Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[Bob Furmanek]

Not at all, Jamie. Rhonda Fleming is a lovely lady and a very nice person.

 

[Gary16]

Is it fair to ask who's who (other than Ms. Fleming)?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Is it fair to ask who's who (other than Ms. Fleming)?

The taller gentleman is Bob while the one with the darker hair is Jack.

 

[Gary16]

Thanks. Always nice to connect the face with a name.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I was going to say that's Rhonda Fleming in the middle.

Yes, I'm on the right.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Is there any chance the Millionaire print with optical was from any re-issue as well?

 

[Doug Bull]

Hi Moe,
I've had those "How To Marry A Millionaire" clips in my possession since I obtained them in late '55 or early '56.

So they are definitely from the original release and not a re-issue.
Thank God for Glorious IB Technicolor.

I collected thousands of 35mm film off-cuts when I was a kid during the 50s.
It was my baptism into the magical world of celluloid.


Doug.

 

[Adam_S]

I just got On the Waterfront in the BN sale. I don't want to keep beating a dead horse, my question is a bit sideways to that.

in the about the transfer/aspect ratio in the booklet they mention that cinematographer Boris Kaufman brought 1.66:1 with him from Europe and that's why he framed the film at 1.66:1.

My question is, which films did he shoot in Europe in 1.66:1 before dashing off to America to teach everyone how to shoot widescreen?

IMDB lists only shorts and documentaries in the early fifties for Boris Kaufman. I know IMDB can be incomplete, so was it common for shorts and documentaries to be 1.66:1 in the early fifties? Or is IMDB missing some significant features in his career? Or perhaps some of Kaufman's films listed with later dates were shot before On the Waterfront and used 1.66:1?

or was 1.66:1 a particularly Europe thing that just was absorbed osmosis by all cinematographers of european extraction instantly in the early/mid fifties? Was it like a viral infection? (Note sarcasm)

 

[Yorkshire]

"The dominant aspect ratio at British Studios between 1955-1970 WAS 1.75. This is based on research going through trade listings of hundreds of British films, as well as studio archives and other primary sources. 1.85 was the second most listed aspect ratio, with 1.65/1.66 a distant third."

Repeat this often and share on as many sites as possible.

It's worth repeating:

- Not a single director/cinematographer approved transfer released by Criterion from this country/era (British 1955-1970) supports this
- Several people who have worked for the BFI have said they've never seen evidence for 1.75:1 as a common ratio for British films at the time
- Most BFI releases and/or restorations (including director/cinematographer approved transfers) from the country/era do not support this either
- The BFI will have access to all of the resources used here, and far more, and each newly restored title will be researched by a full time expert with full & unhundered access to the BFI's extensive archicves not a enthusiastic amateurs working in their spare time with limited access to resources

The British Film Institute are not perfect, but they're as close as it gets to a definitived resource on matters relating to British cinema.

This is not to say that Crossplot's research is wrong, just that we appear to have different authorities saying different things, and unless we have something definitive we have one of two options:

1 - Keep an open mind
2 - Choose the most trusted resource

No offence to Crossplot and Bob's excellent research, but I'm going to take the BFI every time.

Steve W

 

[John Hodson]

The BFI is generally a trusted resource. The BFI is not infallible. They have been known to present films on home video not in their OTAR (Permissive / Bread springs to mind, though they are not the only examples).

The BFI would do well to examine Bob / Crossplot's research.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I hear William Friedkins Sorceror got a restoration and will be released by Warner Bros on blu ray, what is the aspect ratio, i have read conflicting reports but i suspect it's 1.85:1, anyone confirm this. ?

 

[Keith Cobby]

My perception has always been that the predominant AR for British films during this period was 1.66:1, so I am surprised and confused!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I just got On the Waterfront in the BN sale. I don't want to keep beating a dead horse, my question is a bit sideways to that.

in the about the transfer/aspect ratio in the booklet they mention that cinematographer Boris Kaufman brought 1.66:1 with him from Europe and that's why he framed the film at 1.66:1.

My question is, which films did he shoot in Europe in 1.66:1 before dashing off to America to teach everyone how to shoot widescreen?

IMDB lists only shorts and documentaries in the early fifties for Boris Kaufman. I know IMDB can be incomplete, so was it common for shorts and documentaries to be 1.66:1 in the early fifties? Or is IMDB missing some significant features in his career? Or perhaps some of Kaufman's films listed with later dates were shot before On the Waterfront and used 1.66:1?

or was 1.66:1 a particularly Europe thing that just was absorbed osmosis by all cinematographers of european extraction instantly in the early/mid fifties? Was it like a viral infection? (Note sarcasm)

Sigh.

It's the same don't-bust-the-myth mentality that leads some people to believe that studios and archives are always correct.

Our new original research from documented, primary source materials is busting some long-standing beliefs and people don't like that.

After all, some foolish people STILL insist that 3-D features were shown anaglyph in 1953. "Roger Ebert said so."

Yeah, then it must be true...

 

[Keith Cobby]

You're a lucky chap Bob, meeting Rhonda Fleming. Not much of her work on blu-ray and I am still hoping for Slightly Scarlet, Gunfight at the OK Corral, Out of the Past, in fact all of them. I guess the problem is that many of her films were for RKO and Paramount, and we all know where they are now!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thank you, Keith. She could not have been nicer!

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I hear William Friedkins Sorceror got a restoration and will be released by Warner Bros on blu ray, what is the aspect ratio, i have read conflicting reports but i suspect it's 1.85:1, anyone confirm this. ?

I believe Friedkin told Jeff Wells, of all people, that it would be 1.85 (Wells wanted it to be 1.66 for no discernible reason).

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Of course Wells wanted it to be 1.66; he was probably a huge fan of the open matte transfer on the OOP DVD and thought he would get cheated out of information he thought was important if it wasn't @ least 1.66.

 

[Matt Hough]

Hey, Bob,

What can you tell me about Battle Circus? This 1954 MGM movie was on TCM this morning, shown in 4:3, and I was wondering if that was right. I didn't notice a great amount of headroom, but I suppose it could have been zoomed in some.

Thanks for any info on it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Hey, Bob,

What can you tell me about Battle Circus? This 1954 MGM movie was on TCM this morning, shown in 4:3, and I was wondering if that was right. I didn't notice a great amount of headroom, but I suppose it could have been zoomed in some.

Thanks for any info on it.

Matt,

That film is definitely 1.37 as it was filmed from July, 1952 to September, 1952. It's release date was in March, 1953. I have the WA release of it and it's 1.37.

 

[EddieLarkin]

I just got On the Waterfront in the BN sale. I don't want to keep beating a dead horse, my question is a bit sideways to that.

in the about the transfer/aspect ratio in the booklet they mention that cinematographer Boris Kaufman brought 1.66:1 with him from Europe and that's why he framed the film at 1.66:1.

My question is, which films did he shoot in Europe in 1.66:1 before dashing off to America to teach everyone how to shoot widescreen?

IMDB lists only shorts and documentaries in the early fifties for Boris Kaufman. I know IMDB can be incomplete, so was it common for shorts and documentaries to be 1.66:1 in the early fifties? Or is IMDB missing some significant features in his career? Or perhaps some of Kaufman's films listed with later dates were shot before On the Waterfront and used 1.66:1?

or was 1.66:1 a particularly Europe thing that just was absorbed osmosis by all cinematographers of european extraction instantly in the early/mid fifties? Was it like a viral infection? (Note sarcasm)

That Aspect Ratio piece is a bit of an embarrassment if you ask me. As you quite rightly point out, Boris Kaufman hadn't even worked in widescreen before On the Waterfront. He left Europe in 1942, and 1.66:1 was "his customary framing?" Yeah... Nice one Criterion.

They also reiterate that he shot 12 Angry Men and The Fugitive Kind in 1.66:1, which is completely erroneous .

It's worth repeating:

- Not a single director/cinematographer approved transfer released by Criterion from this country/era (British 1955-1970) supports this
- Several people who have worked for the BFI have said they've never seen evidence for 1.75:1 as a common ratio for British films at the time
- Most BFI releases and/or restorations (including director/cinematographer approved transfers) from the country/era do not support this either
- The BFI will have access to all of the resources used here, and far more, and each newly restored title will be researched by a full time expert with full & unhundered access to the BFI's extensive archicves not a enthusiastic amateurs working in their spare time with limited access to resources

Woah woah, you never mentioned about people from the BFI stating that they've never seen evidence for 1.75:1 as a common ratio before. I'd love some sources (seriously). Though I'm surprised you'd use this as a point when you yourself have seen evidence that proves 1.75:1 WAS a common ratio. The trades may not disprove your other points, but they certainly disprove this idea that 1.75:1 barely even existed.