High Society 4K UHD (1956) from Warner Archive

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by animationisthebest

I confess that when I looked at 4K screenshots of The Brutalist's UHD by Elevation, I was actually surprised by how the grain doesn't look much finer than UHDs of 1950s VistaVision. I'm not even talking about detail, which the film's cinematographer said that he wanted a painterly and softer look to much of the film instead of it being razor-sharp. It's just that I was expecting an UHD of a modern VistaVision film, such as The Brutalist, to have much finer grain than one from a 1950s VistaVision film, but it wasn't what I expected. The difference felt minimal to me, based on the screenshots. Why? I'm mentioning the Elevation UHD of The Brutalist, because A24's is filtered.

Haven't seen it, but the film was shot on 250 speed and 500 speed stocks, even in VV that's not going to give you a pristine grainless image, nor was it intended to. But I've heard there's a fair bit of regular 3-perf 35mm in there as well, which will of coursh look much more conventionally grainy so that may be where the confusion comes from.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by jjhlh

Nothings beats the look of VistaVision in 4K. Fantastic news.

Originally Posted by animationisthebest

Maybe Technirama (see the UHD of Spartacus). And maybe Todd-AO 70mm (My Fair Lady).

Originally Posted by cesarbox

Both VistaVision and Technirama negatives are horizontal 35mm. Todd-AO negative is 65mm, so that in better, of course

From the top of my head, increasing theoretical image quality of the formats

Sizes rounded to nearest millimeter. Increasing image quality if shot on same stock viewed at same PH viewing distance (Constant Image Height)** .

~ = 4 x 5.3mm S-8mm film
~ = 7 x 10mm 16mm film
~ = 9 x 21mm Techniscope 2.39 35mm
~ = 10 x 24mm Super 35 2.39 35mm
~ = 12 x 21mm Widescreen 1.75 35 mm
~ = 12 x 30mm Scope/Panavision 2.39 A 35mm *
~ = 15 x 21mm Academy 1.37 35mm
~ = 26 x 72mm CINERAMA 2.8 3-Strip 35mm **(image about as sharp as Academy but ~ 1.7x taller (and millions wider) sitting center of Cinerama 146º circle)
~ = 18 x 24mm Silent 1.33 35mm
~ = 18 x 42mm Super/Technirama 2.30 A 35mm *
~ = 19 x 35mm VV 1.85 35mm
~ = 20 x 54mm MGM-65/Ultra Panavision 2.75 A 70mm *
~ = 22 x 48mm Todd-AO/Super Panavision 2.20 70mm
~ = 24 x 62mm Cinemacope55 2.55 A 55mm *
~ = 48 x 69mm IMAX 1.43 70mm **(image would be 20% sharper than Cinemascope55 image, plus be ~ 1.7x taller on top )


* (spherical equivalent)
** except IMAX and CINERAMA, which are optimally viewed at higher PHs for their increased field of view telepresence.

[whiteberry]

Special Features: Featurette “Cole Porter in Hollywood: True Love” (HD), 1956 Premiere Newsreel (HD), M-G-M CinemaScope cartoon MILLIONAIRE DROOPY (HD), Audio-only promo spots featuring Bing Crosby with Grace Kelly and Frank Sinatra, Original Theatrical Trailers (HD)

These extras were on the DVD. I was hoping George Feltenstein would add MGM's 1956 "The Wedding In Monaco" featurette as an extra but no luck

THE WEDDING IN MONACO (Part 1) - YouTube

THE WEDDING IN MONACO (Part 2) - YouTube

Poster:


An advertisement for it that appeared in Boxoffice magazine (May 5, 1956) and Motion Picture Exhibitor (May 9, 1956):


https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/vi...fice-may051956
https://archive.org/details/motionpi...e/n53/mode/2up

[whiteberry]

Since the extras mention "theatrical trailers" instead of "theatrical trailer", it probably means we are getting both trailers. The DVD only had the "Bing Crosby Meets A Friend At M-G-M" trailer.

Like North By Northwest, MGM created two trailers: a regular trailer and a trailer featuring an introduction by a member of the cast (or director in the case of North By Northwest).

Trailer #1 (Regular Trailer):

High Society Official Trailer #1 - Frank Sinatra Movie (1956) HD - YouTube

Trailer #2 ("Bing Crosby Meets A Friend At M-G-M" Trailer):

Official Trailer - HIGH SOCIETY (1956, Bing Crosby, Grace Kelly, Frank Sinatra) - YouTube

The North By Northwest trailers for those who haven't seen them:

[Show spoiler]
Trailer #1 (Regular Trailer):

North by Northwest (1959) Official Trailer - Cary Grant, Eva Marie Saint Movie HD - YouTube

Trailer #2 ("A Guided Tour With Alfred Hitchcock" Trailer):

North By Northwest -- (Movie Trailer) Alfred Hitchcock Tour - YouTube

[david_blu]

Looking forward to this. Did we evah (pun intended) get an explanation why this never made it to Blu ray?

[whiteberry]

Originally Posted by david_blu

Looking forward to this. Did we evah (pun intended) get an explanation why this never made it to Blu ray?

Yeah it was strange Warner didn't release it on blu-ray when it was rereleased in theaters for its 65th anniversary in 2021.

TCM Big Screen Classics: High Society 65th Anniversary | November 10 & 14 Only - YouTube

[Areyakiddin]

Originally Posted by david_blu

Looking forward to this. Did we evah (pun intended) get an explanation why this never made it to Blu ray?

A new restoration was stated to be expensive and I wouldn't be surprised to hear if George has been fighting to release this on 4k simultaneously since the start of that format.

We'll probably find out when the next Extras podcast episode comes out in the next day or two.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by animationisthebest

You wrote:

"~ = 18 x 42mm Super/Technirama 2.30 A 35mm *
~ = 19 x 35mm VV 1.85 35mm"

But since your listing order is from smallest to biggest, shouldn't it be:

"~ = 19 x 35mm VV 1.85 35mm
~ = 18 x 42mm Super/Technirama 2.30 A 35mm *"

The order is from less quality to more quality (or image clarity) when seeing the height of the image at the same size (Picture Height / PH) so 18mm is less negative height (that has to be magnified more) than 19mm to fill the screen's height since 19mm is larger. (Tho that small difference might not be noticeable. According to ancient papyri by the Khodak Dinasty, difference should be ~12% (1.12x) for that.) Since the Technirama negative would be in a wider ratio you might think it makes for better quality, and probably subjectively it does since it's more "epic", but the image quality, for example, of a face that fills the height, since it would be the same size on screen, but different sized on the negative, would be a little better in the VV 1.85. Theoretically.

Originally Posted by animationisthebest

Also, what about the dimensions of VV 1.66 35mm?

That would be about
~ = 21 x 35mm VV 1.66 35mm

Originally Posted by animationisthebest

And wasn't Technirama 2.25, intended to be projected in 2.20? You wrote 2.30.

Anamorphic vistaVision called Technirama in reduction to 35mm Scope 2.35 prints and SuperTechnirama for blow up 70mm SuperPanavision 2.20 prints makes for a ~ 2.30 common rectangle area that would be seen for both from inside the anamorphic VV (1.50 x 1.5A lens = 2.25) negative, so I rounded/simplified. The differences would be small.



errata: shoulda said sizes rounded to the nearest millimeter.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by animationisthebest

Considering how director and cinematographer often talked about emulating the look of the era, maybe they chose that stock because they wanted the grain to look closer to actual 1950s VistaVision. The vast majority of the film is supposed to be VistaVision though, over 90% at least if I'm not mistaken.

I wonder how the next Paul Thomas Anderson film, One Battle After Another, will fare, as that is going to be VistaVision too. Same for the next Yorgos Lanthimos' film, called Bugonia. Both films come out this year and are VistaVision. There are rumors of One Battle After Another getting native VistaVision projections, and we know for a fact that the next TCM Festival, in this April, will show two 1950s VistaVision films in native VistaVision projections. It's surely interesting to see the renaissance of VistaVision in the last years. First it was with shorts, now with features.

Just one more question: where you wrote "regular 3-perf 35mm", didn't you mean "regular 4-perf 35mm" instead?

No, I meant 3-perf

[stlcards]

I have not seen it but love Grace Kelly. She chose Royal life over Hollywood but I wish she had made more movies.

[DAT_JB]

Is our Brazilian friend back again?

[Areyakiddin]

Originally Posted by DAT_JB

Is our Brazilian friend back again?

No, it's the Lone Ranger!

[Sifox211]

So this and Lilo & Stitch hit UHD in the same month - Christmas has come early

[david_blu]

Loving all the film negative size discussion, don't understand it all of it but I get different size negatives.

So here is a layman's question, I understand normal academy ratio is shot a 1:33 then effectively cropped to 1:85 for projection losing half the image.
Question: If you changed the shape of the lense could you utilise the full negative to use as 1:85 albeit stretched and just use modern computer to put the ratio back to the correct ratio shape. A bit like anamorphic dvds back in the day, thereby using all the available negative surface to capture the image?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by david_blu

Loving all the film negative size discussion, don't understand it all of it but I get different size negatives.

So here is a layman's question, I understand normal academy ratio is shot a 1:33 then effectively cropped to 1:85 for projection losing half the image.
Question: If you changed the shape of the lense could you utilise the full negative to use as 1:85 albeit stretched and just use modern computer to put the ratio back to the correct ratio shape. A bit like anamorphic dvds back in the day, thereby using all the available negative surface to capture the image?

No need. Shoot 3-perf (which uses the full width of the negative, unlike the sound offset for Academy) and that's more or less a 16:9 shape already.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by david_blu

Loving all the film negative size discussion, don't understand it all of it but I get different size negatives.

So here is a layman's question, I understand normal academy ratio is shot a 1:33 then effectively cropped to 1:85 for projection losing half the image.
Question: If you changed the shape of the lense could you utilise the full negative to use as 1:85 albeit stretched and just use modern computer to put the ratio back to the correct ratio shape. A bit like anamorphic dvds back in the day, thereby using all the available negative surface to capture the image?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format

[david_blu]

Originally Posted by koberulz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format

Ahhh, all of sudden I understand Vger!

[sherlockjr]

Originally Posted by david_blu

Loving all the film negative size discussion, don't understand it all of it but I get different size negatives.

So here is a layman's question, I understand normal academy ratio is shot a 1:33 then effectively cropped to 1:85 for projection losing half the image.
Question: If you changed the shape of the lense could you utilise the full negative to use as 1:85 albeit stretched and just use modern computer to put the ratio back to the correct ratio shape. A bit like anamorphic dvds back in the day, thereby using all the available negative surface to capture the image?

You're not losing half the film frame between Academy 1.37:1 and flat widescreen 1.85:1. More like 1/3rd. While composing for 1.85 but shooting open matte and protecting for TV allowed them to avoid any sort of pan and scan or extraction when providing 1.33 versions for home use (until 1.78 TVs became the norm).

However there have been and continue to be variants of Super35 that make use of the unneeded soundtrack area that's on the camera negative. Some of which can also be used with 3perf pulldowns in the camera. If you want to go 2.40 Scope you can also shoot this way to use spherical, rather than anamorphic lenses. Although you will get a lower image quality on a theater screen vs using the complete 35mm frame as you do with full scope and anamorphic lenses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35

[david_blu]

Thanks for all the info guys, this place is so informative, they really should use some of you as consultants on home video releases.

[Geoff D]

They have