Universal Releases: Anamorphoric Vertigo, Birds etc. coming 9/2??? (1 Viewer)

[Bill Burns]

Here's one more coal for the fire of this thread:

At the risk of splintering this into two lines of questions and reasoning, I believe that Psycho was filmed in, and survives in, 35mm, correct? If this is a large format film, please let me know, but I've only heard of this film in a 35mm context. If that is the case, anamorphically enhancing and reissuing that title would be an easier, cheaper, and (presumably) immediately beneficial decision, and one distinct from the "is 65mm really worth it?" debate. Calling for a Psycho remaster may well, then, be an entirely separate consideration, in both its practicality and its universally (pardon the pun) accepted benefits, from the call for remasters of large format films, and one to which the studio could most readily respond (if perceived demand is sufficiently high).

I love the film, but I hark on Vertigo, Lawrence of Arabia, and My Fair Lady because I love 'em more, and because I have great respect both for their large format beauty and the restoration effort that went into each. Having seen Vertigo in theatres ... well, as said in a previous post, the memory of that is one of my most cherished filmgoing experiences. I'd love for WB to embrace a (or even offer their own) field sequential 3D viewing technology package on DVD and present Dial M for Murder next year as such, but that's another thread altogether (3D's already been debated to great lengths elsewhere on the forum).

So ... does anyone have info on Psycho's film format origins? Would a 35mm sourced anamorphic reissue of that title prove an easy and excellent first step in bringing the best of Hitchcock's film work fully up to snuff on DVD?

 

[David Lambert]

I know that a thread has been started about Cheech & Chong's Next Movie and Fletch Lives, and of course I already posted about the 5 Don Knotts films coming.

But here is the FULL list of Universal's Sept 2nd releases, both new titles and markdowns. It includes more cool stuff, like Into The Night (fantastic film!) and an anamorphic re-issue of An American Werewolf in London, and even semi-cool stuff like More American Graffiti. Take a look:

• S.R.P.Vid.Title
  $14.9816x912 Monkeys - DTS
  $14.9816x912 Monkeys
  $19.9816x9American Werewolf in London, An
  $19.98WideArmy of Darkness
  $19.9816x9Birds, The
  $19.9816x9Bone Collector, The
  $14.9816x9Bride of Chucky
  $19.9816x9Cape Fear (1991)
  $19.98WideCareer Opportunities
  $19.9816x9Cheech & Chong's Next Movie
  $19.98????Eddie Izzard: Glorious
  $19.98FullEmperor's Club, The
  $19.9816x9Emperor's Club, The
  $19.9816x9Empire
  $19.9816x9End of Days
  $14.9816x9Fear
  $19.9816x9Fletch Lives
  $14.9816x9Ghost and Mr. Chicken, The
  $19.98WideGreat Outdoors, The
  $14.9916x9Haunting, The (1999)
  $14.9916x9Haunting, The (1999) - DTS
  $14.98????How to Frame a Figg
  $19.9816x9Into the Night
  $14.98????Love God?, The
  $19.98????More American Graffiti
  $19.9816x9Play Misty For Me
  $19.98WidePsycho
  $14.9816x9Psycho (1998)
  $19.9816x9Rear Window
  $19.98FullRed Dragon
  $19.9816x9Red Dragon
  $14.9816x9Reluctant Astronaut, The
  $19.98FullScorpion King, The
  $19.9816x9Scorpion King, The
  $14.9816x9Shakiest Gun in the West, The
  $14.9816x9Shocker
  $19.9816x9Uncle Buck
  $19.98WideVertigo
  $14.98WideVideodrome
  $14.9816x9Watcher, The

 

[David Lambert]

Hey, guess what...I realize I'm stupid, so don't bother telling me that I am. That 16x9 American Werewolf In London has been out for at least a year, right? It's just a markdown.

I guess I was just distracted by the exciting thought of FINALLY getting Into The Night on DVD!


.


I'll resist...I will...I can keep from doing it...losing control...must do it...oh, shoot...oh well....


YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Dances around the room naked)

 

[JulianK]

Looks like we're never going to see the 12 Monkeys Ultimate Edition then.... :frowning:

 

[oscar_merkx]

at last indeed Into the Night

great stuff

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Psycho was standard 35mm. Vertigo was also 35mm, but it was Vistavision and the restoration was done to 65mm. It happens that the amount of area covered by a windowboxed 1.85:1 image on a 65mm frame is almost identical to the amount of area covered by a letterboxed 1.85:1 image on a Vistavison frame.


Regards,

 

[Chad Gregory]

$19.98 Wide Great Outdoors, The
$19.98 16x9 Uncle Buck

That is some great news. I guess I may finally be able to pick up a couple of John Candy classics at a decent price.

-Chad

 

[Bill Burns]

There's a lot of text here, but I think (hope) it amounts to something worth saying, and a few things worth asking if we're going to pin down just what VistaVision has to offer for the home consumer. Bear with me ...


Quote:



Vertigo was also 35mm, but it was Vistavision and the restoration was done to 65mm. It happens that the amount of area covered by a windowboxed 1.85:1 image on a 65mm frame is almost identical to the amount of area covered by a letterboxed 1.85:1 image on a Vistavison frame.





I wasn't really clear in putting the size of the frame in context (I'm spending so much time exploring these issues! Actual movie watching is taking a back seat! Heh ... the horror ...), but I think we're on the same page. VistaVision is a 35mm format, but here's another question for anyone with the info: is VistaVision, in negative form, properly thought of as 35mm? It's a 35mm image, but at 8 perf, not 4, pulled horizontally through the camera and exposing well over twice as much negative space as a standard 35mm frame (it's thus a large format system), a process accomplished ... well, somehow via the horizontal travel of the film through the camera, the aperture of its attendant lenses, and its anamorphic spec ("large format small film," and other anomalies of motion picture science). I just can't visualize this, for some reason -- a 35mm film frame should have a set area of negative to expose (35mm), allowing for soundtrack printing, and how a horizontal camera system yields twice the negative size of a vertical camera system with the same gauge of film puzzles me in an annoying fashion.

Is the "35mm" size of the frame measured in total vertical and horizontal space, or is 35mm a measure of the lens aperture that records to that film stock (note the 57mm aperture measurement for film stock with a 51mm film gauge on TWM's introductory page, found here: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/intro.htm)? If so, you gain width with anamorphic encoding, but not height (and you gain no resolution in either direction -- all real resolution is contained within the 35mm frame). You could gain height by vertically squeezing an image, but ... that's not what's done here, is it? How does a 35mm film frame yield (quoting The Widescreen Museum -- see below) 2.66 times the negative space in a VistaVision camera? Well, it's horizontal, they all say. Sure, but turn a 35mm frame on its side, and it's still the same frame of film with the same negative space (now 1:1.37, so taller than it is wide). Increase it from 4 perf to 8 perf and you actually increase (in this case) the horizontal length of the film frame, thus gaining real negative space horizontally, but if it's still 35mm (heighth plus width, correct?), you'd have to lose vertical negative space or the gauge would change. Somehow, you gain both horizontal and vertical space on the negative, all the while increasing real resolution ... and it's still 35mm. I'm obviously missing something, and it's probably something simple ... but that's all afield of the primary topic of this thread, so if no one has this handy, worry not.

Back to what I do understand of VistaVision: 35mm home video versions of these films would ordinarily be taken from 4 perf reductions, as VistaVision was commonly (in fact, primarily) printed to 4 perf 35mm, but in negative form it bears little resemblance to common 4 perf 35mm stock (or more precisely to films captured through other camera systems to such stock, excepting perhaps Technirama). So is it truly 35mm as the measurement is used in the film gauges of standard stock? Another question worth asking (though Vertigo's 65mm interpositive element makes that film an exception to this question) is whether or not 8 perf negatives are more costly to process than 4 perf for home video (I presume they are, given Paramount's need/decision to work with 4 perf elements on To Catch a Thief, as discussed in another thread, though that trend has turned for the better with High Society {WB} and Gunfight at the O.K. Coral {Paramount}, which are transfers I presume -- emphasis on presume -- were made from 8 perforation materials whenever available -- I haven't seen the latter, but High Society looks quite dazzling). I believe the 8 perf, large image format of VistaVision was the primary motivation in bringing the restoration elements for Vertigo to 65mm (The Widescreen Museum explains that an 8 perforation 35mm negative was produced, from which the 65mm interpositive was made), because, as Ken points out, the unsqueezed image, in projection at 1.85:1, represents a frame equivalent to a 1.85:1 matted 65mm frame, and 65mm can capture the full resolution of the original VistaVision system for standard large format modern projection (it may be that it's also easier, today, to reduction print a standard 65mm element to 35mm for distribution to theatres than to make, and then produce reduction prints from, VistaVision 8 perf interpositives -- prints at the time were made directly from the negative, correct? -- but I'm strictly assuming this; if it's covered in the documentary that accompanies Vertigo on DVD, it's been much too long since my last viewing to recall).

My references for these questions are The Widescreen Museum's VistaVision section ...

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingvv1.htm

... and Robert Harris' exhaustive, and illustrated, coverage of VistaVision in an article at The Digital Bits ...

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...ris041403.html

... which also points to the first link for additional information. After all of that, I still don't see how a 35mm film frame is suddenly taller and wider and sharper thanks to new lenses and a horizontal camera housing (nor, for that matter, how the three layers of black and white separations necessary for the three color layers of Technicolor dye transfer technology are accomplished with the two frames of film TWM says VistaVision photographs simultaneously), but ... I'll muddle along, no worries. Is it like Cinerama, with two 35mm frames being combined into a larger image? But then wouldn't that have to be a 70mm image on a single negative? I'd say it's Greek to me, but I briefly studied Greek. It isn't that easy!

As I've made pretty clear above, never having handled such stock, precisely imagining what dual-frame 8 perforation VistaVision looks like, and how it optically relates to single frame 4 perforation 35mm stock or standard large format 65mm stock, can be a challenge. Happily, the restoration elements for Vertigo are 65mm (those for printing and transfer purposes, I reckon, but are protection masters also at 65mm? Again, TWM states the restored negative itself is 8 perf 35mm), making the job of envisioning that film in the vaults a bit easier, but for the other VistaVision films, getting this relationship ironed out (and the precise cost and viability of 8 perf 35mm transfers) is certainly worthwhile. The lack of an 8 perf source upset a good many people around here when To Catch a Thief came out, though others felt it looked great (the disparity in reaction caused me to skip it at its price point, but I may pick it up one day). This suggests that we'll never get a precise sense of just what gains 8 perf vs. 4 perf, 65mm vs. 35mm, and new anamorphic transfers from all four types (and other types) of film stock, would provide until the studios holding each involved film provide such transfers. A definite "the elements are there, let's do it," or "our elements are lacking, this is as good as we can afford to make it," or any other definitive answer for each film is difficult to accomplish -- but hopefully the debate further alerts studios to customer interest in seeing every improvement they can provide*, and a willingness to repurchase existing discs when those improvements are made (I'd reiterate that because these are some of the best films ever made and have lasting appeal, the efforts to make them as good as possible isn't a response to a passing fad in film taste -- I could name some multiple DVD films here which I feel are revisited strictly due to passing audience interest which will disappear in years to come, but I'll refrain -- but rather an answer to film lovers who will continue to debate what could be better on the HD-DVD version -- which still won't be full 35mm film resolution, so yes, improvements will remain possible -- ten years from now; a discussion like this doesn't end until the film looks like it did on opening night, but the ongoing display of interest ... well, hopefully encourages the studios to maximize the presentation of each film according to the full potential of each home technology that comes along).

My thanks to all who have input on this, and thanks to Ken for confirming Psycho's format. I'm gonna go hook myself up to oxygen now, and hopefully recover by tomorrow evening.

*This is why I continue to tout the excellence of the Oklahoma! (Todd-AO) laserdisc (again, it doesn't hold up today, but compared to most other laser product of classic musicals at the time -- wow), and the disappointments of Hamlet on laser (in fairness, the single CAV side of that set looked quite good, but still wasn't up to what I saw on the laser of Vertigo for film-like fidelity; all but one or two sides on that multi-disc set have now rotted, though, so revisiting it is, with each viewing, something less). We remember the past to best inform the future.

{UPDATE} Okay, it's a day or two later (May 26th), and with a bit of time on my hands I've explored some further information here ...

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/wide...istavision.htm

... and believe I finally have a grasp on how a 35mm negative becomes a large format negative in VistaVision: "35mm" describes the width of a conventional negative, without any height measurement -- this is measured in sprocket holes. When a 35mm negative is turned on its side, its height is now 35mm {1.33 in relation to its width} and its width four sprocket holes wide {1 in relation to its height}, thus a new ratio of 1:1.33 is gained, and height has been added. The sprocket holes, now running horizontally, are increased to a count of eight, effectively doubling the width of the frame. But because the height is stil 35mm, and the frame is only measured vertically, though it now runs through the camera horizontally, it is a much larger frame, with greater height -- about 33% greater? -- and greater width -- roughly twice as wide -- as a standard vertical 4 perforation or sprocket hole film negative. Yet it's still 35mm. Sound printing and film matting should make the final projected frame around 1.66:1, though it's specifically designed for 1.85:1 and can accomodate a frame as wide as 2:1 ... that is roughly just what is said at the above link. The math of all this somehow works out -- I won't try to crunch all of the numbers, but with the width now twice as wide, the height 33% greater, we would have a negative area 2.33x as great as a normal negative, and presumably the number reported on TWM, 2.66x, accounts for sound printing options. To properly capture this image in a reduction print to standard, vertically mounted 35mm positive film, I presume anamorphic squeeze must be applied after the fact -- either that or the film would have to be matted into the standard frame, leaving unused space above and below (likely at 1.66:1 to minimize unused space, though the link specifies the use of a 1.33:1 frame that the curator of TWM thinks unlikely)). I hope I have this right. These things plague me, but I'm glad to have the image of this clear in my mind at last.

So ... ignore my musings on 35mm "large format" above; I'll leave them there to avoid accusations of historical revisionism , but I have a clear idea of this now, after years of wondering. Amazing what a good website can do. The rest of what I've said still goes, but I'll only update this as an edit, in the event anyone's still reading it, so as not to arbitrarily kick it back up on the forum where it might needlessly bore the socks off folks who've understood this all along.

I still want Vertigo and Psycho in anamorphic, by the way, just to prove I haven't forgotten the topic here.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Bill,
Take two 4-perf 35mm frames. Turn them sideways. Eliminate the small frame line between them. Voila! You more or less have an 8-perf VistaVison frame. The mono audio was improved as well since it was moving at twice the speed, allowing for improved bandwidth.

The AR will be in the neighborhood of 1.5:1, and you can matte down to any wider ratio for which you are composing.

Regards,

 

[Bill Burns]

Shakespeare's caution remains my constant companion: "brevity is the soul of wit, and tediousness its limbs and outward flourishes." I was overlooking the obvious in the two frame VistaVision system: the reason it's two frames. I was trying to reconcile that with the adapted Two-Strip Technicolor cameras used for VistaVision (I presume VistaVision is a single negative, multiple emulsion Technicolor system, so what use the other frame ... ah, of course, the eight perforation requirement of VistaVision).

Anyway, with that cleared up -- where has my math gone wrong? So far as I can see, you gain about twice the width and about 33 1/3% the height with a VistaVision frame over a standard vertical four perforation 35mm frame (as explained in my ridiculously long previous post) -- that would be 233 1/3%, or 2.333x, the negative area. The reports I'm reading on TWM say 2.66x the negative area. A minor matter, but then I suppose all of this is, so I'll continue wondering over the details. The best I can figure is an additional gain from a repositioned soundtrack, but that's strictly a guess.

I'll throw one other question out here if anyone cares to tackle it: looking over TWM's Technicolor pages (which are rather extensive and recommended) …

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldc...chnicolor1.htm

… I'm left with a question that applies to VistaVision and other system specifically designed for color photography (though VistaVision doesn’t preclude B&W): given that Technicolor cameras use a three strip negative, each strip sensitive to one of three primary colors which, when combined, provide the spectrum of color we see on the screen (the colors themselves added in as dye transfers during development), and given that single negative color systems (for the most part) use multiple emulsion negatives with color agents that bond to the silver in each emulsion when photographed ... well, two questions: 1) how are dye transfer prints made from multiple emulsion single negatives? And if they aren't, 2) are single negative sourced prints truly Technicolor? I’m assuming the Technicolor company simply developed a multiple-emulsion negative of their own, but confusing this with dye transfer could be easy and unfortunate for viewers. It seems the Technicolor name crops up with both three strip (and its two strip predecessor) and single negative color systems, and a few recent films (such as Apocalypse Now Redux) are able to print in both dye transfer Technicolor and standard color. If the negative in the camera is a single strip of film with multiple emulsions ... how does that turn into a dye transfer print?

This is 100% off topic to this thread, though it would apply to VistaVision films, so feel free to ignore it if the answers are something that might fill books. But if there are simple answers to the above, I've yet to find them, and would love to know what they are. Black and white "separation masters" seem to accompany most film preservations (also known as "silver separation masters"?), but how and why these are generated from single negative color photography is puzzling. Perhaps they aren't, and only accompany three strip color (which is B&W until the dye transfer prints are made, of course) and true B&W photography?

My apologies to all who couldn't care less about this, but I remain certain that the more we really grasp about the origins of what we're seeing on the screen, the better able we all are to understand its value and quality, and just what sort of effort went into making it possible.

At any rate, with or without answers to the above, my thanks to Ken for the clarification on the double negative of VistaVision, and to all for their input.

As an on-topic addition, let me also say I hope Disney, both to achieve a proper AR and for the best possible presentation, are using 65mm positive picture elements (or eight perforation 35mm) for their upcoming Sleeping Beauty. I skipped their CAV laserdisc precisely because it was a 35mm source at 2.35:1 (which, from Technirama/Super Technirama 70, means an MAR from eight perforation, vertically squeezed 35mm at 2.2/2.25 to four perforation CinemaScope 35mm at 2.35:1; to my understanding -- thanks entirely to The Widescreen Museum's coverage of the topic, and ARs listed there and elsewhere -- Technirama, just like VistaVision, uses an eight perforation horizontal negative, this time with a vertical squeeze, and can be printed up to 70mm at 2.2/2.25:1 or down to CinemaScope at 2.35:1; if my DVD mastering glossary isn't riddled with errors -- always a possibility, as it's in my head and accumulated over the course of years of watching DVD docs and reading DVD websites -- I believe an interpositive source is ideally used for mastering to DVD {release print sources can also be used, of course, with lesser results}, so one must either print up or print down, unless interpositives of actual Technirama horizontal film are possible -- it seems that would be possible, as TWM lists horizontal projectors for both VistaVision and Technirama which were rarely used, but nevertheless existed; thus, what I should probably be hoping for in this case is a transfer from eight perforation Technirama sources, rather than four perforation reductions, and leave the mm game out of it; if an interpositive of the original eight perforation 35mm Technirama materials is either too costly or otherwise unpractical, then a 65mm source print would be best)*. I understand that additional restoration has been undertaken for the film, so I presume they'd restore it at the eight perforation source, but that doesn’t necessarily speak to the home video transfer(s). Such would be information worth obtaining prior to the release (and will undoubtedly find its own thread around here come September).

* It almost sounds like I know what I'm talking about. I believe I have all of this straight, and my thanks once again to everyone who has contributed to this question and answer discussion.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Bill the only question I answer of yours is this one:

Black and white "separation masters" seem to accompany most film preservations (also known as "silver separation masters"?), but how and why these are generated from single negative color photography is puzzling

B&W sep masters of colour films are made because they cannot fade, and therefore, future prints made, could in theory be made from these sep masters and provide great prints.

The rest of your questions would require someone with a greater understanding of Technicolor, VistaVision etc.


Gordy

 

[Bill Burns]

Ah, very good -- that stands to reason. How are these generated from a color negative, though? Are three individual B&W strips of film generated (as per dye transfer Technicolor), one for each of the colors necessary to achieve the full spectrum? I'm guessing this could be done through color filters (color adjustment), exposing one B&W frame to each primary color by filtering out the other two, but with some brightness loss (something that may be correctable itself). Is this about right?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

That's about right.

BTW, the Sleeping Beauty laserdiscs (CLV or CAV) were gorgeous, and the Dolby Digital tracks were essentially a repurposing of the original mag stereo mix. If they remix it for the DVD and narrow the dialog (like they did with the laserdisc and DVD of Lady & the Tramp), I will be very glad to have a copy of the laserdisc.

Regards,

 

[Bill Burns]

At the price point of the CAV set, I'm happier with the idea of an anamorphic DVD, but I'm glad those lasers turned out substantially better than the letterboxed VHS version -- I picked up a copy of that at the time, given the reasonable price point, and was very disappointed with what I saw. It's been years since I've watched it, but as I recall it was notably inferior to other widescreen animation on VHS (such as Fox's 1997 Anastasia). The image quality difference I'd long seen between CLV and CAV animation (particularly between Disney's boxed sets and movie-only releases) never led me to the CLV edition as an option, but on higher end systems I'm sure the difference narrows considerably (both of my players have chroma troubles which are much better remedied in the CAV format).

The AR of the final DVD spec should give us a sense of whether they've gone to a four perf reduction for the master (various websites have reported both 2.35:1 and 2.2:1). The additional restoration reported at The Digital Bits should prove interesting, as well (though how extensive it is, or even how much room there was for improvement in the first place, remains to be seen).