Savage Pampas / Pampa salvaje (Hugo Fregonese, 1966)

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.

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.

Soon we will know …

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:

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

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.

Maybe these screens our better :slight_smile:

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

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

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

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

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.




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).

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

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?

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?

Yes, they keep talking about an original 65mm camera negative… "SAVAGE PAMPAS" will get a 4k digital restoration

Interesting reading !

It is regularly listed on Wikipedia as European 65/70 mm film.

I think it is normal that original 70mm films photographed with spherical optics when a 35 mm projection print was used were shown in the aspect ratio of 2.35:1 (see for example movies we know for sure like Lawrence of Arabia, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Hamlet), while for 1.25X anamorphic optics the 2.76:1 aspect ratio was cropped slightly to 2.55.

But the scanned 70mm positive print (see link above) should have a 2,20:1 AR, and in fact the image below is about 2,15:1 (550x257) :slight_smile:

Yeh - it was just Ennioo’s post above that had the credits in 2:35.1. Often when the credits are in one aspect ratio, but the rest of the film in another, then it is usually the credits that preserve the original one.

From Savage Pampas Review - The Spaghetti Western Database :

“The score was written by (a then still relatively unknown) Waldo de los Rios. He had composed a symphonic score with choral pieces and a special percussion section with instruments created by himself, but in the studio most of his compositions were shortened and De los Rios was very disappointed. He later prepared an album with six suites using the original compositions. Fans of the composer say it ranks among his best work.”

Here the complete album:

2 Likes