Spartacus (1960) (Restored Edition)

[BluPat]

I have the first Bluray but haven't watched it yet. Guess I'll just wait and get this one too and watch this version.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by BluPat

I have the first Bluray but haven't watched it yet. Guess I'll just wait and get this one too and watch this version.

If you haven't watched the first Blu-ray release, you may not watch this one either.

[Blu-Velvet]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

two of the best VistaVision bluray releases in terms of PQ are The Trouble with Harry and White Christmas

Not to mention THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and TO CATCH A THIEF and a few others where the original negative was scanned instead of a 35mm print, interpositive, or dupe negative. If it's as good as the reports are implying, the new SPARTACUS disc should look truly spectacular, which is only appropriate for historical spectacle.

(And can hardly wait for Universal's currently in-progress restorations of classics to get Blu-ray releases!)

[Widescreenfilmguy]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

The original is horizontal 8/35 anamorphic (Technirama) that is still to be considered a "Large Format" (like VistaVision that is the same but flat)

Spartacus and other Technirama movies were PRINTED to 70mm but they were actually blow-ups albeit not by much.

To put it simply (an estimate):

Standard 35mm negative= 4K
8/35 negative= 6K
5/70 negative= 8K

I did not realize that they were blown up at all, for some reason I thought the height was the same and the width was just "unsqueezed" in the 70 mm release prints.

[cynatnite]

Well, I guess I'll be doing a triple-dip on this release. I already have the Criterion which I refused to give up when I bought the blu-ray release. It has fantastic supplemental material that's not on the blu-ray.

From what I've read, this release will far surpass the previous blu-ray. I was never all that happy with it, but I loved the movie and didn't realize they were going to do a true restoration until now.

The Criterion stays and the other blu-ray will find another home once I get this one. The scene-by-scene analysis from Dalton Trumbo is fantastic. The remaining extras on the Criterion is just as priceless and it doesn't appear all will be making the cut on the new release.

Great news!

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Widescreenfilmguy

I did not realize that they were blown up at all, for some reason I thought the height was the same and the width was just "unsqueezed" in the 70 mm release prints.

35mm (even 8-perf) to 70mm is always a blow-up by definition, but you are right in this case!

Although technically a blow-up, this was only needed in one direction. The height of the Technirama negative already matched that of a 5-perf. 70mm print, so it was only necessary to un-squeeze the image to fill the frame. Coming from a negative less than two thirds the size, the image admittedly appeared a little grainier than contact prints from 65mm originals.

[Geoff D]

That's another area where this restoration could excel: in bypassing the optical step needed to unsqueeze the anamorphic Technirama image into a flat one for 70mm exhibition we'll be seeing more detail than on anything yielded from the 1991 restoration on 65mm (which needed extensive tests with special optics to get the de-squeezing right and also had to make do with realigning seps rather than using the badly faded negative).

If Universal get this right it should look absolutely stunning.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's another area where this restoration could excel: in bypassing the optical step needed to unsqueeze the anamorphic Technirama image into a flat one for 70mm exhibition we'll be seeing more detail than on anything yielded from the 1991 restoration on 65mm (which needed extensive tests with special optics to get the de-squeezing right and also had to make do with realigning seps rather than using the badly faded negative).

If Universal get this right it should look absolutely stunning.

Exactly, that's something that is also true for all Super 35 movies the other way around (flat to anamorphic in that case).Robert Harris confirmed this restoration is coming from 6K x 4K Scans (negative AR is: 1.50:1)

[Geoff D]

Thankfully the optics got a wee bit better when Super 35 for 'scope became as popular as it did, unlike the olden days of Techniscope, S35's predecessor of sorts. Leaving the colour aside, I still can't believe how good the restored TGTBATU looks in terms of detail after having years of middling presentations of Techniscope movies.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Thankfully the optics got a wee bit better when Super 35 for 'scope became as popular as it did, unlike the olden days of Techniscope, S35's predecessor of sorts. Leaving the colour aside, I still can't believe how good the restored TGTBATU looks in terms of detail after having years of middling presentations of Techniscope movies.

Or SuperScope - the real forerunner to S35.

Steve W

[Geoff D]

That's why I said "predecessor of sorts", because Techniscope didn't use the full aperture unlike SS or S35. But Techniscope was far more ubiquitous as the "poor man's widescreen" format just as S35 was many years later, so it's a comparison worth making.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's why I said "predecessor of sorts", because Techniscope didn't use the full aperture unlike SS or S35. But Techniscope was far more ubiquitous as the "poor man's widescreen" format just as S35 was many years later, so it's a comparison worth making.

Yup, agreed.

The quality of the image on SuperScope post-squeeze was not brilliant, though. Don Siegel wasn't happy with how Invasion of the Body Snatchers looked, apparently.

Steve W

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Thankfully the optics got a wee bit better when Super 35 for 'scope became as popular as it did, unlike the olden days of Techniscope, S35's predecessor of sorts. Leaving the colour aside, I still can't believe how good the restored TGTBATU looks in terms of detail after having years of middling presentations of Techniscope movies.

Last summer i watched the whole trilogy restored in the theater (I'm italian).

Still waiting for the other 2 restorations to be available in Blu-ray.

Incredibile stuff to watch on the big screen (they were 2K DCPs by La Cineteca di Bologna)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Yup, agreed.

The quality of the image on SuperScope post-squeeze was not brilliant, though. Don Siegel wasn't happy with how Invasion of the Body Snatchers looked, apparently.

Steve W

That's the point I was trying to make: the optics needed to convert these flat formats to anamorphic for theatrical exhibition weren't all that great. But IIRC Body Snatchers wasn't even intended for SuperScope, it was forced on the movie in post which is why Siegel disliked it.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's the point I was trying to make: the optics needed to convert these flat formats to anamorphic for theatrical exhibition weren't all that great. But IIRC Body Snatchers wasn't even intended for SuperScope, it was forced on the movie in post which is why Siegel disliked it.

Agreed on the quality - good point, well made.

The use of SuperScope on this is a bit of an unknown quantity. I know he didn't like the results, but I'm not sure he didn't like the idea beforehand. It's been a while since I read the book, despite it being under my telly, just a few feet from where I sit!

Steve W

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's the point I was trying to make: the optics needed to convert these flat formats to anamorphic for theatrical exhibition weren't all that great. But IIRC Body Snatchers wasn't even intended for SuperScope, it was forced on the movie in post which is why Siegel disliked it.

Okay, I've just had a read.

According to Al LaValley's book "...the SuperScope format had been part of the early plans for the film..." but that the first SS print wasn't made until December '55.

He then notes that Walter Wagner (the producer, not director Siegel) felt the film lost sharpness and detail due to the anamorphic lens used in post production.

I know that ALaV had access to a great deal of material, documentation, memos, etc., so take this is fairly authoritative.

Sorry - back on topic.

Your original point about Spartacus and digital un-squeezing is spot on - this should look superb.

I know Universal have a far from perfect history, but they appear to be heading in generally the right direction, and I simply can't see them going to such lengths (6k/4k) to get to all that extra detail, then scrubbing it with heavy-handed use of DNR.

Steve W

[Geoff D]

I don't think DNR is even being countenanced after how well Breakfast Club and Apollo 13 turned out, and with RAH advising them on the project it should turn out fine.

As for Body Snatchers, I'm going off of the Widescreen Museum: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingss4.htm, you'd better tell them they're wrong.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I don't think DNR is even being countenanced after how well Breakfast Club and Apollo 13 turned out, and with RAH advising them on the project it should turn out fine.

As for Body Snatchers, I'm going off of the Widescreen Museum: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingss4.htm, you'd better tell them they're wrong.

I love that site, but I think LaV had full access to archives on the production on IOTBS, more than the museum's currator(s), I suspect.

Steve W

[EddieLarkin]

How does the book match up with Bob's comment here Steve?

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topi...ion/?p=3810513

Seemingly there is no historical reference to IotBS being SuperScope until after it had finished filming.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

How does the book match up with Bob's comment here Steve?

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topi...ion/?p=3810513

Seemingly there is no historical reference to IotBS being SuperScope until after it had finished filming.

Well, I like what Steve has to say, and I like what Bob has to say. But who's correct? There's only one way to find out....fight!!!