As the other buyer indicated, the cover is misleading to say the least:
First, the film runs 123 Min 07 sec @ 23.98p[sf] 1080, so everything is just fine and complete.
Second, the film is presented in the Panavision ratio of 2.35:1; and while the frame may not be 100% perfectly framed, it is almost as good.
Third, the sound is well recorded from the Mag tracks (17.5mm) and well layed back. It could have been improved in balancing the dynamic range, but, the result is to most I guess very much acceptable.

So, why merely 3 out of 5 ? Well, actually only 2.5 of 5; the materials were cleaned partly as digital files (either tiff, targa, cineon or dpx) in hardware or software based tools; but the people who did this made several, partly severe errors. In numerous sequences the individual frames were moved several pixels in different directions, apparently in an effort to stabilize the picture. The result is that the letterbox is moving partly very noticeably not only… more »

As the other buyer indicated, the cover is misleading to say the least:
First, the film runs 123 Min 07 sec @ 23.98p[sf] 1080, so everything is just fine and complete.
Second, the film is presented in the Panavision ratio of 2.35:1; and while the frame may not be 100% perfectly framed, it is almost as good.
Third, the sound is well recorded from the Mag tracks (17.5mm) and well layed back. It could have been improved in balancing the dynamic range, but, the result is to most I guess very much acceptable.

So, why merely 3 out of 5 ? Well, actually only 2.5 of 5; the materials were cleaned partly as digital files (either tiff, targa, cineon or dpx) in hardware or software based tools; but the people who did this made several, partly severe errors. In numerous sequences the individual frames were moved several pixels in different directions, apparently in an effort to stabilize the picture. The result is that the letterbox is moving partly very noticeably not only in subpixel but up to 10 pixels at the top, bottom an on the right (inward)[see astronauts dialogue post plane crashlanding]; some scenes have lost detail and sharpness because of this.

The thing is: it was not even necessary - from older masters that were not cleaned it is very plain that no significant damage is evident on the 35mm element. There is camera movement, though; but who in their right mind would stabilize a handheld camera in a classic film ?

Also, I detected artifacts at the top letterbox in another sequence, most likely stemming from an automatic cleanup tool [arrival of Elliot Gould with Karen Black in red sportscar at her house]. The main reason why I gave this low rating is that all this could and SHOULD have been detected during the QC (quality control/check). Regardless whether older film or new, the (very high) standard should be challenge and clearly defined goal. After all, it is called High Definition for a good reason. All cleanup / restoration work is much harder - and more expensive. But better a more expensive Blu-ray with a properly made transfer and mastering then a discounted disc with a mediocre or - heaven forbid - a butcher's job.

The check I made was done via a profesionally calibrated and maintained SONY VW-VPL100 True-HD 1920x1080 Projector/on a 3,10m professional DaVision Screen/sound via ONKYO TX-NR905.