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

[OliverK]

I suppose he'd at least like it better than Criterion's version, since it doesn't throw off the intended framing as much. It's been a long time since I've seen THE LEOPARD projected in 35MM, so I can't even guess at how much, if any, of Pathe's 'extra image' was meant to be seen in 2.35. Technirama was a "variable-aspect ratio" format, so those parts of the frame may simply be that which was seen in wider 2.66 16MM prints (primarily distributed in Europe). I know that when I'd watch my copy of the Pathe disc on an old CRT television, those areas of the image would be lost to overscan anyway, but they are viewable on an LCD TV or computer.

Back in the early '80s, I did have an opportunity to view some of THE LEOPARD full-frame, and the very top part of the image is basically 'dead air'; it really doesn't need to be seen. Watching the movie full-frame might have given some of it a more 'majestic' feel, but after a while I found it distracting. A properly framed 2.35 image is really the best way to see THE LEOPARD, with a bit more height than the Pathe, and also less width. Oddly enough, Criterion's copy of the Fox U.S. version probably comes closest in replicating the correct widescreen framing. I haven't seen the most recent Medusa disc, but the framing on their first DVD was rather good, as I remember, though the image had other problems, re color, dirt, etc.

Thanks Dan, may I ask in which form you were able to see The Leopard in full height?

 

[david hare]

Is the BFI U.K. disc any better? If I recall correctly, the BFI put out a Blu-ray disc which was faulty and then released a second disc.

I was one of the people who rang the alarm bells on that faulty gamma setting for the second layer of the BFI original pressing. After some rather snitty emails from some woman in their PR section who seemed to take me for a jerk. I finally got some sense through MIchael Brooke and James White who conceded our point about the gamma issue and he remastered the damn thing, sending out replacement copies with return of the faulty discs. .Anyway, (taking breath, that's just one of several fights I've had with BD producers whose product was faulty the last one with Gaumont and Madam de feels like it took years off my life but they did completely remaster the original 2k finally...) the source is identical to the Criterion along with all that compeltely unbearable LH cropping, but it was (when fixed with corrected gamma for the last 65 minutes including the goddam ballroom scene!) a good transfer. It is basically the same as the Criterion BD but the latter has some white level boosting (as they so often do). I always kept the Criterion DVD for the sake of the US cut and English language dub of the Scope Fox version which I happen to like a lot.

I still feel completely happy with the Pathe 4k to BD.

 

[Dan1664]

Curious about those specs as they differ somewhat from ones I have, ie that Technirama 70MM and 35MM scope prints have same height. Specs I have seemed to indicate that 35MM scope had lower top frame line. Do you have a copy of them? I'[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]ll track down and post mine as soon as I find them.[/SIZE]

Here are the specs I have on Technirama (European) camera aperture and viewfinder markings. I don't remember the source, though it must have been reputable or I wouldn't have held on to them. According to these, the markings for 2.35 and 2.21 have the same width, but the height varies.

Technirama camera aperture: 1.486" x .992"
Viewfinder markings (2.35:1): 1.312" x .837"
Viewfinder markings (2.21:1): 1.312" x .879"

The only Technirama film I know of where scope and 70MM prints may have had the same head-line is Disney's "Sleeping Beauty". But that's something of an anomaly as it was originally designed for 2.55 Cinemascope, and Technirama didn't become a factor until rather late in the production, and 70MM prints even later.

Thanks Dan, may I ask in which form you were able to see The Leopard in full height?

It was back in the early-80s when THE LEOPARD was being rereleased to U.S. theaters. Without getting into details, there were some prints out there that revealed 'extra headroom'. I inquired about it and learned that these prints had been miscropped and were supposed to be destroyed, which I assume they have been by now.

 

[OliverK]

Here are the specs I have on Technirama (European) camera aperture and viewfinder markings. I don't remember the source, though it must have been reputable or I wouldn't have held on to them. According to these, the markings for 2.35 and 2.21 have the same width, but the height varies.

Technirama camera aperture: 1.486" x .992"
Viewfinder markings (2.35:1): 1.312" x .837"
Viewfinder markings (2.21:1): 1.312" x .879"

The only Technirama film I know of where scope and 70MM prints may have had the same head-line is Disney's "Sleeping Beauty". But that's something of an anomaly as it was originally designed for 2.55 Cinemascope, and Technirama didn't become a factor until rather late in the production, and 70MM prints even later.


It was back in the early-80s when THE LEOPARD was being rereleased to U.S. theaters. Without getting into details, there were some prints out there that revealed 'extra headroom'. I inquired about it and learned that these prints had been miscropped and were supposed to be destroyed, which I assume they have been by now.

Thanks for the viewfinder markings - clearly going full width but not increasing the used frame height one could go up to a 2.66:1 aspect ratio while keeping the height that was used for the 35mm prints, very good for 16mm scope prints and it would be very interesting to check such a print with regard to how much of the frame is shown with it.

In order to keep the scope aspect ratio the prints with the added height must then also have used more of the available width but looking at the Pathé release that would not have been much of a problem

 

[Dan1664]

Here's a link to John Hunter's Technirama diagram showing camera aperture and viewfinder markings. It's the most detailed one that I've seen.

http://s23.postimg.org/40w2dleaj/Technirama_Diagram_May_1960.jpg
The specs, dating from 1960, are:

Technirama camera aperture (2.42:1): 1.480" x .915"
Viewfinder markings (2.35:1): 1.306" x .835"
Viewfinder markings (2.21:1): 1.276" x .866"
Viewfinder markings (1.85:1): 1.082" x .866"

The specs I have date from 1959, and differ somewhat:

Technirama camera aperture (2.25:1): 1.486" x .992"
Viewfinder markings (2.35:1): 1.312" x .837"
Viewfinder markings (2.21:1): 1.312" x .879"
Viewfinder markings (1.85:1): 1.032" x .837"

I now know that mine were provided by Marty Hart of The American Widescreen Museum, and assume them to be correct. I'm not exactly sure what to make of the obvious differences. My initial thought was to chalk it up to discrepancies between European and American standards for Technirama, but I wonder if there may be more to it. I'm going to try and contact Marty Hart to see if he can provide some clarification on all this.

 

[OliverK]

Thanks for posting it, the interesting thing about these specifications is there were optical printers for Technirama that would have to change in order to arrive at the same size of 35 and 70mm prints as the year before. Also it is of interest that the Technirama horizontal format is still mentioned although I am pretty sure that at this point no further direct contact prints for horizontal screenings were made.

And again there would be enough space on the negative to support a 2.55:1 aspect ratio without the need to reduce height compared to the usual extraction areas.

 

[Dan1664]

I just received an email from Jon Mulvaney at Criterion re the Blu-ray pre-order on Amazon.

"Criterion isn't releasing an updated Blu-ray of
THE LEOPARD, can you forward me a link to the page you are referring to?"

By "updated," I assume he's referring to any packaging changes, as well as a remastering of the film itself. I've provided a link to Amazon's pre-order page, and asked for any further info when he gets it.

 

[OliverK]

I just received an email from Jon Mulvaney at Criterion re the Blu-ray pre-order on Amazon.

"Criterion isn't releasing an updated Blu-ray of
THE LEOPARD, can you forward me a link to the page you are referring to?"

By "updated," I assume he's referring to any packaging changes, as well as a remastering of the film itself. I've provided a link to Amazon's pre-order page, and asked for any further info when he gets it.

So was/is there a re-release or not?

If they still have stock of the original pressing that has to be sold please let them know that after it is gone we would very much appreciate an updated version based on the new 4k scan.

 

[Dan1664]

So was/is there a re-release or not?

If they still have stock of the original pressing that has to be sold please let them know that after it is gone we would very much appreciate an updated version based on the new 4k scan.

According to Mulvaney, there's going to be no re-release of THE LEOPARD Blu-ray, now or in the near future. Unless he's in the dark on something, which I tend to doubt. But, as I said, I've asked him to get back to me with more information when he gets it. And I'll post whatever I learn here.

Never say never with Criterion, but I doubt a North American release of The Film Foundation restoration is likely to come from them, unless they want to get involved in some rights negotiations with Fox and Pathe, and my impression is that they don't. It's much more likely to come from another company when or if Criterion loses the rights to the film.

 

[OliverK]

It is really unfortunate that the work of the film foundation is so hard to get in half decent form and with english soundtrack and/or subtitles.
Not sure if Fox will do anything with The Leopard in the US and in any case I would have much preferred an updated Criterion release similar to what we got for Playtime.

 

[Dan1664]

I just received an email from Jon Mulvaney at Criterion re the Blu-ray pre-order on Amazon.

"Criterion isn't releasing an updated Blu-ray of THE LEOPARD, can you forward me a link to the page you are referring to?"

By "updated," I assume he's referring to any packaging changes, as well as a remastering of the film itself. I've provided a link to Amazon's pre-order page, and asked for any further info when he gets it.

UPDATE from Mulvaney:

The packaging for THE LEOPARD on Blu-ray is being switched from the digipak to a plastic case, and this new packaging is being released on November 4th. That is what the Amazon page is referring to. All of the content will remain the same as the previous digipak release.

Apparently, he was in the dark on something. But at least that answers that.

 

[john a hunter]

Thanks for posting it, the interesting thing about these specifications is there were optical printers for Technirama that would have to change in order to arrive at the same size of 35 and 70mm prints as the year before. Also it is of interest that the Technirama horizontal format is still mentioned although I am pretty sure that at this point no further direct contact prints for horizontal screenings were made. And again there would be enough space on the negative to support a 2.55:1 aspect ratio without the need to reduce height compared to the usual extraction areas.

The diagram came from an article published in British Kinematography from January 1959.Although this was at a time whenthe first 70mm prints were being released with Sleeping Beauty, the article makes no mention of 70mm.There is a diagram of Technirama's specifications at that date which have sadly faded from my copy of the article.I do seem to recall that the person who supervised the 1990's restoration referred to the specifications being changed and stated that they would have been used for the Leopard.Interestingly, the 1959 article states "As a matter of fact the 2.55 aspect ratio has fallen into disuse and consequently four perforation anamorphic prints nowdays always have an aspect ratio of 2.35:1."Clearly a 2.55 aspect ratio for the Leopard is incorrect.

 

[Dan1664]

Also it is of interest that the Technirama horizontal format is still mentioned although I am pretty sure that at this point no further direct contact prints for horizontal screenings were made.

Right, I don't believe horizontal prints were ever screened publicly after late-1956, early-'57. But I understand that double-frame prints may have been used in post-production tasks (rushes, editing, color-grading, etc.), before conventional prints were run. Those particular finder marks may have come into use at some of those points. Additionally, some studios were known to keep and screen horizontal prints of their Technirama films for reference purposes, though post-1970 they became increasingly difficult to show properly. Over time, lazy-8 projectors fell out of service due to age and disrepair and were rarely replaced. I believe the Technicolor labs also maintained horizontal prints of every Technirama film that they processed.

The diagram came from an article published in British Kinematography from January 1959.

Although this was at a time when the first 70mm prints were being released with Sleeping Beauty, the article makes no mention of 70mm.
There is a diagram of Technirama's specifications at that date which have sadly faded from my copy of the article.
I do seem to recall that the person who supervised the 1990's restoration referred to the specifications being changed and stated that they would have been used for the Leopard.Interestingly, the 1959 article states "As a matter of fact the 2.55 aspect ratio has fallen into disuse and consequently four perforation anamorphic prints nowdays always have an aspect ratio of 2.35:1."Clearly a 2.55 aspect ratio for the Leopard is incorrect.

John, your reference to the Technirama diagram, dated May 1960, coming from a source dated January 1959 has me a bit confused. Is that 1959 date correct, or am I misreading something?

It certainly seems clear that a 2.55:1 aspect ratio for "The Leopard" is incorrect. I still can't figure out why The Film Foundation made that particular ar choice.

BTW, does anyone remember seeing the first DVD of "Gypsy"? That disc had an unusually wide aspect ratio, close to 2.55:1, with the height of the frame tightly cropped. It was remastered a few years ago, in a nice looking transfer with correct 2.39/2.40 specs. Don't know how or why the first, wider ar was chosen, but odd that "Gypsy," Pathe's "The Leopard," and "Sleeping Beauty" were all mastered at that ratio. [SIZE=14.3999996185303px]I understand t[/SIZE]he circumstances behind the "Sleeping Beauty," transfer, but clearly no Technirama films were ever screened at that ar during their theatrical release.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Right, I don't believe horizontal prints were ever screened publicly after late-1956, early-'57. But I understand that double-frame prints may have been used in post-production tasks (rushes, editing, color-grading, etc.), before conventional prints were run. Those particular finder marks may have come into use at some of those points. Additionally, some studios were known to keep and screen horizontal prints of their Technirama films for reference purposes, though post-1970 they became increasingly difficult to show properly. Over time, lazy-8 projectors fell out of service due to age and disrepair and were rarely replaced. I believe the Technicolor labs also maintained horizontal prints of every Technirama film that they processed.

John, your reference to the Technirama diagram, dated May 1960, coming from a source dated January 1959 has me a bit confused. Is that 1959 date correct, or am I misreading something?

It certainly seems clear that a 2.55:1 aspect ratio for "The Leopard" is incorrect. I still can't figure out why The Film Foundation made that particular ar choice.

BTW, does anyone remember seeing the first DVD of "Gypsy"? That disc had an unusually wide aspect ratio, close to 2.55:1, with the height of the frame tightly cropped. It was remastered a few years ago, in a nice looking transfer with correct 2.39/2.40 specs. Don't know how or why the first, wider ar was chosen, but odd that "Gypsy," Pathe's "The Leopard," and "Sleeping Beauty" were all mastered at that ratio. [SIZE=14.39px]I understand t[/SIZE]he circumstances behind the "Sleeping Beauty," transfer, but clearly no Technirama films were ever screened at that ar during their theatrical release.

Is the 2.55 negative ratio the squeezed dimensions? If so, is this why it is unusable as a projected AR? Or should I say, when unsqueezed and still retaining a 2.55 AR, you lose too much information?

 

[john a hunter]

John, your reference to the Technirama diagram, dated May 1960, coming from a source dated January 1959 has me a bit confused. Is that 1959 date correct, or am I misreading something? quote

The dates are correct Dan.The 1959 date was went the lecture given to the Film Production Committee.By the time it was printed in their the journal, I guess it was later and the more current specs datedMay 1960 were added.

 

[david hare]

"It certainly seems clear that a 2.55:1 aspect ratio for "The Leopard" is incorrect. I still can't figure out why The Film Foundation made that particular ar choice. BTW, does anyone remember seeing the first DVD of "Gypsy"? That disc had an unusually wide aspect ratio, close to 2.55:1, with the height of the frame tightly cropped. It was remastered a few years ago, in a nice looking transfer with correct 2.39/2.40 specs. Don't know how or why the first, wider ar was chosen, but odd that "Gypsy," Pathe's "The Leopard," and "Sleeping Beauty" were all mastered at that ratio. I understand the circumstances behind the "Sleeping Beauty," transfer, but clearly no Technirama films were ever screened at that ar during their theatrical release.[/quote]"I sill have that Gypsy DVD in near 2.55 It looks good to me and I do remember it carried and still carries the credit for Technirama (*no Super Technirmama which was a 70mm format). I haven't bought or seen the new BD yet but I had no issues with the framing at 2.55.I don't agree that 2.55 is either "wrong" or for that matter "definitive" for Leopard. What the excellent research and data from John and Dan has done is reveal a whole spectrum of possibilities, showing a range of potentially "correct" ratios, not just one and one only correct ratio, based on the maintenance of the height of the exposed aperture. I think this makes the movie possibly unique in this respect. And it's compounded by Fox's own proprietary interest in anamorphic Scope 2.35 for the US audience, for which Storaro and Visconti were also attuned. I certainly find this new and much more fluid range of possible ratios far preferable to Storaro's muddled and frankly ridiculous revisionism late in the day (after Visconti had died) to favor his late preference for the so called Golden Mean", at 2.00 or 2.2 and all that talismanic nonsense.

 

[Matt Hough]

The Blu-ray of Gypsy is stunning to look at, but I have to admit that I thought the DVD release of Gypsy was the finest DVD transfer I've ever seen. It upconverted like a dream and was always my reference disc to show off DVD when it was the best format available.

 

[OliverK]

I don't agree that 2.55 is either "wrong" or for that matter "definitive" for Leopard. What the excellent research and data from John and Dan has done is reveal a whole spectrum of possibilities, showing a range of potentially "correct" ratios, not just one and one only correct ratio, based on the maintenance of the height of the exposed aperture. I think this makes the movie possibly unique in this respect. And it's compounded by Fox's own proprietary interest in anamorphic Scope 2.35 for the US audience, for which Storaro and Visconti were also attuned. I certainly find this new and much more fluid range of possible ratios far preferable to Storaro's muddled and frankly ridiculous revisionism late in the day (after Visconti had died) to favor his late preference for the so called Golden Mean", at 2.00 or 2.2 and all that talismanic nonsense.

The dimensions presented by Dan and John do not go wider than an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 so they do not lend support to an aspect ratio of ca. 2.55:1.

Also I fail to see what Storaro has to do with The Leopard? I don't think that he ever worked with Visconti.

 

[david hare]

My bad once again!@ Rotunno, not Storaro.The wider ratio is based on showing the widest exposed aperture, is it not? Certainly 2.35 is the minimum width you can go before you get the side cropping which is so damaging to the group compositions. THe reduction in head space doesn't adversely affect the composition at all IMO and while it may not be "Correct" whatever that means in this unusual context, I don't consider it "wrong".But I absolutely consider anything narrower than 2.35 "wrong".

 

[Dr Griffin]

My bad once again!@ Rotunno, not Storaro.The wider ratio is based on showing the widest exposed aperture, is it not? Certainly 2.35 is the minimum width you can go before you get the side cropping which is so damaging to the group compositions. THe reduction in head space doesn't adversely affect the composition at all IMO and while it may not be "Correct" whatever that means in this unusual context, I don't consider it "wrong".But I absolutely consider anything narrower than 2.35 "wrong".

Isn't 2.2 the standard for Super Technirama 70?