Aspect Ratio Documentation

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

  1. Brandon Conway

    Brandon Conway captveg

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    8,333
    Likes Received:
    1,101
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
    Real Name:
    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.
     
  2. EddieLarkin

    EddieLarkin Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    464
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Real Name:
    Nick
    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 likes this.
  3. Brandon Conway

    Brandon Conway captveg

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    8,333
    Likes Received:
    1,101
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
    Real Name:
    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.
     
  4. Vincent_P

    Vincent_P Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,867
    Likes Received:
    201
  5. Brandon Conway

    Brandon Conway captveg

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    8,333
    Likes Received:
    1,101
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
    Real Name:
    Brandon Conway
    Boom!
     
  6. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    4,675
    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

    UK standards 1957 (2).jpg
    AHDN_5B.jpg
     
  7. EddieLarkin

    EddieLarkin Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    464
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Real Name:
    Nick
    An excellent document Bob. How very telling that even VistaVision prints were recommended to be run at 1.75:1 over here.
     
    Bob Furmanek likes this.
  8. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    4,675
    Precisely, good eye Nick.

    Note that was for the anamorphic VistaVision prints.

    Non-anamorphic was 2:1.
     
  9. EddieLarkin

    EddieLarkin Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    464
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Real Name:
    Nick
    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:
     
    Bob Furmanek likes this.
  10. EddieLarkin

    EddieLarkin Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    464
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Real Name:
    Nick
    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!
     
  11. haineshisway

    haineshisway Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,135
    Likes Received:
    2,136
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    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.
     
  12. Vincent_P

    Vincent_P Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,867
    Likes Received:
    201
    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
     
  13. Brent Reid

    Brent Reid Second Unit

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    208
    Location:
    Nottingham, UK
    Real Name:
    Brent
    Error posting.
     
  14. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    309
    Real Name:
    Steve
    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
     
  15. EddieLarkin

    EddieLarkin Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    464
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Real Name:
    Nick
    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?
    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.
     
  16. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    4,675
    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.

    euro-samp_2_cr.jpg
    800_sabrina_02_blu-ray_.jpg
     
  17. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder 映画ファン

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,613
    Location:
    Scotland
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    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.
     
  18. lukejosephchung

    lukejosephchung Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,393
    Likes Received:
    391
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA., USA
    Real Name:
    Luke J. Chung
    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 likes this.
  19. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder 映画ファン

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,613
    Location:
    Scotland
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    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 )
     
    lukejosephchung likes this.
  20. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    4,675
    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.
     

Share This Page