Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[Brandon Conway]

My guess is that the film was matted anywhere from 1.66-1.85 in theaters depending on the country it was shown in at the time. Weir seems to prefer 1.77, as the Director's Cut of Picnic at Hanging Rock was made specifically for the Criterion release in 1998, and the DVD at that time was released 1.77 (though non-anamorphic), with a limited theatrical run at the time as well.

Would be interesting to see if there's any documentation specific to the film. Could be a Barry Lyndon-like situation.

 

[EddieLarkin]

The old non-anamorphic Criterion DVD was 1.66:1. Looking at caps, the 1.66:1 version and the 1.77:1 version have the exact same top line, with the bottom slightly reduced on the latter. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a similar case to Robocop; 1.66:1 when non-anamorphic to reduce the black bars, and then (almost) back to the theatrical ratio for anamorphic presentations. But who knows.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Huh. Could have sworn the DVD was 1.77, but been a while since I'd seen it. In any case, the new disc includes an "Extended Interview" with Weir as a bonus (presumably a new interview).

And for all we know the imdb.com listing is based off of the 1998 Criterion release.

 

[Vincent_P]

A HARD DAY'S NIGHT aspect ratio now listed as 1.75:1 : http://www.criterion.com/films/28547-a-hard-day-s-night

Vincent

 

[Brandon Conway]

Boom!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

For those readers new to this thread:

1.75:1 (as approved by the Technical Committee of the British Film Producers Association) was the European non-anamorphic widescreen standard as of October, 1955.

It was not 1.66.

Full documentation can be found here: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

 

[EddieLarkin]

An excellent document Bob. How very telling that even VistaVision prints were recommended to be run at 1.75:1 over here.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Precisely, good eye Nick.

Note that was for the anamorphic VistaVision prints.

Non-anamorphic was 2:1.

 

[EddieLarkin]

I wasn't even aware VistaVision prints were available in an anamorphic variety. I know that the 8-perf horizontal prints were rare and reserved for premieres and the like (at 2.1 according to the document), and that there were non-anamorphic 4-perf reduction prints that could be matted as desired (1.75:1 is suggested for these as well, like the anamorphic style). But why were anamorphic prints even necessary? Widescreen Museum detail their existence but do not really explain why they were offered.

edit: oh wait, I must have overlooked the following:

The benefit derived from the anamorphic print is that the frame was 33% larger than a "flat" 1.85:1 print, resulting in a brighter, sharper image on screen.

 

[EddieLarkin]

On a related note, Criterion are presenting Stuart Cooper's Overlord (1975) at 1.66:1. Twilight Time presented his follow up, The Disappearance (1977) at 1.85:1 (which of course, it looked fine at). Both were British productions. Interestingly though, he supervised the former transfer but not the latter.

I know that TT did some interviews with him (filmed at Bruce's house!), so it would be interesting if anyone who may be in direct contact with him might mention this discrepancy. Specifically if the cameras used to film Overlord were really marked at 1.66:1, or something else.

Though I wouldn't hold it against him if he finds such concern over the difference between these aspect ratios to be somewhat baffling!

 

[haineshisway]

On a related note, Criterion are presenting Stuart Cooper's Overlord (1975) at 1.66:1. Twilight Time presented his follow up, The Disappearance (1977) at 1.85:1 (which of course, it looked fine at). Both were British productions. Interestingly though, he supervised the former transfer but not the latter.

I know that TT did some interviews with him (filmed at Bruce's house!), so it would be interesting if anyone who may be in direct contact with him might mention this discrepancy. Specifically if the cameras used to film Overlord were really marked at 1.66:1, or something else.

Though I wouldn't hold it against him if he finds such concern over the difference between these aspect ratios to be somewhat baffling!

I'm seeing him soon - we're doing the soundtrack for Overlord (and it will also have The Disappearance on it, as well as another film he made called Hustle) - so I'll ask him.

 

[Vincent_P]

Doesn't OVERLORD use a lot of vintage stock footage? Maybe that's why he went with the taller 1.66:1 aspect ratio.

Vincent

 

[Brent Reid]

Error posting.

 

[Yorkshire]

I'm seeing him soon - we're doing the soundtrack for Overlord (and it will also have The Disappearance on it, as well as another film he made called Hustle) - so I'll ask him.

Bruce, that's interesting. You might want to ask him about what Criterion offered him with Overlord.

This is something that people have raised several times in this (and other) threads. Did Criterion provide a 1.66:1 and ask if that'd be okay? Or did they ask him for a specific ratio.

It'd be interesting to see how they work in this regard.

Steve W

 

[EddieLarkin]

That would be great Bruce, thanks! As Steve said, it would be interesting to know if Criterion offered 1.66:1 and had Stuart okay it, or if he specifically requested it? Also, does he recall if the film was hard or soft matted? If the former, approximately at what ratio?

Doesn't OVERLORD use a lot of vintage stock footage? Maybe that's why he went with the taller 1.66:1 aspect ratio.

You're right, and that explanation makes sense, though I'm sure 1.33:1 stock footage that can be cropped okay to 1.66:1 will also look okay at 1.75:1. Specifically though, it's how the original 1975 footage was shot that is important.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I've just seem some examples of the stunning new Blu-ray of SABRINA.

For the first time since the original theatrical play-dates nearly sixty years ago, Billy Wilder's compositions and Charles Lang Jr.'s cinematography are seen in the correct aspect ratio.

Kudo's to Ned Price, George Feltenstein and the outstanding technicians at Warner Bros. Motion Picture Imaging for trusting the primary source materials and presenting this film in the directors intended widescreen version.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I've just seem some examples of the stunning new Blu-ray of SABRINA.

For the first time since the original theatrical play-dates nearly sixty years ago, Billy Wilder's compositions and Charles Lang Jr.'s cinematography are seen in the correct aspect ratio.

Kudo's to Ned Price, George Feltenstein and the outstanding technicians at Warner Bros. Motion Picture Imaging for trusting the primary source materials and presenting this film in the directors intended widescreen version.

Are you sure Warner had anything to do with this. ?

It's been available in France for some time and likely the same transfer as this release.

 

[lukejosephchung]

Are you sure Warner had anything to do with this. ?

It's been available in France for some time and likely the same transfer as this release.

The new US reissue of "Sabrina" was redone in widescreen...the EU releases are in 1.37:1 Academy ratio sourced from an older transfer...

 

[FoxyMulder]

The new US reissue of "Sabrina" was redone in widescreen...the EU releases are in 1.37:1 Academy ratio sourced from an older transfer...

That's good to know, this doesn't happen too often, the quality should be much better then. ( I'll give Bob a like this too )

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Sadly, many of Paramount's early widescreen films have only been released in full-frame on DVD, such as RED GARTERS, LIVING IT UP, THE NAKED JUNGLE, CASANOVA'S BIG NIGHT, etc.