Aspect Ratio Documentation

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

  1. haineshisway

    haineshisway Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,164
    Likes Received:
    2,215
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    There are a couple of extreme close-ups that I'd have to see matted, but other than those there is not one shot in this film that doesn't look like it was framed for widescreen. And, as mentioned, I saw it repeatedly in 1.85
     
  2. theonemacduff

    theonemacduff Second Unit

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    the wet coast
    Real Name:
    Jon Paul
    I wondered about that too. I took some of the Beaver caps and reframed them in Photoshop, assuming a centre mask (not sure if that is the correct term), and most of them looked dandy at 1.85.
     
  3. Moe Dickstein

    Moe Dickstein Filmmaker

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    919
    Location:
    West Hollywood, CA
    Real Name:
    T R Wilkinson
    Drat. I don't even really have the option to zoom in TV because my TV assumes that all HDMI sources are correct at full frame 1.78, and my Sony player doesn't offer any sort of zoom either.
     
  4. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,332
    Likes Received:
    4,688
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    Olive is releasing a BD of The Big Combo on September 24th. I hope they don't screw the pooch by not releasing it in 1.85.
     
  5. Douglas R

    Douglas R Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    Real Name:
    Doug
    I never saw Lord of the Flies (it wasn't widely distributed) so unfortunately cannot say how it was presented in the UK but it wouldn't have been shown 1.37 in 1963, other than possibly at the National Film Theatre - which was about the only place I ever saw films in that ratio.
     
  6. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    309
    Real Name:
    Steve
    I'm sure everyone will appreciate it if we bring this thread away from subjective opinion, and back on topic to the documentation that Bob and his team have so diligently uncovered.

    To quote one of the documernts in Bob's article (I certainly hope that's allowed):

    "It is emphasised that every film should be capable of being projected at either the basic aspect ratio (1.374:1) or the wide aspect ratio (1.65 to 1.85:1)."

    If Bob's documentation is correct, every 1.37:1 film from this era should still look fine cropped to 1.85:1, so the fact that no heads are cut off at that wider ratio is apparently no indication that it wasn't composed for 1.37:1.

    Steve W
     
  7. EddieLarkin

    EddieLarkin Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    464
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Real Name:
    Nick
  8. Crossplot

    Crossplot Extra

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    11
    Steve,

    Thank you for recognising the importance of documentation. It is very important regarding your claim that “every 1.37:1 film from this era should still look fine cropped to 1.85:1”.

    The evidence you have used to support your claim is a quote from a Kine Weekly article announcing the draft of the British Standard. It appears you have misunderstood the content of the article. It’s worth highlighting the final version of the Standard would eventually be published in October 1956 as BS 2784. I’ve got a copy of the Standard and I can confirm there is NOTHING in it that recommends composing for 1.37 (whilst merely protecting for 1.85). Here is a direct quote (the bold is my emphasis):

    “Pictures for wide aspect ratios shall be so composed as to allow of their being projected at any aspect ratio from 1:1.65 to 1.1.85, inclusive, the optimum composition being for the ratio 1:1.75.”

    To put it simply, the Standard is not applicable to the composition of 1.37 films and, unfortunately, cannot be used as evidence to support your assertion.
     
  9. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,332
    Likes Received:
    4,688
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    Thank you for clarifying what the true intent of that quote was when it was published back in 1956.
     
    nara likes this.
  10. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    5,147
    Is Steve moderating this topic now?
     
  11. Adam_S

    Adam_S Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2001
    Messages:
    6,283
    Likes Received:
    113
    Real Name:
    Adam_S
    My theory is the camera operator in question only has an old TV, not a widescreen TV and he figured he wanted it to fill his screen. ;)
     
    theonemacduff likes this.
  12. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,332
    Likes Received:
    4,688
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    No, no, no, no! It's mine, it's all mine! :chatter:
     
    Bob Furmanek likes this.
  13. Mike Frezon

    Mike Frezon Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2001
    Messages:
    38,179
    Likes Received:
    5,583
    Location:
    Rensselaer, NY
    And you are welcome to it! :laugh:
     
  14. haineshisway

    haineshisway Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,164
    Likes Received:
    2,215
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    This is what Steve does and most people are thoroughly tired of it. I'm sure he's a nice enough fellow, but as someone has already pointed out, he is never wrong and just quotes selectively, misinterprets (as has been beautifully pointed out in your post), and has little to no understanding of film or formats. The article quoted was an EARLY article and by 1963 everything had been widescreen for almost a decade. There is no confusion about Lord of the Flies - it was not EVER shown during its initial release anywhere in Academy. It's really that simple. The filmmakers knew how their film would be shown, and unless they were making it to be shown in one theater in London and not anywhere else then they framed their film for the way it would be projected.
     
  15. theonemacduff

    theonemacduff Second Unit

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    the wet coast
    Real Name:
    Jon Paul
    Here's one of the Beaver's screencaps with ratio lines marked, accurately as I can make 'em.

    Lord of the Flies mask lines.jpg

    Piggy was always my favourite, in the book and the film.
     
  16. Lord Dalek

    Lord Dalek Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,917
    Likes Received:
    386
    Real Name:
    Joel Henderson
    Problem with that example is mask lines are usually not dead center as you have them.
     
  17. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    5,147
    If not dead center, then where?
     
  18. haineshisway

    haineshisway Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,164
    Likes Received:
    2,215
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    That shot frames perfectly at either of those ratios.
     
  19. Moe Dickstein

    Moe Dickstein Filmmaker

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    919
    Location:
    West Hollywood, CA
    Real Name:
    T R Wilkinson
    SInce so many have said these lot were "amateur filmmakers" to assert the 1.37 argument perhaps their naivety led them to crop center rather than common top...
     
  20. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    5,147
    I don't believe the early UK widescreen common top approach for framing was used by that point.
     

Share This Page