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

[OliverK]

Isn't 2.2 the standard for Super Technirama 70?

Yes it is and in fact the 70mm prints at least according to one source were supposed to be taken from an area of the negative that was a bit higher than for the scope prints but just as wide.

 

[david hare]

Isn't 2.2 the standard for Super Technirama 70?

Yes, and I'm sure OliverK is right about that. But I wasn't referring to any Super Technirama titles. I really don't want to labor the point, but if people who are obviously more expert than I feel the holy grail AR for Leopard should now be 2.35 I have no argument with that, it is in fact another primary reason I like the Fox Scope US version, for the less grievously cropped LH. All I am saying about the present 2.55 BD incarnations is how satisfactory they look to me, and quite obviously also did to the restorers at L'Immagine Bologna, and Scorsese himself.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Isn't 2.2 the standard for Super Technirama 70?

Yeah but there is no evidence of The Leopard having Super Technirama prints made.

 

[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.

I've heard back from Marty Hart of The American Widescreen Museum. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to provide the information I was looking for.

He hadn't previously seen that diagram, which I sent him, and wasn't especially familiar with the differences between European and American Technirama standards. He didn't seem to know the extent to which European specs may have differed from American ones, at least initially, and how they may have changed over time.

My impression is that Marty likes to focus on the 'big picture' (not surprisingly), rather than some of the smaller things like viewfinder markings and ar specs. But his emails and newsgroup posts are always entertaining to read, and often filled with new and important information... and he's got one of the very best movie-themed websites out there.

 

[Dan1664]

Yeah but there is no evidence of The Leopard having Super Technirama prints made.

Right, it seems there's no hard proof that "The Leopard" was ever exhibited in 70MM, but it easily could have been, if the filmmakers had wanted to -- even after filming was completed -- since Technirama was a various aspect ratio, multi-format, photographic system. Technicolor labs could run prints in all the popular film formats, from the same double-frame negative: Cinemascope-compatible 35MM at 2.35/2.39:1; Flat 35MM at 1.85:1; Anamorphic 16MM at 2.66:1; and Spherical 70MM at 2.21/2.20:1.

As I understand it, all the prerequisites for multi-format printing would be made during photography, and the choice of specific film formats could be decided on afterward. That option was one of the major selling points Technicolor first used to persuade movie studios to adopt their new system. By following Technicolor's specifications, prints in the various formats could be made from the negative of any Technirama movie, like "The Leopard" or "Gypsy". The labs even made later accommodations for wider, rectified prints that were compatible with Cinerama or Ultra-Panavision.

 

[OliverK]

Yes, and I'm sure OliverK is right about that. But I wasn't referring to any Super Technirama titles. I really don't want to labor the point, but if people who are obviously more expert than I feel the holy grail AR for Leopard should now be 2.35 I have no argument with that, it is in fact another primary reason I like the Fox Scope US version, for the less grievously cropped LH. All I am saying about the present 2.55 BD incarnations is how satisfactory they look to me, and quite obviously also did to the restorers at L'Immagine Bologna, and Scorsese himself.

It is not that now the holy grail for The Leopard should be 2.35 - it probably always was the intended aspect ratio.

An aspect ratio of 2.55:1 was only used for exhibiting early scope movies and later on Ultra Panavisin movies - non of those presentation formas were used for the Leopard.

I agree that the 2.55:1 aspect ratio with a common height works pretty well but it also is an arbitrary aspect ratio for The Leopard and not more valid than 2.5:1 or 2.6:1.

 

[Peter Neski]

got this already ,did I miss something??

 

[bruceames]

Surprising they didn't upgrade this by using a 4K master. They just did this with Playtime, why not this movie?

 

[David Norman]

got this already ,did I miss something??

I'm assuming you got the original 2010 release and not the re-release

 

[Tom Logan]

So...do we know yet if this new Criterion release is a new transfer or a re-release of their 2010 transfer?

 

[haineshisway]

Mr. Harris can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Technicolor ever made any dye transfer prints in 70mm. That is why every 70mm print from any era of old is faded.

 

[Allansfirebird]

So...do we know yet if this new Criterion release is a new transfer or a re-release of their 2010 transfer?

Check post #111 for the answer to this.

 

[Tom Logan]

Check post #111 for the answer to this.

Thank you. No idea how I missed that. Perhaps denial in action.

 

[OliverK]

Mr. Harris can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Technicolor ever made any dye transfer prints in 70mm. That is why every 70mm print from any era of old is faded.

Indeed the world of classic 70mm is a heavily faded one which is a shame as many prints remain, some of them in quite good mechanical shape.

 

[OliverK]

Surprising they didn't upgrade this by using a 4K master. They just did this with Playtime, why not this movie?

It is possible that
a) they didn't bother
b) they couldn't get access to the new 4k data
Maybe somebody can ask them?

Looking at their three other large format releases from 4k scans one has to say that The Leopard looks rather dated and it would have benefitted from Criterion taking on the new material to give it a classic look. Until they or another label do that we have the less than satisfactory Pathé and Medusa releases.

 

[david hare]

And that's where you and I have to differ. The only even minutely unsatisfactory thing I find about the Madman/Pathe BD is the slightly pale yellow subtitles. I like the color timing, I like all the other technical specs and PQ of the image and I like the 2.55 widescreen. You don't and that's that.

Unless there is some major untangling of rights and rights holders for this title in the USA Crit won't be able to use the Pathe/Ritrovata 4k without licensing it from them and Film Foundation, as well as probably having to clear any existing rights in the US with Fox. It's not as simple as one might hope. And they frankly may not want to bother.

 

[Dan1664]

Unless there is some major untangling of rights and rights holders for this title in the USA Crit won't be able to use the Pathe/Ritrovata 4k without licensing it from them and Film Foundation, as well as probably having to clear any existing rights in the US with Fox. It's not as simple as one might hope. And they frankly may not want to bother.

Agreed. Nothing's impossible -- Medusa acquired the 4K transfer for their Blu-ray. But Criterion have their own restoration and may not want to do the same. Despite it being ten years old, they still claim to be pretty proud of it.

BTW, if you're interested in purchasing THE LEOPARD Madman Blu-ray, I just came across an Australian site, fishpond.com.au, that appears to be selling it. I understand it's been OOP for a while, reportedly due to rights issues, so you may want to double-check before ordering.

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Movies/Leopard-Blu-ray-Alain-Delon/9322225092433

 

[OliverK]

And that's where you and I have to differ. The only even minutely unsatisfactory thing I find about the Madman/Pathe BD is the slightly pale yellow subtitles. I like the color timing, I like all the other technical specs and PQ of the image and I like the 2.55 widescreen. You don't and that's that.

Unless there is some major untangling of rights and rights holders for this title in the USA Crit won't be able to use the Pathe/Ritrovata 4k without licensing it from them and Film Foundation, as well as probably having to clear any existing rights in the US with Fox. It's not as simple as one might hope. And they frankly may not want to bother.

I am not sure what you are getting at - I did not even mention the Madman release as it is out of print and therefore not easily available, I never saw the disc nor any screencaps of it.

And I had already mentioned that either they may not be able to get the rights and also mentioned the possibility that they just didn't bother so it is a bit unexpected that you restate that in your answer to my post.

And even if we do disagree we can luckily do so in a very civil manner, this is something I really appreciate about HTF.