Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[EddieLarkin]

Where are these frames coming from? Youtube?

Robert, what source did you use to view the film at 1.37:1 and matted to 1.66:1?

Surely anything less than an actual print or Criterion's upcoming presentation is going to be showing a lot less image?

The copy on youtube for instance is surely going to be missing a lot on all four sides compared to Criterion's 1.37:1. Meaning any matting done to it is largely useless when discrediting 1.66:1. Same goes for any old open matte transfer done years and years ago (laserdisc? DVD?).

I'm confident any issues that crop up in matting an old transfer are not going to be issues when matting a print or Criterion's new transfer.

 

[Robert Harris]

Where are these frames coming from? Youtube?

Robert, what source did you use to view the film at 1.37:1 and matted to 1.66:1?

Surely anything less than an actual print or Criterion's upcoming presentation is going to be showing a lot less image?

The copy on youtube for instance is surely going to be missing a lot on all four sides compared to Criterion's 1.37:1. Meaning any matting done to it is largely useless when discrediting 1.66:1. Same goes for any old open matte transfer done years and years ago (laserdisc? DVD?).

I'm confident any issues that crop up in matting an old transfer are not going to be issues when matting a print or Criterion's new transfer.

My images come from Criterion, hence the vtc.

RAH

 

[EddieLarkin]

Oh. Darn.

Presumably if Criterion do go wide, they'll keep the 1.37:1 version they already have ready to go, so everyone has a choice. Everyone's happy. IF they go wide at all.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Nick, my images are taken from an old standard definition transfer.

In fact, if you have more image to work with in a fresh harvest, it would look more like it was intended for 1.85!

 

[EddieLarkin]

Coincidentally, another Siegel film is about to hit the UK market on Blu-ray and that is indeed coming in two aspect ratios, so everyone has a choice.

Spoiler

Arrow Films’ Arrow Academy label is pleased to announce the release of The Killers, coming to Blu-ray for the first time in the UK on 24th February. One of the first post-noir movies, The Killers is a sizzling sun-drenched thriller packed with shadows where the darkness at the heart of its protagonists’ souls is allowed to rot in the heat of the day. Probably best known as the film which was originally intended to be the first TV movie, but pulled by broadcasters due to what was seen as overtly graphic violence, The Killers, most importantly, is the film which established Lee Marvin: achingly cool, unnervingly relaxed and physically daunting.

This feature-packed disc will be released as a deluxe Blu-ray featuring original and newly commissioned artwork, an archive interview with director Don Siegel, new and exclusive interviews with Dwayne Epstein, author of Lee Marvin: Point Blank and Marc Eliot, author of Ronald Reagan: The Hollywood Years, alongside an exclusive collector’s booklet featuring new writing on the film by Mike Sutton, extracts from Don Siegel’s autobiography and contemporary reviews.

Here for the first time on Blu-ray, Arrow Academy is proud to release the film in both the alternate widescreen framing (1.85:1) and the more commonly seen 1.33:1/4:3 version. The Killers was originally commissioned as the first American TV movie, though it was intended from the outset to be released in European cinemas. However, following the JFK assassination, NBC became nervous about the film's subject matter, and the film debuted in American cinemas instead. But because of the original plans, previous video releases have treated The Killers as a TV movie and framed it at the then-universal TV shape of 1.33:1/4:3.

Synopsis

There is more than one way to kill a man...

"I gotta find out what makes a man decide not to run. Why all of a sudden he'd rather die."

So muses hitman Charlie (Lee Marvin) after his high-priced victim Johnny North (John Cassavetes) gives in without a fight. Obsessed with the answer, Charlie and his hot-headed associate Lee (Clu Gulager) track down Johnny's associates, and uncover a complex web of crime and deceit involving his femme fatale girlfriend Sheila (Angie Dickinson) and ruthless mob boss Jack Browning (Ronald Reagan in his last screen role).

Loosely inspired by the Ernest Hemingway story, and directed by Don Siegel (whose many other taut, efficient thrillers include Dirty Harry and the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers), The Killers was commissioned as the very first 'TV movie', but was given a cinema release because of its violence - although a cast like that really belonged on the big screen in the first place.

This super-deluxe package will be full of special features and bonus material including:

· High Definition digital transfer of the film by Universal Pictures, presented in alternative “television” and “cinema” aspect ratios
· Original uncompressed 2.0 mono PCM audio
· Optional English SDH subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired
· Reagan Kills: interview with New York Times bestselling writer Marc Eliot, author of 'Ronald Reagan: The Hollywood Years'
· Screen Killer: interview with Dwayne Epstein, author of 'Lee Marvin: Point Blank'
· Archive interview with Don Siegel (1984) from the French television series 'Cinéma Cinémas'.
· Gallery of rare behind-the-scenes images
· Reversible sleeve featuring the original poster and newly commissioned artwork by Nathanael Marsh
· Booklet featuring new writing on the film by Mike Sutton, extracts from Don Siegel’s autobiography and contemporary reviews, illustrated with original lobby cards

Will Criterion be good enough to do something similar?

 

[Doug Bull]

Geez, I've handled 35mm prints of this film so many times when I was with United Artists, but of course that was a long long time ago.
As a bit of a kid, I'm not sure I knew anything about aspect ratios back then.

Sorry, a useless posting, but a frustrating one for me reading this thread. (I never even borrowed the press book )

Back to the serious stuff...

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

The problem with seeing stills is that they don't give context to any movement in the frame. Seeing some of the scenes Bob noted both with and without matting made my projectionist eye convonced they should be matted wide. Other than the tiny bit of stock footage in the film, nothing else looked incorrect when matted; the camera consistently moved to keep a head in the wider frame. Without the matting, the camera movements don't make aesthetic sense. Being as there appears to be no studio documentation (or director/cinematographer input, obviously), this might be a perfect time for Criterion to do another dual-ratio release since the Blu-ray's ratio is down to a choice of personal preferences.I look forward to seeing the end result but I have the feeling I'll want to slip an imaginary 1.66 aperture plate in my projector.

 

[Yorkshire]

I do seem to rembember from a while ago that this thread had its title changed to 'Aspect Ratio Documentation', and that we weren't supposed to look at screen grabs, and that personal preference was no to be part of the discussion. I'm not saying that by way of criticism, just noting the point.

The only documentation we have says 1.85:1.

I have no opinion on this specific film. However, I do suspect that, this early in the game, it was always possible that widescreen wouldn't last. I'd be absolutely amazed if directors and DoPs weren't shooting with a mind that the film might be shown forever in widescreen or forever in 1.37:1.

I know the press cutting for On the Watefront said it (and other films) were being shot for projection anywhere between 1.37:1 and 1.85:1. If I'd been making a film at the time, I think I'd be wanting to keep all bases covered. Maybe Criterion should do the same.

Steve W

 

[Bob Furmanek]

When AA finally specified 1.85 as their studio ratio on November 17, 1953, they painted all upcoming releases with the broad brush of that ratio.

As my new research has uncovered, from May 6 through September 1953, they were in fact composing for 1.66.

By August 1953, every major studio had abandoned 1.37 and had converted 100% to widescreen cinematography. That's the widescreen ratio Siegel was composing for when RIOT began filming on August 17.

 

[Doug Bull]

Watched an unintentionally silly Western from 1966 called "GUNPOINT" on TV last night. (not sure how Audie Murphy and others kept a straight face)

It was run in 4.3 and surprisingly it looked quite comfortable at that ratio.
There were heaps of old stock footage used in the action scenes and these were obviously originally shot in the academy ratio.
The film had a nostalgic 50s look about it.

Is it at all possible that in 1966 they were still making the odd 1.37:1 production and if not I'm curious to know what the correct ratio was.

Doug.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Is it at all possible that in 1966 they were still making the odd 1.37:1 production and if not I'm curious to know what the correct ratio was.

I doubt it. Here's the Boxoffice page;

 

[Doug Bull]

Gee, Bob it took you long enough to answer.

It's a well regarded Audie Murphy western, but I found it quite funny.
Train crash and robbery, Horse stampede, Indian attack, the posse chase, gunfights and every other action situation under the sun.
They must have exhausted every Western stock shot at Universal. I had fun trying to identify the origins.

Thanks Bob.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Sorry it took so long, Doug.

I was trying to find some frame-grabs to illustrate the Rule of Feet!

 

[John Hodson]

Criterion have changed the listing for Riot In Cell Block 11's AR on their website; from 1.33:1 to 1.37:1...

So it looks like that's it - they are apparently closing their eyes and ears on plain fact, and turning their backs on Bob's findings in favour of not the primary AR as shot by Siegel, but the secondary. We'll get the film on BD, not as it premiered in the large theaters, but as it played on the smaller as yet to be converted screens in the sticks. Second best from the premium label.

And for what reason? Because they're obdurate? Because of some misguided preference? Criterion could so easily make everyone happy by presenting the film in both ARs. But as it stands, I'm afraid it's no sale...

BTW, in the UK, Arrow are releasing Siegel's The Killers on BD in both the AR for which it was to have been shown on TV, and the AR in which it was eventually released in cinemas. Michael Brooke, the producer of the disc for Arrow, has had this to say on another forum:

Bob Furmanek is the reason I went for a dual aspect ratio on Arrow's The Killers.I had a strong suspicion that the film had been protected for widescreen, fuelled by the evidence of my own eyes, an experimental cropping of the Criterion disc, and the fact that the film played in cinemas at a time when many no longer showed Academy films, but I needed cast-iron proof before proceeding......which Bob was happy to provide, in the form of cuttings demonstrating (a) that the film was always intended for European theatrical release from the outset, and (b) that the recommended AR for theatrical presentations was 1.85:1.So we went ahead, and I have to say that I think the film looks terrific in 1.85:1. I'd never have sanctioned a disc that only featured that ratio, but it's not a long film and we had the space.

That's the way to do it.

 

[Yorkshire]

Criterion could so easily make everyone happy by presenting the film in both ARs. But as it stands, I'm afraid it's no sale...

I don't disagree that this would be a way forward which I'd prefer. But, based on the past experience of Touch of Evil and On the Waterfront, I don't think it would make everyone happy at all.

Those multi-ratio releases were accused by many of muddying the waters. Most (though not all) of those critics are the ones now asking for this to be a dual-format release.

I'm sure Criterion are aware that you're never going to please everyone, irrespective of what you do.

But yes, I agree, for me I'd prefer to see both ratios.

Steve W

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thank you John, and I agree.

After 50-plus years of open-matte presentations, it would have been significant to see Don Siegel's first widescreen film in the way it was intended.

Criterion could have promoted the fact that it has not been seen that way since the original theatrical play-dates.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I'd rather have a 1.66 release, but I would accept dual-format...

 

[Patrick McCart]

There might be some clarity on whether Warner Bros. cartoon shorts were made for widescreen or not. The Warner cartoons tended to have a longer period between production and release. Of course, several of Warner's 1-disc DVD compilations included select post-1954 cartoons in widescreen. Some outright wrong like Lumber-Jack Rabbit (only Looney Tune in 3-D), among others. However, Warner did switch to including both 16x9 and 4x3 versions on later volumes, including a DVD with the complete Pepe le Pew. The first with the option on the disc, The Cat's Bah, released in 1954 looks quite good at 16x9. However, I was able to compare actual 35mm frames of What's Opera, Doc? (released June 1957) against Warner's Blu-Ray version. The Blu is a perfect copy of how the 35mm would be framed. No zooms or crops, but only the titles seem to be 1.85:1 safe - barely. Yet, this 1954 cartoon fits within 1.85:1. After comparing both 4x3 and 16x9, The Cat's Bah was actually re-framed on a shot-by-shot basis. Here's two shots without camera movement to show the disparity in framing. And the "That's All Folks!" tag is pretty badly off-center. (Most captures show 16x9 overlaid the 4x3)

However, I noticed that the 1961 cartoon A Scent of the Matterhorn has 1.85:1-safe titles with action underneath. In fact, the entire short seems to be framed exactly for 1.85:1. Even after checking the 4x3 version, the 1.85:1 version is consistent throughout. It has all the signs of being composed for widescreen. The following Pepe cartoon from 1962, Louvre Come Back to Me! also seems to be spot-on for 1.85:1. The preceeding short, though, Who Scent You? (released 1960) seems a bit tight for 1.85:1, despite consistent framing.

Another compilation with both 16x9 and 4x3 collects some of the post-Chuck Jones Roadrunners plus all of the "newer" shorts produced in the 1990s and 2000s. The 1965 short Chaser on the Rocks seems to have a consistent 16x9 framing, but the 1966 short Sugar and Spies has some occasional re-framing on the 16x9.

If I adjusted the 16x9 framing to be centered (as in the other captures), it's still fairly well framed. So, these shorts are probably meant for widescreen and WB just opted to adjust some shots.

Some 1961-1962 shorts don't seem to work with any widescreen framing, but that's only from working from 4x3-only versions. I'm guessing that at least some of the post-1960 cartoons were definitely meant for widescreen.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Not seen any caps of this one yet:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/anatomy.htm

The Mummy from Hammer, with a couple of 1.33:1 and 1.66:1 comparisons.

Seriously, why did they even bother? I've never seen a more pointless looking open matte alternative. It's like they just wanted to try and prove a point after the savaging they got with Curse of Frankenstein.

 

[Gary16]

Bob,

Do you have documentation for the 1954 movie version of TV's "Dragnet"? It was released by Warner Bros., but now Universal seems to have control of it.