What's new

Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

Matt Hough

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
26,155
Location
Charlotte, NC
Real Name
Matt Hough
Robert Crawford said:
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.
Thank you so much for the info, Crawdaddy.
 

Brent Reid

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Messages
813
Location
Nottingham, UK
Real Name
Brent
Bob, can you throw any light on my query in post #2988, asking whether Chaplin's A King in New York was ever exhibited in widescreen & confirm that it was actually composed for 1.85:1?
 

Bob Furmanek

Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Messages
6,708
Real Name
Bob
Brenty said:
Blimey Bob, that research is bloody brilliant! Did you turn all that lot up only after I asked my question? A pretty definitive answer; the studios really should be making far more use of your talents...

I didn't notice any AR issues with any of the other Dwan films shown. As for the actual print used for the Silver Lode restoration, I'll do some digging myself. Am about to go away again though, so bear with me!

Here's another one, though I suspect this will be much simpler:
Chaplin's last starrer, A King in New York, has only ever been issued on VHS, DVD & BD in 4:3 AR, even though it was originally released in 1957.
Although I've accepted it at that AR for years, on checking, it now occurs to me that that it looks like it's been transferred OM - there's always loads of excess head & foot room!

It's on record that ol' Charlie was no fan of widescreen in general; indeed he lampoons it in this very film. However, I assume that it would still have been released theatrically in widescreen, no? Of course, the much-belated US release was years after the rest of the world...
Brent: no luck. There's nothing on the AR in the U.S. journals I have from that period. This would be something our UK team may have to tackle...
 

Brent Reid

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Messages
813
Location
Nottingham, UK
Real Name
Brent
Thanks Bob, but do bear in mind that AKiNY was his first film made abroad, in London, & released everywhere except the US in 1957, following Charlie's 1953 exile to Switzerland.
Its belated US release came in 1972, just ahead of his triumphant return for the 44th Oscar ceremony.

I daresay it was likely screened then in 1.85, but what I'm more curious about are its 1957 play dates & intended AR.
As I said before, all home video releases to date, thanks to what I've learned here, now look distinctly OM. With the caveat that DVD screenshots are not as conclusive as an actual print, there are many to be seen online, including at DVDBeaver:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdreviews17/chaplin_king_in_new_york_dvd_review.htm

If I can get proof that it was originally composed & projected in widescreen, there's a good chance I can directly influence the AR of future releases...
 

Douglas R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2000
Messages
2,947
Location
London, United Kingdom
Real Name
Doug
Brenty said:
Thanks Bob, but do bear in mind that AKiNY was his first film made abroad, in London, & released everywhere except the US in 1957, following Charlie's 1953 exile to Switzerland.Its belated US release came in 1972, just ahead of his triumphant return for the 44th Oscar ceremony. I daresay it was likely screened then in 1.85, but what I'm more curious about are its 1957 play dates & intended AR.As I said before, all home video releases to date, thanks to what I've learned here, now look distinctly OM. With the caveat that DVD screenshots are not as conclusive as an actual print, there are many to be seen online, including at DVDBeaver:http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdreviews17/chaplin_king_in_new_york_dvd_review.htm If I can get proof that it was originally composed & projected in widescreen, there's a good chance I can directly influence the AR of future releases...
I saw A KING IN NEW YORK on first theatrical release in the UK. It certainly wasn't shown 1.37 but I've got no documentary evidence.
 

Yorkshire

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,390
Real Name
Steve
EddieLarkin said:
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.
I'm always more than happy to oblige.

http://www.zetaminor.com/roobarb/archive/index.php/t-43192.html

Note, this is from MichaelB who worked for years as a projectionist and many years as a researcher for the BFI. MB had just had the theory of 1.75:1 quoted at him. His response:

"Indeed - because I worked in a repertory cinema for six years, during which I must have physically handled many hundreds if not thousands of film cans (the overwhelming majority of which would have been of distribution prints from the original theatrical release), and I can say with a fair degree of certainty that I never saw any of them specifying a 1.75:1 projection ratio on the label.Because had I spotted such a thing, I'd have immediately flagged it up with my boss, because we could only show 1.66:1 or 1.85:1, not anything in between. (We had masking for four ratios: Academy, 1.66:1, 1.85:1 and Scope). I suspect had we encountered such a thing, we'd have shown it in 1.66:1, which would make very little practical difference and would ensure that the audience saw everything that was intended to be seen - but I honestly don't remember being involved in having to make such a decision.Same with the years I spent at the BFI examining 35mm archive copies on Steenbecks - again, the optimum aspect ratio would be printed on the label, and I honestly don't recall ever seeing 1.75:1 being specified. And the prints I examined included dozens from precisely the 1950s-70s period we've been talking about."

If all or almost all British films from the era were 1.75:1, surely he would have remembered this.

We're not talking about asking him to remember the aspect ratio of one film many years later, but he can't recall seeing a single one marked as 1.75:1, but plenty marked as 1.66:1.

Just to be clear, I'm not making grondiose claims about this being definitive.

What I am saying is that things like this, in conjunction with the Criterion director/cinematographer approved transfers, and the BFI's own director/cinematographer approved transfers, throw at least some real doubt over claims that, unless there's other evidence, we should slate all British late '50s/'60s non-'scope widescreen films as 1.75:1.

It's very clear (very clear indeed, Eddie) that some people want the word to be spread that it's a done deal, that it's been proved, that there is no doubt at all, even in the last week of this thread.

I'm just saying there appears to be conflicting evidence from very reliable sources which needs to be taken into consideration.

And that anyone who dares mention any of it in this thread is a 'troll'.

That's not the true spirit of the research this thread should be about.

Steve W

ps. BTW, if you go over to the dedicated British film forums you'll find them littered with projectionists, etc, with the same memories - all of them apparently deeply flawed - that the films they handled in the era were predominantly clearly marked as being for projecion at 1.66:1. I'm not going to collect and quote every one of them, but you can find them easy enough if you're looking for them.

SW
 

Yorkshire

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,390
Real Name
Steve
Bob Furmanek said:
That quote says it all.

Nick: please don't feed the troll.
Sorry Bob, but that's bang out of order.

The BFI has an extensive library and a small army of pressional researchers with unrestricted and immediate access to any and of of what the library holds.

People not working for the BFI need to make appointments, request documentation in advance and then, if the documents throw something up, must make another appointment to see something else.

It is not trolling to point out that non-staff simply don't have the same facility to research and ease of access as BFI research staff.

And it's a very good trick to use that insult as an excuse to avoid the very reasonable points made.

I respect and appreciate the amount of work and research yourself and others have put into this. But that does not mean that you can ignore any other evidence, nor call anyone who raises it a 'troll', nor use that as an excuse to respon to the reasonable points raised.

I'm actually very happy to concede points with evidence.

If you can quote someone from Criterion, or one of the directors/cinematographers involved in approving a transfer as saying the 1.66:1 ratio they approved is incorrect, I'll happily accept it.

Ditto any BFI release.

But you cannot simply quote a few trade papers printed 50 years+ ago, then point blank refuse to listen to anything else.

I'm not saying the trades are definitely wrong. I'm just saying that, where there's other evidence which contridicts them, you must take that evidence into account.

And when that involves director/cinematographer approval, and numerous releases researched by an institution as upstanding as the BFI, you cannot just wave your hand and say they're just believing a 'myth'.

It would be nice if we can discuss all evidence constructively.

Steve W
 

John Hodson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2003
Messages
4,627
Location
Bolton, Lancashire
Real Name
John
Indeed; contemporary projectionists memories are always interesting to read. As per 'grand todger' (great name) from here:
first start work as projectionist in 1957 for rank organisation. odeons and gaumonts used to have wide screen ratio of 1.66 and prints were nearly all masked. ranks had funny idea of when we showed cinemascope the top mask on screen would drop and sides would go out. bit of a cop out.a.b.c. cinemas used to vary between 1.75 and 1.85 and sides would go out for `scope.if one can get grubby hands on some old prints you should find that they were nearly old masked.granada cinemas always seemed to have the really big screens and 1.75.seem to remember first mighty epic of wonder ranks showed in `scope was "sign of the pagan". there was some dispute with fox at the time.life is not perfect unless it is in vistaVisionmost odeons and gaumonts would have been showing 1.66 and a.b.c. showing 1.75/85 by end of 1954...

...I think that 1:66 was a compromise as it was easy to frame the shots and leave it rather then franticly rack the picture up and down. In those day we used to have a seperate show on a Sunday, which was usually pre-scope films. Also we also would be showing newsreels. Pathe News logo did appear to get changed for 1:75. Some of the Rank cinemas, eg Majestic. Wembley would show VistaVision via a 2:1 aperture plate and takes the sides out using a wide angle projection lens. This particular cinema had 50ft wide screen and stuff like Stratigic Air Command looked great. There was also ranks Anomorphic VistaVision which used a 1.5 expansion ration. Ranks used to make a Variomorph which could be used to adjust expansion ratio. This would some be used to make picture fit the screen....

...worked as projectionist at twickenham studios where [The Lonliness of the] long distance runner was edite[d] and we [showed] rushes at 1:75, same for tom jones.
Of course, that particular thread also underlines the perils that rely on research conducted purely on the internet and on 'Chinese whispers'. This quote:
In The Dam Busters: A British Film Guide (I.B. Tauris, 2002), John Ramsden talks about director Michael Anderson's framing and composition in two places. On page 41, Ramsden writes that Anderson was "already telling interviewers in 1955 that he was fascinated by the creative possibilities of colour and widescreen technologies, but that he had decided on a black-and-white format and a traditional screen-ratio for The Dam Busters because he wanted to achieve the documentary feel of a film of the early 1940s." On pages 82-83, Ramsden also suggests that Anderson's choices for composition and framing were dictated by original photographs that Cmdr. Gibson and his men took themselves in 1943. Both passages indicate to me that Anderson was consciously deciding against a widescreen format. And to tell the truth, the reason I stand so adamantly behind my original claim -- at least for The Dam Busters -- is because I attended a 35mm projection of the film at a revival showing in York a few years ago, and it was definitely framed at either 1.33:1 or 1.37:1. I didn't include this info in my previous post, as I figured it was simply anecdotal evidence.For The Maggie and The Ship That Died of Shame, I have no other evidence to offer. I actually e-mailed the Information Unit over at the BFI, and they point out that aspect ratios are very hard to confirm for 1950s British films simply because no single authoritative reference work lists OARs. (Apparently, British film historians have been less concerned about OAR than Americans, which suggests that there's at least one more major history of British cinema to be done. Any takers?) They do imply that, at least until 1959's "Expresso Bongo," widescreen was always the exception rather than the rule for UK-financed productions. Notable exceptions would be the last few Powell-Pressburger productions (Oh, Rosalinda!, Battle of the River Plate, and Ill Met by Moonlight); their names carried enough weight to get financing for larger-scale productions and wider distribution in America.
We know much of this to be complete balderdash; the implcation that as late as 1959 widescreen productions were the exception rather than the rule? I'm afraid not. The Dam Busters at 1.37:1? Proven beyond doubt to be a Metroscope production. But the BFI's admission on OARs is completely understandable. For decades they, and us, have relied on nothing other than anecdotal evidence, the repetition of half-truths that have become blurry and obfuscated with each passing year. The belief that 1.66:1 dominated Europe is very deeply ingrained to the point that any other opinion is looked on with deep suspicion.

But if that opinion is back by hard fact, by documentary evidence, then the BFI - all of us - must think again, and keep digging.
 

Yorkshire

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,390
Real Name
Steve
John Hodson said:
.

But if that opinion is back by hard fact, by documentary evidence, then the BFI - all of us - must think again, and keep digging.
John, but as we've seen from the previous post I quoted, the prints from the era at the BFI have 1.66:1 on the labels, not 1.75:1.

Is that not evidence for you?

And if nor evidence enough, evidence which throws up some doubt?

Becauase the only alternative to those two is that it's evidence you've decided to simply ignore, because it doesn't fit in with your current beliefs.

I fully appreciate and largely agree with the thrust of your point - memory can be inaccurate. As I've already said, if it were one director potentially mis-remembering the ratio for one of gis films, then fair enough. But we're talking about pretty much every single film, almost every single release, from Criterion & the BFI> Are you seriously arguing that every single director and cinematographer's memory is at faul, in exactly the same way, and in a way which magically coincides with all of those labels and leaders mentioned earlier?

John, isn't that stretching credulity just a little too far?

Steve W
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,622
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Yorkshire said:
John, but as we've seen from the previous post I quoted, the prints from the era at the BFI have 1.66:1 on the labels, not 1.75:1.

Is that not evidence for you?

And if nor evidence enough, evidence which throws up some doubt?

Becauase the only alternative to those two is that it's evidence you've decided to simply ignore, because it doesn't fit in with your current beliefs.

Steve W
That avenue of thought pattern runs both ways as you seem to suffer from that as well.
 

Yorkshire

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,390
Real Name
Steve
Robert Crawford said:
That avenue of thought pattern runs both ways as you seem to suffer from that as well.
Robert, with all due respect, you're missing a very, very big difference in our positions.

John, Bob, Eddie are saying "Here's the evidence for 1.75:1, and it's a fact which we should all accept it. End of story".

I'm saying "I accept that evidence, but there's also contrary eveidence for 1.66:1 too, so it's open to doubt."

I'm not the one placing my hands over my ears and screaming "LA LA LA!" as soon an anyone brings up a point which doesn't support 'my' position.

And that's because 'my' position is not that most film were 1.66:1, but that there's evidence for most British films of the era being 1.75:1, but there's other evidence for them being mainly 1.66:1, so I'm open minded to both.

The only thing I'm arguing against is a closed-minded, "it's a done deal" mentality on either side.

Steve W
 

Yorkshire

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,390
Real Name
Steve
John Hodson said:
With the deepest respect - not that it matters a hill o' beans - I'd much rather state my own position rather than have it misintepreted for me.
Go on then.

Steve W
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,622
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Yorkshire said:
Robert, with all due respect, you're missing a very, very big difference in our positions.

John, Bob, Eddie are saying "Here's the evidence for 1.75:1, and it's a fact which we should all accept it. End of story".

I'm saying "I accept that evidence, but there's also contrary eveidence for 1.66:1 too, so it's open to doubt."

I'm not the one placing my hands over my ears and screaming "LA LA LA!" as soon an anyone brings up a point which doesn't support 'my' position.

And that's because 'my' position is not that most film were 1.66:1, but that there's evidence for most British films of the era being 1.75:1, but there's other evidence for them being mainly 1.66:1, so I'm open minded to both.

The only thing I'm arguing against is a closed-minded, "it's a done deal" mentality on either side.

Steve W
The only thing I know Steve, is that some posters are thinking you're being argumentative for the sake of being that way. Furthermore, I think some posters are done arguing with you about this matter so I think it's going to be a one direction argument going forward with those individuals.
 

Yorkshire

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,390
Real Name
Steve
Robert Crawford said:
The only thing I know Steve, is that some posters are thinking you're being argumentative for the sake of being that way. Furthermore, I think some posters are done arguing with you about this matter so I think it's going to be a one direction argument going forward with those individuals.
I suppose it depends what you mean by 'argumentative'.

If by that you mean, every time someone posts that 1.75:1 for most British films in the '50s & '60s is fact, that I'll point out that there's evidence for that but also evidence to the contrary, then yes I'll argue that pint.

Personally, I feel anyone who argues 1.75:1 is fact and states it boldly as if there's no possible chance for another point of view, these are the individuals who are inciting argument.

Steve W
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,622
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
I just want to remind everyone that there are options available to you to avoid letting this discussion get too heated. PM and I'll advise you how to do so.
 

FoxyMulder

映画ファン
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
5,385
Location
Scotland
Real Name
Malcolm
Coming from the UK i have to say i do get Steve's argument, 1.75:1 seems a strange aspect ratio, i would have thought 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 but 1.75:1 seems strange, did they perhaps compose the film for 1.75:1 which is inbetween the other two aspect ratios and release the film in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

I'd like to have more info on all this as 1.75:1 seems a weird aspect ratio to choose.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,823
Messages
5,124,029
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top