Aspect Ratio Documentation

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

  1. AllenPerks

    AllenPerks New User

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    1
    Real Name:
    Allen Perkins
    Okay so I just finished watching the 1.66:1 version of Curse of Frankenstein, as seen on the newish Blu-ray, and was underwhelmed by how not bad the framing was. It looked fine to me. Sure, a handful of shots are fairly tight, but they don't look "wrong." It seems as if they were meant to appear that way. This doesn't look like a fullscreen-composed movie mutilated to 1.66:1, it just looks like a sleekly-shot 1.66:1 movie. And as others have noted in this thread, posting random screencaps with heads nearly cut is misleading and says nothing about how this version looks in general, and it's quite common to see heads get a little trimmed in movies anyway. The new kids running Hammer may insist that the movie was originally fullscreen, but at least they gave us an option to view, presumably, the accurate framing. Just wanted to offer my two cents for anybody who happens to read this post.
     
    nara likes this.
  2. nara

    nara Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    751
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    UK
    Real Name:
    Hugh
    Only after the outcry that followed their original intention.
     
  3. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder 映画ファン

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,614
    Location:
    Scotland
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    I have read the aspect ratio for Mary Poppins and The Nightmare Before Christmas is 1.66:1, is this correct, i ask because i'm having difficulties understanding such an aspect ratio because surely North American cinemas would only be equipped to show these movies at 1.85:1, i could ask the same question about Disney's The Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians since the framing on the blu ray releases at 1.78:1 seems tight in a number of scenes.
     
  4. nara

    nara Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    751
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    UK
    Real Name:
    Hugh
  5. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder 映画ファン

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,614
    Location:
    Scotland
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
  6. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,800
    Likes Received:
    5,345
    From the Mary Poppins pressbook:
     
    FoxyMulder and Mark B like this.
  7. Stephen_J_H

    Stephen_J_H All Things Film Junkie
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    714
    Location:
    North of the 49th
    Real Name:
    Stephen J. Hill
    ....and not to steal Bob's thunder. but I believe 1.75:1 was the preferred aspect ratio for most Disney titles during this period (1950s-70s). Any exceptions were either Scope or 70mm. The Nightmare Before Christmas has been 1.66:1 as long as widescreen versions have been available.
     
    Bob Furmanek likes this.
  8. Randy Korstick

    Randy Korstick Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2000
    Messages:
    3,451
    Likes Received:
    1,120
    Yep Including the Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh which I think was finally released in its correct ratio on blu-ray. The DVD was badly framed at 1.33:1 instead of the correct 1.75:1. The 3 shorts were released theatrically originally in 1966, 1968 and 1974 before being put together as a film in 1977. Now if only Universal would go back and correct their botched 50's sci-fi collections.
     
  9. Stephen_J_H

    Stephen_J_H All Things Film Junkie
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    714
    Location:
    North of the 49th
    Real Name:
    Stephen J. Hill
    Bob,
    I was recently watching The Phantom Tollbooth on my PVR. It was a flat transfer that crops extremely well to 1.78:1. Is the AR 1.85:1?
     
  10. moviebuff75

    moviebuff75 Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    307
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Real Name:
    Eric Scott Richard
    I worked for General Cinema when "The Nightmare Before Christmas" was released and it was definitely shown at 1.85:1.
     
  11. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,800
    Likes Received:
    5,345
    I don't have any documentation but a January 1970 non-anamorphic release from MGM would most likely be 1.85:1.
     
  12. Mark B

    Mark B Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Saranac Lake, NY
    Real Name:
    Mark
    The WB Archive DVD is 1.85:1.
     
  13. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,800
    Likes Received:
    5,345
    Thanks, Mark.

    Somebody wrote via our website and asked about MARTY. I'll share my response here in case anyone is interested.

    MARTY began filming for widescreen on September 7, 1954 with location shooting in the Bronx. The interiors were done at the Goldwyn studio in Hollywood starting November 1, 1954.When reviewed by Boxoffice on March 26, 1955, 1.85:1 was the recommendation for exhibitors.

    Marty-3.26.55-top.jpg
     
  14. EddieLarkin

    EddieLarkin Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    464
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Real Name:
    Nick
    Hi Bob. I'd be very interested to know if you have to hand any trades documentation for the U.S. release of Generale Della Rovere? It was released in the U.S. on November 21st, 1960, at least according to imdb.
     
  15. Doug Bull

    Doug Bull Advanced Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2001
    Messages:
    1,542
    Likes Received:
    642
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Real Name:
    Doug Bull
    Here's an IB Technicolor 35mm Film Frame from "Mary Poppins" It should give an idea of the aspect ratio.

    mpcomparison6.jpg


    Doug.
     
    Bob Furmanek likes this.
  16. Douglas R

    Douglas R Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    389
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    Real Name:
    Doug
    That is, indeed, 1.75:1.
     
  17. EddieLarkin

    EddieLarkin Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    464
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Real Name:
    Nick
    If the full frame image is 1.75:1, doesn't that mean Disney have cropped the BD presentation on the sides to 1.66:1, rather than opening it up top and bottom? What a joke.
     
  18. Mark-P

    Mark-P Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    3,075
    Likes Received:
    937
    Location:
    Camas, WA
    Real Name:
    Mark Probst
    They didn't scan a film print. They scanned the original negative which has much more picture information. Very few people have seen the original negative. Rumor has it that the oneg was hard-matted at 1.66:1 or less.
     
  19. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,445
    Likes Received:
    4,808
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    Bob,

    AFI lists Sabrina as being filmed in the 1.75:1 ratio back in the Fall of 1953. However, the BD release is 1.33:1 ratio. Which one is accurate?

    Edit: Never mind, as I read your earlier response to this question.
     
  20. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,303
    Likes Received:
    812
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese

Share This Page