I'm not sure why the VistaVision movies were so much more impressive.
Perhaps, since they don't have to letterbox to get the right AR, they can
use more resolution.

Lincoln

In the case of "The Searchers", at least, it's based on a 4k digital
restoration from the seps, so that might have something to do with it.

In the case of "The Searchers", at least, it's based on a 4k digital
restoration from the seps, so that might have something to do with it.

I've had very little opportunity to look at high-def transfers of big
negative films from the 50s and 60s. But from what I've seen, VistaVision
makes the best transfer. I base that on watching a few minutes of The
Searchers in Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD--I don't remember) in PC World's lab, and in
watching High Society, DVR'd from either HD-Net or Voom Network (again, I
don't remember).

I've looked at scenes from a few 65mm films (Mutiny on the Bounty and Grand
Prix on disc; Exodus via satellite), and while they impressed me, it was
nowhere near the wow factor of the VistaVision stuff. I also watched a bit
of Spartacus, and was downright disappointed. But maybe Universal has an
official policy of letting Criterion do the good transfers of Spartacus.

I'm not sure why the VistaVision movies were so much more impressive.
Perhaps, since they don't have to letterbox to get the right AR, they can
use more resolution.

Lincoln

In article <4CQkj.88508$YL5.8990@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
notmyreal@address.com says...
I've had very little opportunity to look at high-def transfers of big
negative films from the 50s and 60s. But from what I've seen,
VistaVision makes the best transfer. I base that on watching a few
minutes of The Searchers in Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD--I don't remember) in
PC World's lab, and in watching High Society, DVR'd from either
HD-Net or Voom Network (again, I don't remember).

I've looked at scenes from a few 65mm films (Mutiny on the Bounty and
Grand Prix on disc; Exodus via satellite), and while they impressed
me, it was nowhere near the wow factor of the VistaVision stuff. I
also watched a bit of Spartacus, and was downright disappointed. But
maybe Universal has an official policy of letting Criterion do the
good transfers of Spartacus.

I'm not sure why the VistaVision movies were so much more impressive.
Perhaps, since they don't have to letterbox to get the right AR, they
can use more resolution.

Lincoln

Lincoln,
There's a few good reasons why a VistaVision transfer might look
better than other large format systems. The biggest reason is simply
because with VistaVision's narrower aspect ratio you can fill the 16:9
frame on the HD video master and subsequent conversions. With larger
format systems you're compromised by the need to still use
letterboxing to get the full image onto the display.

In their heyday, I saw lots of 70mm films from Technirama to Todd-AO
to Ultra and Super Panavision and I can assure you that in a theatre
70mm whipped VistaVision. No doubt about it. But VV wasn't anything
to sneeze at. My candidate for best looking VV film is "One-Eyed
Jacks", but there are no good video transfers of the film and it
appears to be in the public domain.

Marty

I never got to see VistaVision in a theater; I always thought it was a
neat idea, though...

On 2008-01-21 15:37:55 -0800, Leo Kerr <lfkerr@NOT.gmail.com> said:

I never got to see VistaVision in a theater; I always thought it was a
neat idea, though...

There weren't that many titles which had 8/35 prints made.

"White Christmas" and "Strategic Air Command", of course. But few others.
--
CinemaScope® - The Modern Miracle You See Without Special Glasses!
--
Peter

In article <4CQkj.88508$YL5.8990@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
notmyreal@address.com says...
I've had very little opportunity to look at high-def transfers of big
negative films from the 50s and 60s. But from what I've seen, VistaVision
makes the best transfer. I base that on watching a few minutes of The
Searchers in Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD--I don't remember) in PC World's lab, and in
watching High Society, DVR'd from either HD-Net or Voom Network (again, I
don't remember).

I've looked at scenes from a few 65mm films (Mutiny on the Bounty and Grand
Prix on disc; Exodus via satellite), and while they impressed me, it was
nowhere near the wow factor of the VistaVision stuff. I also watched a bit
of Spartacus, and was downright disappointed. But maybe Universal has an
official policy of letting Criterion do the good transfers of Spartacus.

I'm not sure why the VistaVision movies were so much more impressive.
Perhaps, since they don't have to letterbox to get the right AR, they can
use more resolution.

Lincoln

Lincoln,
There's a few good reasons why a VistaVision transfer might look better
than other large format systems. The biggest reason is simply because
with VistaVision's narrower aspect ratio you can fill the 16:9 frame on
the HD video master and subsequent conversions. With larger format
systems you're compromised by the need to still use letterboxing to get
the full image onto the display.

In their heyday, I saw lots of 70mm films from Technirama to Todd-AO to
Ultra and Super Panavision and I can assure you that in a theatre 70mm
whipped VistaVision. No doubt about it. But VV wasn't anything to
sneeze at. My candidate for best looking VV film is "One-Eyed Jacks",
but there are no good video transfers of the film and it appears to be
in the public domain.

Marty

Martin Hart wrote:
In article <4CQkj.88508$YL5.8990@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
notmyreal@address.com says...
I've had very little opportunity to look at high-def transfers of big
negative films from the 50s and 60s. But from what I've seen,
VistaVision makes the best transfer. I base that on watching a few
minutes of The Searchers in Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD--I don't remember) in PC
World's lab, and in watching High Society, DVR'd from either HD-Net or
Voom Network (again, I don't remember).

I've looked at scenes from a few 65mm films (Mutiny on the Bounty and
Grand Prix on disc; Exodus via satellite), and while they impressed me,
it was nowhere near the wow factor of the VistaVision stuff. I also
watched a bit of Spartacus, and was downright disappointed. But maybe
Universal has an official policy of letting Criterion do the good
transfers of Spartacus.

I'm not sure why the VistaVision movies were so much more impressive.
Perhaps, since they don't have to letterbox to get the right AR, they
can use more resolution.

Lincoln

Lincoln,
There's a few good reasons why a VistaVision transfer might look better
than other large format systems. The biggest reason is simply because
with VistaVision's narrower aspect ratio you can fill the 16:9 frame on
the HD video master and subsequent conversions. With larger format
systems you're compromised by the need to still use letterboxing to get
the full image onto the display.

In their heyday, I saw lots of 70mm films from Technirama to Todd-AO to
Ultra and Super Panavision and I can assure you that in a theatre 70mm
whipped VistaVision. No doubt about it. But VV wasn't anything to
sneeze at. My candidate for best looking VV film is "One-Eyed Jacks",
but there are no good video transfers of the film and it appears to be in
the public domain.

Marty

Why did One-Eyed Jacks look so good? Did they have better Eastman stocks
by the time it was shot?

I'm always astonished by the deep focus possible in B&W VistaVision films,
especially Anthony Mann's The Tin Star, where you can see from the
interior of the Marshall's station, to the other side of the street all in
sharp focus. Also there are scenes in William Wyler's The Desperate Hours
that look like the exaggerated deep focus work in The Little Foxes.

The bigger camera aperture should reduce depth of field, but it seems that
this is canceled out at a perceptual level by the greater resolution of
that large aperture.

Simon Howson

In article <4CQkj.88508$YL5.8990@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
notmyreal@address.com says...
In their heyday, I saw lots of 70mm films from Technirama to Todd-AO to
Ultra and Super Panavision and I can assure you that in a theatre 70mm
whipped VistaVision.
No argument there. I was talking only about how they appeared in a high-def

"Martin Hart" <oldtornperf@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.21fed701c14642509896a0@newsgroups.comcast.net...
In article <4CQkj.88508$YL5.8990@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
notmyreal@address.com says...
In their heyday, I saw lots of 70mm films from Technirama to Todd-AO to
Ultra and Super Panavision and I can assure you that in a theatre 70mm
whipped VistaVision.
No argument there. I was talking only about how they appeared in a
high-def transfer. And I suspect you're right about the AR being the
cause.

Lincoln

"Lincoln Spector" <notmyreal@address.com> wrote in message
news:gqulj.204$xq2.98@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...

"Martin Hart" <oldtornperf@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.21fed701c14642509896a0@newsgroups.comcast.net...
In article <4CQkj.88508$YL5.8990@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
notmyreal@address.com says...
In their heyday, I saw lots of 70mm films from Technirama to Todd-AO to
Ultra and Super Panavision and I can assure you that in a theatre 70mm
whipped VistaVision.
No argument there. I was talking only about how they appeared in a
high-def transfer. And I suspect you're right about the AR being the
cause.

Lincoln

I think it's the AR, too, since more of the TV's real estate is being
used. With 70mm transfer you've lost the height (obviously) while
retaining the width. It's too bad HDTV standards didn't go for
something wider than 16:9. Then we could for common height transfers
rather than common width.