavily cropped at the sides to achieve a 2.2:1 aspect ratio (and only shows a sliver of additional top/bottom compared to the Pathe at 2.55:1), I'm guessing the negative for this particular film works out as wider than the "usual" Technirama aspect ratio for whatever reason. Maybe it didn't actually expose the full height of the VistaVision aperture for some reason? Perhaps they didn't expose into the optical soundtrack area? The Pathe certainly doesn't appear to be egregiously cropped top and bottom, and the Criterion only shows a sliver more top/bottom while having a hefty chunk taken off the left side and a bit less chopped off the right side.

Vincent
 

john a hunter

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
1,462
Vincent_P said:
Since the Criterion is heavily cropped at the sides to achieve a 2.2:1 aspect ratio (and only shows a sliver of additional top/bottom compared to the Pathe at 2.55:1), I'm guessing the negative for this particular film works out as wider than the "usual" Technirama aspect ratio for whatever reason. Maybe it didn't actually expose the full height of the VistaVision aperture for some reason? Perhaps they didn't expose into the optical soundtrack area? The Pathe certainly doesn't appear to be egregiously cropped top and bottom, and the Criterion only shows a sliver more top/bottom while having a hefty chunk taken off the left side and a bit less chopped off the right side.

Vincent
The Technirama camera used the full horizontal emulsion area and nothing was reserved for a sound track so a maximum 2.21 area could then be used for various release formats.
Perhaps someone will do a comparison between the two so we can see precisely how much picture area is shown by each release.
 

FoxyMulder

映画ファン
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
5,385
Location
Scotland
Real Name
Malcolm

john a hunter

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
1,462
Dr Griffin said:
It's almost like a haircut request: A little more on the top and bottom, a little less on the sides. I prefer the 2.21:1, but the 2.55:1 is prettier.
A good description.
Based on a quick look both transfers seem to have their framing problems but they are pretty mild. It will be interesting to see if the new Criterion offers any alternative.

However the colour balance on the Pathe does look better.

How does the sound compare?. While it always looked magnificent, the sound was the exact opposite.
 

Vincent_P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,147
I disagree that the Criterion only has "a little less on the sides". The left side in particular is pretty heavily cropped.

And John, I know that the specs for the Technirama format were, my point was that for whatever reason this particular film is wider, which would indicate that the full height of the VistaVision frame wasn't exposed on this particular film. I speculated that maybe they reserved the area for a possibly optical track, but who knows. All we know is we have an odd case where the aspect ratio is much wider than usual for the Technirama format.

Vincent
 

david hare

Supporting Actor
Joined
Aug 10, 2014
Messages
682
Real Name
david hare
How does the sound compare?. While it always looked magnificent, the sound was the exact opposite.
For years I've been trying to find out if the audio or at least the Nino Rota score was recoreded in multi-stem. But none exist and it appears the audio downmix for both Italian and English dubs in both Scope nad Technirama/35mm was plain old mono, and worse than that Rota's score sounds thumpaly compressed for level and high frequency, especially on the brass passages. As far as I can ascertain there are no alternative audio tracks or even music session tracks.The color in the Pathe/FF/Gucci/etc is just what fully ultiized Blu Ray Spec .709 color spacing can and does deliver. It looks more like Technicolor IB than any previous HV iteration. The color on this is completely gobsmacking and I disagree with some folks elsewhere (including Dr Svet) who have issues with black levels or other matters. The grain resolution is flawless and consistent throughout, the blacks are inky, grayscale is flawless, primaries are as deeply saturated as your current display will permit. I thought the older restoration used for Criterion's BD and the BFI was good but this is a game changer.
 

Dr Griffin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
2,426
Real Name
Zxpndk
Vincent_P said:
I disagree that the Criterion only has "a little less on the sides". The left side in particular is pretty heavily cropped.

And John, I know that the specs for the Technirama format were, my point was that for whatever reason this particular film is wider, which would indicate that the full height of the VistaVision frame wasn't exposed on this particular film. I speculated that maybe they reserved the area for a possibly optical track, but who knows. All we know is we have an odd case where the aspect ratio is much wider than usual for the Technirama format.

Vincent
Yes, no doubt.
 

john a hunter

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
1,462
Vincent_P said:
I disagree that the Criterion only has "a little less on the sides". The left side in particular is pretty heavily cropped.

And John, I know that the specs for the Technirama format were, my point was that for whatever reason this particular film is wider, which would indicate that the full height of the VistaVision frame wasn't exposed on this particular film. I speculated that maybe they reserved the area for a possibly optical track, but who knows. All we know is we have an odd case where the aspect ratio is much wider than usual for the Technirama format.

Vincent
Have found some comments attributed to Colin Bell of Technicolor UK who worked with Rotunno with 1992 theatrical restoration and then with the 2003 transfer which the Criterion uses. Basically he confirms that the full frame area was exposed (so that resolves your query, I think, Vincent) and that when the 2.35 theatrical version was released, the top of the frame was cropped slightly.
Criterion have, it seems made their 2.20 transfer by panning and scanning the 2.35 frame.

Interesting comments David regarding the sound. They were seem to confirm the lack of any original 70mm prints. A tragedy really.

Have just realised that we should be asking Criterion to explain this"new" release and I will email them. I did hear that they do rely so hopefully I am not being to optimistic!!
 

david hare

Supporting Actor
Joined
Aug 10, 2014
Messages
682
Real Name
david hare
John I am completely unaware of any 70mm theatrical release for The Leopard anywhere, ever.I do wonder if anyone has ever found the Rota score on stereo LP? If it exists it was almost certainly a studio recording made independently after the tracks were mixed for the film. Rota conducted it for the movie track. Anthony?
 

Thomas T

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
10,288
david hare said:
Rota conducted it for the movie track. Anthony?
I'm not Anthony and I stand to be corrected but to the best of my knowledge Rota never conducted his scores. The Leopard was conducted by Franco Ferrera who conducted Rota's scores to La Strada, Nights Of Cabiria, War And Peace, La Dolce Vita and Rocco And His Brothers among many others.
 

Vincent_P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,147
john a hunter said:
Have found some comments attributed to Colin Bell of Technicolor UK who worked with Rotunno with 1992 theatrical restoration and then with the 2003 transfer which the Criterion uses. Basically he confirms that the full frame area was exposed (so that resolves your query, I think, Vincent) and that when the 2.35 theatrical version was released, the top of the frame was cropped slightly.
Criterion have, it seems made their 2.20 transfer by panning and scanning the 2.35 frame.
Interesting, is there an on-line article with those comments? Because the Criterion only has the slightest additional top/bottom picture information compared to the 2.55:1 Pathe transfer- no way is that "opened up" to a 2.35:1 frame compared to the 2.55:1 Pathe, and the cropping at the sides is far more substantial than a 2.35:1 to 2.2:1 crop.

Vincent
 

AnthonyClarke

Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Messages
2,767
Location
Woodend Victoria Australia
Real Name
Anthony
I have the BFI release but the Pathe version shown by FoxyMulder is so much better that I'm tempted to double-dip. Does anyone have an internet source for that Blu ray that includes English subtitles?
 

john a hunter

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
1,462
david hare said:
John I am completely unaware of any 70mm theatrical release for The Leopard anywhere, ever.I do wonder if anyone has ever found the Rota score on stereo LP? If it exists it was almost certainly a studio recording made independently after the tracks were mixed for the film. Rota conducted it for the movie track. Anthony?
The score in stereo was released in the US and Europe in '63. It was probably a studio recording although it calls itself a soundtrack recording.
It is still available on vinyl but no cd to my knowledge has been issued.
It was remastered recently in Italy on vinyl.
 

john a hunter

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
1,462
Vincent_P said:
Interesting, is there an on-line article with those comments? Because the Criterion only has the slightest additional top/bottom picture information compared to the 2.55:1 Pathe transfer- no way is that "opened up" to a 2.35:1 frame compared to the 2.55:1 Pathe, and the cropping at the sides is far more substantial than a 2.35:1 to 2.2:1 crop.

Vincent

This is what I found on the AVS website, Vincent:

"According to Colin Bell, who worked at Technicolor-London on the 1992 restoration of the film with Giuseppe Rotunno, "The Leopard" was photographed in full-frame Technirama (2.25:1 ar), The frame would be trimmed on the left and right sides to an ar of 2.21:1 for 70mm printing, and further cropped at the top of the frame to 2.35:1 for 35mm anamorphic prints. The difference in U.S. and European Technirama specs, which you mention, don't apply here. European filmmakers had adopted U.S. standards by the time "The Leopard" was filmed to accomodate the option of 70mm printing (again, according to Colin Bell).The image on the Pathe disc is essentially original 2.35:1 (or 2.39:1) theatrical framing with some image trimmed from the top and bottom of the frame. Although it presents more picture info than has been previously seen on DVD, the Pathe doesn't show parts of the frame that were not intended to be seen, as you write. The 2.55:1 ar is, from all I've seen, simply the result of less frame height, not additional width. Compare, if you can, the Pathe to the older Medusa or Gaumont DVDs, or Criterion's disc of the English-dubbed version, and you should see that they all attempt to replicate 2.35 anamorphic framing, some more accurately than others.The Criterion image is, in my opinion, a rather unorthodox one. It doesn't replicate intended 2.21:1 theatrical framing as Criterion may want us to think, but rather offers a 2.21 crop of an anamorphic 2.35 image. As was noted when the DVD was released, Criterion chose to trim more image info from the left side of the frame, than from the right, resulting in a somewhat lopsided picture. Occasionally, they decided to scan the 2.35 frame (probably to pick-up action otherwise lost to overscan), and, conversely, cropped more image from the right side, than from the left.The practices of cropping, panning and scanning are, as Martin Scorsese, Roger Ebert, and other film purists' have noted, a form of redirecting the film', and should be avoided when transferring a film to DVD and BluRay. In begrudging fairness to Criterion, occasionally these practices are unavoidable, and, as Criterion claims, Rotunno did approve their work, which I assume includes the reframing. I suppose, in the end, it's quite similar to, though maybe worse than, Storraro's reframing of Criterion's The Last Emperor". I say 'worse than' because, if for no other reason, Luchino Visconti, unlike Bertolucci, is no longer around to offer his opinion on the matter."
Cheers, john
 

Dr Griffin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
2,426
Real Name
Zxpndk
I spite of all this (above), it's hard to give any fault to Criterion, who used the original camera negative, and received the blessing of cinematographer Guiseppe Rotunno. There must have been a good reason if they indeed needed to do an "unorthodox" cropping. When you have the original camera negative and the cinematographer, what more can be expected to get it right. I'm not saying it is correct, I don't know, but comparing it to an original Italian release print would certainly add something to the discussion. Criterion says they used the original 35mm 8 perforation negative, which I've read would have an anamorphic optic in front of the lens, so wouldn't the negative and prints both be anamorphic? Unless it would be unsqueezed prior to printing. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)
 

Lord Dalek

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
7,093
Real Name
Joel Henderson
Dr Griffin said:
Unless it would be unsqueezed prior to printing. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)
It had to be unsqueezed for Super Technirama to work (that system using flat 70mm and all). Not sure about regular 35mm prints but my gut says yes as well considering it was a reduction process.
 

Mark-P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
6,487
Location
Camas, WA
Real Name
Mark Probst
Lord Dalek said:
It had to be unsqueezed for Super Technirama to work (that system using flat 70mm and all). Not sure about regular 35mm prints but my gut says yes as well considering it was a reduction process.
Technirama uses 1.5X anamorphic squeeze and CinemaScope uses 2X anamorphic squeeze. So the image would be stretched back out for 70mm and squeezed a little more for CinemaScope.
 

Dr Griffin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
2,426
Real Name
Zxpndk
Lord Dalek said:
It had to be unsqueezed for Super Technirama to work (that system using flat 70mm and all). Not sure about regular 35mm prints but my gut says yes as well considering it was a reduction process.
Mark-P said:
Technirama uses 1.5X anamorphic squeeze and CinemaScope uses 2X anamorphic squeeze. So the image would be stretched back out for 70mm and squeezed a little more for CinemaScope.
So in light of the Technirama process, what does this AVS quote - "It doesn't replicate intended 2.21:1 theatrical framing as Criterion may want us to think, but rather offers a 2.21 crop of an anamorphic 2.35 image" - from an above post actually mean, that the image was cropped from the anamorphic negative without being unsqueezed? If so, is that a bad thing? I'm trying to understand the criticisms.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,808
Messages
5,123,535
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top