Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[Charles Smith]

haineshisway said:

They clearly asked Feil - so what? My point is a very simple one - include the way it was shot for the cinema and this other Academy version. Everyone wins.

Totally. Or at the very least, quit disabling people's zoom controls. The Oppo would have handled this film beautifully.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Some producers began shooting TV shows very loose for possible theatrical release in the 1960's, such as MAN FROM UNCLE and GREEN HORNET.

I've run some 35mm episodes of BATMAN in widescreen and they look very good. In fact, the opening logo and credits fit perfectly.

 

[TravisR]

Some producers began shooting TV shows very loose for possible theatrical release in the 1960's, such as MAN FROM UNCLE and GREEN HORNET.

I've run some 35mm episodes of BATMAN in widescreen and they look very good. In fact, the opening logo and credits fit perfectly.

I don't doubt that some shows did that but on the opposite end of the spectrum, I've seen shows from the 1990's and up into the 2000's at 1.78 that were clearly composed for 1.33. You can see edges of sets, crew members and- most frequently- empty space that would never be seen if the episode was shown at 1.33.

I don't want to derail this thread since there's another thread for this discussion.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

All this talk about SHANE and GIANT reminded me of this September 1956 piece about George Stevens and his preference for 1.66.

 

[DVDvision]

Nice. Did you gather some unseen documentation finally about which format he would prefer for Shane?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

In 1953, he was all in favor of the widescreen version. Then again, he had no choice. There are written references to some tense moments at Radio City Music Hall with Stevens and the framing.

After the dust settled, he preferred 1.37.

But he later made it clear that for non-anamorphic widescreen he preferred 1.66 to 1.85.

I was planning on a detailed, documented article but that ship has sailed.

 

[Brandon Conway]

I was planning on a detailed, documented article but that ship has sailed.

That's too bad - I'd enjoy reading that. Maybe a short-ish version?

 

[DVDvision]

Oh yes, or even a digest version in that section http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

Regarding TV shows, I would prefer discussion happens in the TV shows gone W I D E thread http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/319803-tv-shows-and-tv-movies-gone-w-i-d-e/ however anyone, feel free to post any documentation here.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thank you very much for the kind thoughts but the articles are a LOT of work and very time consuming. Every document has to be scanned and all the images are cleaned up in Photoshop. As an example, some of the newspaper ads in the aspect ratio article took hours to clean up due to the scratches and damage on the microfilm.

When the SHANE widescreen controversy was in high gear, I found dozens of documents in the trades and bookmarked each one. Our good friend Moe Dickstein even went out of his way to do research in LA.

Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury now of putting that much effort into something that's not going to pay any bills.

I'll still contribute here and share material in my files but I don't anticipate writing any more in-depth articles.

On the other hand, I believe that I have shown the quality of my work with respect to research, analysis, writing and presentation. I am available on a freelance basis and if you have any interest, please send me a PM.

But I have a bad habit: I like to eat once in a while. I hope that you understand.

Thank you!

 

[Professor Echo]

Well, my excitement over finally getting Fox Movie Channel HD and the opprotunity to see some of the (albeit rarely shown) Cinemascope movies in as proper a way as is possible on a TV was short-lived. They are cropping 2:55 and 2:35 to fit the TV screen without any black bars.

 

[Charles Smith]

Well, my excitement over finally getting Fox Movie Channel HD and the opprotunity to see some of the (albeit rarely shown) Cinemascope movies in as proper a way as is possible on a TV was short-lived. They are cropping 2:55 and 2:35 to fit the TV screen without any black bars.

Don't have the channel, but I'm sorry to hear that.
Everything old is new again. Nothing has changed when it comes to pandering to Joe Public.

 

[Charles Smith]

In the meantime, check out the very nice aspect ratio on this Lord of the Flies blurb,
as provided by .... woops ..... Criterion Collection?

 

[PaulaJ]

Well, my excitement over finally getting Fox Movie Channel HD and the opprotunity to see some of the (albeit rarely shown) Cinemascope movies in as proper a way as is possible on a TV was short-lived. They are cropping 2:55 and 2:35 to fit the TV screen without any black bars.

Fox Movie Channel is now in HD? I hope I get that soon (Direct TV doesn't have it yet).

As for the cropping to 1:78 -- it's the new "foolscreen." I see it all the time. I recorded The Professionals from the Sony HD channel but deleted it because once past the opening credits, the aspect ratio changed from 2:35 to 1:78. A travesty!

 

[FoxyMulder]

Fox Movie Channel is now in HD? I hope I get that soon (Direct TV doesn't have it yet).

As for the cropping to 1:78 -- it's the new "foolscreen." I see it all the time. I recorded The Professionals from the Sony HD channel but deleted it because once past the opening credits, the aspect ratio changed from 2:35 to 1:78. A travesty!

We're lucky here in the UK that Channel 4 shows a lot of films in HD in the original aspect ratio, the BBC is slowly starting to do the same although they still show too many films cropped to 1.78:1, i just cannot watch scope movies that have been cropped.

 

[Matt Hough]

HBO is infamous for altering 2.35:1 films to 1.78:1. It's infuriating.

 

[Brandon Conway]

In the meantime, check out the very nice aspect ratio on this Lord of the Flies blurb,
as provided by .... woops ..... Criterion Collection?

Pretty sure they present all their Three Reasons videos 1.78:1 regardless of the film's AR.

 

[Charles Smith]

I'm sure you're right. I still love it.

 

[theonemacduff]

Same foolscreen nonsense in Canada. Saw on the guide one night that The Great Raid was on, tuned in, and promptly dropped out when I saw that the original 2.35 AR had been chopped down to "fit my screen." Sigh.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

LoTF looks pretty good in 1.78

 

[DVDvision]

Just stumbled upon this page on Vera Cruz.

Looks like the transfer is zoomboxed badly (I checked the Blu-ray and it appears to use the same blurry master source as the DVD). That would explain why the grain is so large on this master (and why most shots appears framed too tight).

While the shape of the two frames is correct, the DVD shows that the transfer was made incorrectly, using only the standard Academy width from the original negative rather than the full aperture width used as the source for the Superscope print. Since the incorrect width was used, it was necessary to crop the image height to maintain the 2:1 aspect ratio. Just because the shape is correct, you're not guaranteed that the content is correct.