Talk:Todd-AO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matthew715 17:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to filmmaking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

"The original version of the Todd-AO process used a frame rate of 26 frames per second, slightly faster than the 24 frames per second that was (and is) the customary standard."

According to Brian Sibley's audio commentary on the DVD of Around the World in Eighty Days the correct figure is 30 frames per second. [edit] This is confirmed by http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto2.htm .

If true this would mean the film could be transferred to NTSC video at 1 frame per frame with no pulldown. It might also result in a noticeable improvement in the soundtrack's treble response. Lee M 01:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• You're right. It was Cinerama that was 26 fps. See The American Widescreen Museum ... Dpbsmith (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Somebody keeps adding the 1973 film Jesus Christ Superstar to the list of Todd-AO films. Superstar was filmed in Todd-AO 35 (an anamorphic 35mm Panavision knock-off), not 70mm Todd-AO. Eyecatcher 19 April 2006

The original six-track Todd-AO sound format was a different layout from the modern (Dolby) six-track or 5.1 surround format. It utilized 5 channels behind the screen: Left, Left-Center, Center, Right-Center, Right, and a single Surround channel to be played by speakers throughout the auditorium. --Matthew715 17:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is too technical. I am strongly against the practice of "dumbing down" anything, but this article makes so much use of technical terminology, as opposed to straightforward explanation, that only a film technician could fully appreciate it, and the ordinary film buff, (of which, I assure you, there must be many that read this article) would not be able to understand it. AlbertSM 17:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You may very well be right, but perhaps could you be more specific in where and what you want clarified? This would make addressing your comment much easier. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, some of that business about perforations and fps, for instance. AlbertSM 01:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)