Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[Professor Echo]

The answer I gave you is one of those answers made by TCM reps as obviously all areas of that company are not necessarily on the same page.

Yes, it may be ONE of the answers, but I know for a fact it's not the ONLY answer that TCM can provide. I was a regular contributor on their message boards for years and their reps often came on to explain and expound upon why certain titles were shown the way they were. I also worked for years with their sister company, the now defunct TURNER PICTURES WORLDWIDE, and I can tell you that there are fascinating stories about what goes on in the programming of TCM and what is aired and why. There are lots of reasons why some widescreen movies presented by TCM are full screen and the reps on their message boards can explain it more than some people in this forum.

 

[DVDvision]

Are they legal reasons?

 

[Yorkshire]

At some point surely even Britain (and maybe the mainland too?) went 1.85:1 as well.

For instance, the BFI have released plenty of 60s and 70s British films in 1.85:1, despite them being wholly British productions (and in some cases probably never played outside of Britain). Off the top of my head, 1971's All the Right Noises (BFI Flipside) is a 1.85:1 disc, and fits my above description.

I agree. The 1.75:1 recommendation definitely ran out at some point. And even then there were films shot for other ratios. I know a that The Devil Rides Out had a negative which came with a line-up chart showing 1.66:1, and that was '68.

But the odd anamoly is by-the-by, it's when 1.75:1 was dropped for 1.85:1 that's most interesting.

A HARD DAY'S NIGHT is documented for 1.75:1 and I suspect the same is true for HELP.

See the above. I agree that 1.75:1 is most likely, but it's not 100% certain.

I would imagine 1.75:1 would be safest anyway, unless they have any other documentation.

Steve W

 

[nara]

I agree that 1.75:1 is most likely, but it's not 100% certain.

I thought we'd moved on from that one.

 

[Yorkshire]

I thought we'd moved on from that one.

I'm not sure what you're referring to?

There's been fairly brief discussion since HELP! was announced on Blu-ray Disc, and as far as I'm aware the only indication we have is the OAR to AHDN, apart from the recommendation in about '55-ish that the UK went to 1.75:1.

I don't think there was any prolonged discussion other than that, but I might have missed something.

I don't think there's any need to try to turn this into an argument - Bob says he 'suspects' the two are the same ratio, I agree, and I'm not sure anyone else is disagreeing. There's just a small question mark because of what Eddie & I discussed above - that at some point the UK switched to 1.85:1, but it's currently unclear when. It conceivably could have been between AHDN and HELP!, so any more information would be interested.

It would be nice if we could have OARs for these films. Bob, are your UK sources likely to dig anything up?

Or maybe we should just 'move on' and not look any further?

Steve W

 

[DVDvision]

Yes that debate sailed a long time ago

 

[Douglas R]

There's been fairly brief discussion since HELP! was announced on Blu-ray Disc, and as far as I'm aware the only indication we have is the OAR to AHDN, apart from the recommendation in about '55-ish that the UK went to 1.75:1.....................................

..................at some point the UK switched to 1.85:1, but it's currently unclear when. It conceivably could have been between AHDN and HELP!, so any more information would be interested.

I saw HELP! when it was first released (at the Granada, Harrow) and I'm positive it wasn't 1.85:1. I wish I could remember when UK cinemas went 1.85:1 but it seemed to be gradual (I never noticed any sudden change) and was quite a bit later than when HELP! was released. When I saw A CLOCKWORK ORANGE in 1971 at the Warner I noticed that the screen ratio was much smaller than normal (Kubrick's preference being 1.66:1) but whether I was noticing a difference from 1.85:1 or 1.75:1 I'm not sure.

Sorry if that doesn't much help!

 

[Yorkshire]

David, you’ve misread my post.Bob said:“A HARD DAY'S NIGHT is documented for 1.75:1 and I suspect the same is true for HELP.”I replied:“See the above. I agree that 1.75:1 is most likely, but it's not 100% certain.”I was clearly referring to the aspect ratio of HELP!, not A Hard Day’s Night.

I agree that 1.75:1 is settled for A Hard Day's Night.Steve W

 

[Yorkshire]

I saw HELP! when it was first released (at the Granada, Harrow) and I'm positive it wasn't 1.85:1. I wish I could remember when UK cinemas went 1.85:1 but it seemed to be gradual (I never noticed any sudden change) and was quite a bit later than when HELP! was released. When I saw A CLOCKWORK ORANGE in 1971 at the Warner I noticed that the screen ratio was much smaller than normal (Kubrick's preference being 1.66:1) but whether I was noticing a difference from 1.85:1 or 1.75:1 I'm not sure.

Sorry if that doesn't much help!

Thanks for the information and memories.

I'm sure you're right - 1.66:1 or 1.75:1, quite possibly 1.85:1 in America. Looking at Bob's previous posts it was probably shot 1.75:1 tolerable to either 1.66 or 1.85.

From your comments it looks like the UK moved from 1.66/1.75 to 1.85 sometime between '65 and '70.

Steve W

 

[Sam Posten]

Not sure if this has been linked here yet, but of interest if not:
http://boingboing.net/2013/06/27/the-history-of-aspect-ratios.html

 

[EddieLarkin]

http://boingboing.net/2013/06/27/the-history-of-aspect-ratios.html

Well made, but I take issue with a few things. Why no mention or explanation of one of the most predominant widescreen shooting processes of the time? 4 perf 35mm, with hard/soft matting. He mentions Shane like it was some sort of anomaly (and it is the only film in his video that he uses as an example of 1.66:1, implying that too was some sort of anomaly), and in his run down at the end lists 1.85:1, but implies it was unique to VistaVision! I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks post 53/54 non-anamorphic/non-vistavision/non-70mm widescreen films were an exception, rather than the rule.

 

[seangood79]

In his defense, he was trying to compress almost a century of film history into an 18 minute clip. Shoot, he could have spent that long discussing the changes made between 1952 and 1956. That's the prime focus of this thread, and look how long it is.

 

[Mark-P]

Well made, but I take issue with a few things. Why no mention or explanation of one of the most predominant widescreen shooting processes of the time? 4 perf 35mm, with hard/soft matting. He mentions Shane like it was some sort of anomaly (and it is the only film in his video that he uses as an example of 1.66:1, implying that too was some sort of anomaly), and in his run down at the end lists 1.85:1, but implies it was unique to VistaVision! I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks post 53/54 non-anamorphic/non-vistavision/non-70mm widescreen films were an exception, rather than the rule.

He also skipped over early CinemaScope 2.55:1. I think he's fully aware of all these things but was just trying to highlight the history without confusing the layman who wouldn't know any of this stuff.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

And no Grandeur...

 

[Vincent_P]

No Ultra-Panavision either- in fact, he seems to have confused Super-Panavision with Ultra when he claims Super was Panavision's response to MGM Camera-65 (in fact, didn't Panavision make the lenses used for MGM Camera-65?).

Vincent

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I thought camera 65 was ultra Panavision, that's why he said that P took it over but then confused super and ultra.Super P 70 is flat and ultra P 70 is anamorphic.Technirama is worth discussing too, vista vision anamorphic and techniscope, 2 perf flat 2.35But I think he didn't want to confuse people. Grandeur would have been worth mentioning though

 

[Brandon Conway]

I agree that he was keeping some things simplified due to the length of the video. He hit the major beats pretty well.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Not sure if this has been linked here yet, but of interest if not:
http://boingboing.net/2013/06/27/the-history-of-aspect-ratios.html

Its a good vid even if it glosses over some things like early CinemaScope's 2.55 ratio, and surprisingly confuses Super Panavision 70 with Ultra Panavision (two completely different things).

 

[Bob Furmanek]

And indicates 1.85 was introduced by Paramount with VistaVision.

He loses MAJOR points for that one!

 

[Douglas R]

I like this ad from Fox, promoting stereo sound: