Aspect Ratio Documentation

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Bob Furmanek, Mar 20, 2012.

  1. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,666
    Likes Received:
    4,712
    Thanks for the confirmation, Peter.

    Just about every screening of a non-anamorphic widescreen film from the 1950's has been shown full-frame in New York City repertory theaters since the 1970's.

    "There's an image on the film, it must be seen."

    The 3-D Blu-ray releases of DIAL M FOR MURDER and CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON would have been 1.37:1 if we hadn't provided the proper documentation to WB and NBC/Universal.

    It's very gratifying when important people pay attention to new research findings.
    "I’m appreciative as it’s a great help in solving the mysteries in our vault."
    Ned Price/Warner Bros.
    Vice President of Mastering - June 6, 2013
     
  2. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder 映画ファン

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,613
    Location:
    Scotland
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    Would all the 1.75:1 productions work at 1.66:1 or even 1.85:1 as well, would they be composed with safety in mind, right this second i'm thinking Hammer's Dracula which i have on blu ray, it seems to work, i'd rather have all the films as shot though, when was 1.75:1 phased out for 1.85:1. ?
     
  3. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,666
    Likes Received:
    4,712
    Sure, flexibility was the idea.

    By early 1955, the Camera Technical Committee of the British Film Producers Association was recommending 1.75:1 as the optimum ratio for British productions. Cinematographers were instructed to compose shots loosely in order to work from 1.66:1/1.65:1 up to 1.85:1, with 1.75:1 being considered ideal.

    That standardization was implemented and in effect by October 1955.

    1.75:1 appears to have remained the primary UK standard through the late 1960's, perhaps even later. Calling Crossplot?
     
  4. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder 映画ファン

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,613
    Location:
    Scotland
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    That's good to know, your site has some great information and hopefully Hammer and other studio's will use it.
     
    Bob Furmanek likes this.
  5. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,666
    Likes Received:
    4,712
    Thanks, Malcolm.

    Sadly, Hammer ignored our findings and when they did attempt a matte on the widescreen CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, they botched it terribly!
     
    HDvision likes this.
  6. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,236
    Likes Received:
    4,615
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    Bob,

    You probably answered this question long ago, but today I was watching Pork Chop Hill on TCM. They presented it in 1.85 as it looks to be correct? I wish it was released again in its proper OAR.
     
  7. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,666
    Likes Received:
    4,712
    Yes, 1.85:1 is correct.

    I agree, a GREAT film!

    Pork Chop 5.11.59.JPG
     
  8. clambake

    clambake Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    46
    Real Name:
    Jamie
    Hey Bob, I wanted to see the pic of you and Rhonda (Im assuming there was one posted!) but no pic is showing up for me. I've tried checking this thread with Firefox and Chrome too, but no luck. Anyone have any suggestions, maybe I have some board setting turned on/off or something? Thanks.
     
  9. theonemacduff

    theonemacduff Second Unit

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    109
    Location:
    the wet coast
    Real Name:
    Jon Paul
    Yeah, no pic showing for me either, and I really wanted to see it. As to trolls, one way to define them is as those who are never wrong, whichever way the discussion turns.
     
  10. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,666
    Likes Received:
    4,712
    Sorry, I only put it up for a few days. I didn't want it ending up as an image on Google!
     
    ahollis likes this.
  11. Stephen PI

    Stephen PI Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    101
    This was part of the description on Amazon UK for the forthcoming blu ray release on "Brides of Dracula" ;

    .....Universal has remastered this to the correct 16x9 2:1 LB of the original US release......

    Any comments?
     
  12. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,666
    Likes Received:
    4,712
    UI had been the prime advocate of 2.1 in the widescreen derby of 1953. They first rolled film for that ratio on June 3, 1953 with production of BORDER RIVER.

    However, by 1960, there was only one feature on their release schedule composed for 2.1: PORTRAIT IN BLACK. All other non-anamorphic titles were 1.85:1, including BRIDES OF DRACULA and its co-feature, THE LEECH WOMAN.

    Brides.JPG
    Portrait.JPG

    Brides 4.4.60.jpg
    Brides 5.23.60.jpg
     
  13. Lord Dalek

    Lord Dalek Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,880
    Likes Received:
    370
    Real Name:
    Joel Henderson
    So anybody know why Coppola has decided to use the Univisium ratio on Twixt?
     
  14. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    309
    Real Name:
    Steve
    Wow, didn't know that. Wasn't it 1.85:1 in cinemas? If so, I think that's the first time I've seen it used to crop 1.85:1 top & bottom (as opposed to 2.40:1 at the sides).

    Steve W
     
  15. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,666
    Likes Received:
    4,712
    Attempts at standardization on aspect ratios are nothing new. Exhibitors were calling for it from the summer of 1953 until late 1956!

    In fact, here's the quote from Kine Weekly when 1.75:1 was adopted as the UK standard in 1955:

    "Every projectionist will welcome the decision (reported in KINE last week) that the British Film Producers' Association has approved its technical committee's proposals for standardization on aspect ratios.

    This is a matter in which the British industry, most commendably, has given a lead to the world, including the United States. The decision to standardise at a ratio of 1.75 to 1, tolerable for both 1.65 to 1 and 1.85 to 1, means that, very soon, the man in the box should be able to relax from the tiresome necessity of re-racking to prevent either topping or tailing his picture."
     
    John Hodson likes this.
  16. Professor Echo

    Professor Echo Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,947
    Likes Received:
    1,035
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Glen
    Well, I finally broke down and bought THIS ISLAND EARTH even though it's full frame. So since Universal has just been waiting for me to buy it, you'll have me to thank when it gets announced for Blu.
     
    ahollis likes this.
  17. GregK

    GregK Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2000
    Messages:
    1,010
    Likes Received:
    188
    There is a 1.85:1 version of THIS ISLAND EARTH available as a Region 2 DVD release.
    http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/reviews/tie.htm

    Slightly off topic here, but I for one would love to see the inclusion of the original Perspecta sound track for this title.. Properly decoded, of course!
     
  18. haineshisway

    haineshisway Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,141
    Likes Received:
    2,139
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    There was a lot of contentious posting about the aspect ratio of Lord of the Flies - Criterion's transfer being full frame and supervised by one of the film's camera operators who was also one of the film's editors. Now, we all know that the film was not ever shown full frame, at least in the United States of America, and most likely anywhere else because the majority of theaters no longer had the ability to show full frame. It played here in 1.85 - what it played in in England is anyone's guess, but what's not a guess is it wasn't full frame - so 1.66 or 1.75 or 1.85 would be the other options. So, what are we to surmise when one of the film's operators and one of its editors make this decision on a film that is fifty years old. Would Peter Brook, even making a low-budget independent film, purposely shoot his film in a format that wouldn't be shown anywhere except TV? Would the film's producer allow the film to be made in a ratio that could not be shown? I saw this film twelve times back in 1963 in my local theater that showed these kinds of films back then - in 1.85, which is all they could show aside from scope.

    But now having watched it, the evidence is clearly on the screen - there is no shot on view that wouldn't frame nicely at 1.66, 1.75 or 1.85, whereas mostly every shot in the film looks unbalanced in full frame. The real convincer comes early on when the camera does the long tracking shot showing each of the boys on the beach. You'll note how the operator keeps adjusting the height of the frame to be consistent. That says everything you need it to say. In full frame those moves make no sense. Matted, they make perfect sense. I'm sorry, but if they can do three versions of On the Waterfront (none of which are correct, BTW, since the image was zoomed), why can't they present Lord of the Flies the way it was shown in theaters and then this other thing?
     
  19. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,666
    Likes Received:
    4,712
    Camera movement to keep action in widescreen safe is a sure-fire giveaway!
     
  20. Charles Smith

    Charles Smith Extremely Talented Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    5,156
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Location:
    Nor'east
    Real Name:
    Charles Smith
    That got me in the mood, so I just threw this one in to see how it looks.

    Now, just guess which company is disabling the Blu-ray zoom button. Go on, take a guess. I can zoom to a full 1.78:1 using the TV's limited zoom function, but that noticeably cuts a little off the sides. So there's no enjoying the nice zooming gradations of the Oppo player on Criterion "full frame" Blu-rays.
     

Share This Page