Savage Pampas / Pampa salvaje (Hugo Fregonese, 1966)


(Sebastian) #38

Not sure about the aspect ratio to be honest (doesnt look superwide)… but the runtime seems to be 94min. However, music starts over black screen, like an overture…


(Novecento) #39

It shouldn’t look extremely wide since 2.20:1 is not as wide as your average 2.35:1 flick (very common aspect ratio and usually the widest things go). However, there should still be clearly noticeable black-bars top and bottom:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=21007&position=1


(Martin) #40

The first two images in my post 28 are in the correct aspect ratio of 2,2:1. According to the Al!ve website, the film is presented on BD in an aspect ratio of 16:9 (1,78:1).


(Sebastian) #41

Thanks. Will check again tonight and report. Just to make it clear: i think it looks amazing all things considered. The only weakness of the release seems to be lack of extras.


(Stanton) #42

16:9 means mostly only that it is anamorph enhanced. Could be here still the original 2,2:1, or an adjusted 1,85:1 or 1,78:1.

I’m sure it will be the original 2,2:1 aspect ratio.


(Martin) #43

Soon we will know …


[Updates] Deutsche Inhalte aktuell
(ENNIOO) #44

The T.V print I have with full english audio for a running time of 1hour and 50 mins starts off in 2,.35: 1 ratio and then drops down to 2,.2: 1 ratio:

[URL=http://s260.photobucket.com/user/ENNIOO/media/vlcsnap-2016-12-21-13h24m59s437_zpsyaoiqtmm.png.html]

[/URL]

[URL=http://s260.photobucket.com/user/ENNIOO/media/vlcsnap-2016-12-21-13h25m14s341_zpsyvtunssf.png.html]

[/URL]

[URL=http://s260.photobucket.com/user/ENNIOO/media/vlcsnap-2016-12-21-13h25m23s045_zpsfexg0eyh.png.html]

[/URL]


(scherpschutter) #45

Image looks horizontally stretched. 2,20:1 should be the original aspect ratio, not 2,35:1


(Søren) #46

Those pictures are definitely stretched. But they are in 2.20:1 … If you resize them to 1.85:1 they look ok, so my guess is the tv-print is a stretched 1.85:1 print.


(ENNIOO) #47

Maybe these screens our better :slight_smile:

[URL=http://s260.photobucket.com/user/ENNIOO/media/vlcsnap-2016-12-21-13h47m31s844_zpscjwkov8i.png.html]

[/URL]

[URL=http://s260.photobucket.com/user/ENNIOO/media/vlcsnap-2016-12-21-13h47m28s028_zpslgixofou.png.html]

[/URL]

Just checked again this prints starts in 2.35 .1 then drops down to 2.2.1


(Søren) #48

Yep, they look as they shall I gatther but the aspect ratio is 1.77:1 not 2.20 ?


(ENNIOO) #49

Thats probably due to my computer not liking VLC at the moment keeps crashing.
2.2.1 on my dvd player.


(Martin) #50

Yes, 1,77:1 or 16:9.


(Sebastian) #51

So the back cover says 2,35:1. The picture on my screen is 120x52cm, which translates to just about that.

I am gonna do a proper review as well, but just for now…

Here are some pictures, just as an impression. Took them with my cell phone, nothing fancy.





(JonathanCorbett) #52

For 35 mm prints the aspect ratio was 2,35:1, see full technical specs on IMDb.

Submitted to Italian censorship in August 1966 as El Cjorro, verified film length 3016 meters (equivalent to 110 minutes).


(Novecento) #53

Hmm, are we sure this isn’t a 70mm blow-up (i.e. from 35mm) rather than an original 70mm film?


(Sebastian) #54

In that case they wouldnt make such a big deal out of it? http://in70mm.com/news/2016/pampas/index.htm

Any chance the aspect ratio will be “more correct” on the 4K Ultra HD BluRay release?


(Novecento) #55

Actually I’m referring to the “blow-ups” done back in the day to show 35mm films in 70mm versions:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/35-70mm.htm

I’m just wondering if maybe the 70mm print they are working with is actually an old 70mm “blow-up” of a 35mm print? Are we sure the film was originally shot on 70mm?


(Sebastian) #56

Yes, they keep talking about an original 65mm camera negative… http://in70mm.com/news/2015/pampas/index.htm


(ENNIOO) #57

Interesting reading !