Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[Bob Furmanek]

From Cine Technician: December 1956.

More documented evidence that should put to rest the "all widescreen UK productions are composed for 1.66:1" myth...

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Also note the reference to the 28 features being filmed in Hollywood.

All are widescreen.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Fascinating stuff.

So the Brits shot using a common headline for the various ratios on the same film. Were US productions ever specified for the same technique or was it always center crop?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Not that I'm aware of. I've certainly seen no documentation on that.

It would appear the "International Organisation for Standardisation" was looking to establish a European standard across the board. I'd love to see a copy of the British Standard B.S. 2784!

Perhaps one of our UK associates has access to that document?

Not that it really matters. The "scholars" will continue to ignore documentation from primary source materials and stick to their beliefs.

 

[Brandon Conway]

I can kinda see how the 1.66 concept came about, though. The phrase "permit for any ratio between 1.65 and 1.85" gave the films protection for the 1.66 ratio, which upon visual inspection without the documentation could have been incorrectly seen as a pattern of AR preference rather than just the wiggle room originally intended.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

That makes sense, you're probably right.

It just amazes me that nobody has made the effort to uncover this documentation before.

 

[moviebuff75]

Anyone?

 

[Gary16]

Sorry to harp on this, but is there anyone in this community who has seen both the US and UK versions of A Big Country who can give us a definitive answer about the aspect ratio issue? I will buy the UK issue instantly if there's confirmation that the problem has been solved ... the stretched appearance of the US edition is truly abominable.So far it seems we have heard from no-one who has actually seen and compared the two versions. Incredible ......Screen grabs would be the perfect way to put this matter to rest.

Just received the UK bluray of The Big Country to compare to my US copy. Results?Unfortunately they're exactly the same. Sorry to disappoint everyone including me.

 

[Persianimmortal]

Sorry you had to find out the hard way Gary, but at least you've taken one for the team - we finally have reliable verification of the status of the UK release. Disappointing that this issue hasn't been fixed, but then as others here have noted, it's probably because most people don't notice, hence haven't complained about it.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

Yes, it's at least a relief to have an answer, and to stop chasing for a corrected version.
It's odd how this type of aspect distortion is so noticeable to some (I find it totally infuriating .. .not because I'm being pedantic but because the distortion is just so annoyingly obvious) yet others just can't see it at all! I guess the same is true of colour perception ... and I have to confess to having some degree of colour-blindness in the grey-to-green shades.

 

[Adam_S]

I can kinda see how the 1.66 concept came about, though. The phrase "permit for any ratio between 1.65 and 1.85" gave the films protection for the 1.66 ratio, which upon visual inspection without the documentation could have been incorrectly seen as a pattern of AR preference rather than just the wiggle room originally intended.

Actually, I would hazard the 1.66 concept came about through two factors working in concert. One is what you mention, the other is the common top line:

1. Framed for any ratio between 1.65 and 1.85
2. Framed for a common top line.

Those two factors would create what I would call the European System.

Since Hollywood was not doing the common top line, uninformed projectionists would be used to centering hollywood films when framing. Then they would apply the same centering process to the films done under the above European System.

When you center it and mask it for 1.85, you IMMEDIATELY notice the framing is all wrong. You do not know the framing is wrong because your top line is incorrect.

You then mask it for 1.75 and you immediately notice the framing is wrong, but less so. You do not know the framing is wrong because your top line is still incorrect, though closer.

You then mask it for 1.66, and you think it looks all right. That's because your top line is more or less correct, or at least it is the most correct top line of the three centered ratios you tried.

You then notice that virtually every European film has the same problem. they are all "composed" for 1.66. They were not actually composed for 1.66, but you think they are because that's the only ratio that a centered widescreen mask works. You and the vast majority of projectionists around the world all make the same mistake and continue projecting European system films with centered masking and a fully opened up 1.66 ratio. Filmmakers and cineastes around the world see that all European system films are all projected in the same non-hollywood ratio of 1.66 and begin to attribute to the ratio all the delightful baggage it carries with it today.

 

[Yorkshire]

I think this has been raised before, but this still leaves a few issues.

We know for certain that Europe swapped to 1.85:1 at some point.

We just don't know when.

Bob's research showing documents suggesting 1.75:1 (safe for 1.66:1-1.85:1) all come from '55/'56 (apologies if I'm mistaken on this - that's all I can remember seeing).

Apart from AHDN, that's just one film in 1965, we really have no idea when the move from 1.75 to 1.85 happened, and whether it was gradual or sudden.

In addition, whilst the documents show a clear recommendation for 1.75, we really don't know to what extent the recommendations were followed.

Bob (and others) have posted a few clips from trade papers showing the correct aspect ratios of individual films. It'd be very intersting to see a compilation of these for each year from '55 onwards to see to what extent the 1.75:1 rule was being followed.

I'm not sure if Bob is able, or has time to do that, but it'd be interesting to see.

One more thing - the new document Bob has posted above isn't really new news, a new guideline, or a new recommendation at all. If you read the paragraphs before the highlighted area (bottom of column 1, top of column 2) it becomes clear that it is simply referring to the British Standard about which we are already aware.

Steve W

 

[nara]

Anyone?

I don't think the question has any relevence to aspect ratio documentation, but maybe someone can help you out.

 

[Yorkshire]

I can kinda see how the 1.66 concept came about, though. The phrase "permit for any ratio between 1.65 and 1.85" gave the films protection for the 1.66 ratio, which upon visual inspection without the documentation could have been incorrectly seen as a pattern of AR preference rather than just the wiggle room originally intended.

Brandon, I'm not sure how attitudes to authority differ in the US to the UK, but I guess they're actually quite similar.

So I'll offer you a hypothetical, and you let me know what you think.

Let's say a US government body or quango told Hollywood that all films must be shot in either 2.40:1 or 1.75:1. What do you think the response would be? A doff of the cap, a 'Yes sir!' and unquestioning obedience?

No, I thought not.

If a director wanted to shoot in 1.66:1 and saw this British Standard, what do you think they'd do? Maybe shoot in 1.66:1 but ensure none of the shots was too tight? That'd be a reasonable guess, I think. Indeed, I think even without this standard, I think that's what they'd do anyway, knowing the film would almost certainly be masked to 1.85:1 in the US.

Steve W

 

[DVDvision]

Interesting. I have no idea about when the switch to 1.85:1 occured in europe, but I own some stills taken from an original 1985 european film print of The Terminator, and as you may notice here, it's at exactly 1.66:1 format.

Here's what The Terminator editor Mark Goldblatt deduced when I bought this one to his attention:

"My guess is that this print was stuck from an unmasked 1:33 source". says Mr Goldblatt. "It was common in the eighties for film production companies and studios to forbid "hard-matting" in the camera, or even in the making CRIs or IP-INs (the printing elements from which release prints are derived). This also protected the full frame of the movie for television presentations (thus pan and scan wasn't necessary for non-anamorphic pictures)."
"Thus, in the U.S., a 1:33, or full aperture print, would be projected with a 1:85 matte, and in europe with a 1:66 matte (even though the movie was composed for 1:85). This system unfortunately allowed projectionists the option of mis-framing the presentation, if they weren't careful, resulting in cut-off heads of the actors, and in some cases boom microphones becoming visable, if they were visable above the 1:85 "safe" area. This is why we always tried to make sure that the boom microphones never entered the 1:33 frame (I don't believe that we had any in THE TERMINATOR.)"

 

[Douglas R]

I think this has been raised before, but this still leaves a few issues.

We know for certain that Europe swapped to 1.85:1 at some point.

We just don't know when.

Bob's research showing documents suggesting 1.75:1 (safe for 1.66:1-1.85:1) all come from '55/'56 (apologies if I'm mistaken on this - that's all I can remember seeing).

Apart from AHDN, that's just one film in 1965, we really have no idea when the move from 1.75 to 1.85 happened, and whether it was gradual or sudden.

I'm pretty sure the change to 1.85:1 came about during the late '60s or early '70s. i didn't notice a sudden change so I can only assume it happened gradually depending on individual theatres/films. I'm a bit surprised that I don't have a better memory of it but in those years I was living out of London where consistency of presentation wasn't the same as in London. When I returned to London in 1974 presentation was standard at 1.85:1.

 

[Yorkshire]

I'm pretty sure the change to 1.85:1 came about during the late '60s or early '70s. i didn't notice a sudden change so I can only assume it happened gradually depending on individual theatres/films. I'm a bit surprised that I don't have a better memory of it but in those years I was living out of London where consistency of presentation wasn't the same as in London. When I returned to London in 1974 presentation was standard at 1.85:1.

Cheers, Doug.

It's a very intersting area.

I mean obviously these documents give us some insight into 1955 and 1956, but after that it's a bit of an unknown quantity.

It's possible things went straight from 1.75:1 in '57, or '58, or 59, or...or possibly went from 1.75 to 1.66 in '59 and to 1.85 in '74...or maybe the 1.75 thing slipped in the early '60s and it was a 'free-for-all' until the late '70s.

I suppose what I'm saying is it would be nice to see some documentation outside of '55/'56 to see what direction this went and when.

If anyone can dig anything up, over to you.

Steve W

 

[moviebuff75]

I just figured since it was a widescreen process that someone in here would know the answer. I'm assuming that it didn't carry the credit.

 

[Vincent_P]

Interesting. I have no idea about when the switch to 1.85:1 occured in europe, but I own some stills taken from an original 1985 european film print of The Terminator, and as you may notice here, it's at exactly 1.66:1 format.

Here's what The Terminator editor Mark Goldblatt deduced when I bought this one to his attention:

6a012875de4bd4970c0163035dfddb970d-800wi.jpg

The problem is THE TERMINATOR- like Cameron's next film ALIENS- was shot hard-matted (Goldblatt has edited so many movies he probably just didn't remember). The "full frame" VHS releases were panned-and-scanned, not open-matte. My guess is the actual hard-matte in camera was around 1.66:1 to allow for any variances in projection, and the images would have been composed for 1.85:1 obviously.

Vincent

 

[EddieLarkin]

Yes, it's quite likely U.S. prints of The Terminator were 1.66:1 as well, with a 1.85:1 recommended projection ratio (1.66:1 seemed to be a common hard matte standard: Mary Poppins, Horror of Dracula and so on, and probably contributed to the widespread acceptance of 1.66:1 as a projection ratio for most British, and even some American films. It's the "total" image and people like to see everything).