Aspect Ratio Documentation (5 Viewers)

[EddieLarkin]

In other news, against all expectations, Studio Canal appear to be releasing The Belles of St.Trinian's in 1.66:1, at least according to the updated specs posted here:

http://www.theartsshelf.com/2014/04/02/studiocanal-to-release-60th-anniversary-edition-of-the-belles-of-st-trinians-on-28-april-2014/

They'd previously always released the film and its later sequels in 1.33:1 (including the 1960 film, The Pure Hell of St. Trinian's!), so this is actually quite impressive for them. Well done Studio Canal!

Inexplicably though, the same site lists updated specs for An Inspector Calls also, and it's 1.37:1:

http://www.theartsshelf.com/2014/04/02/studiocanal-to-release-60th-anniversary-edition-of-an-inspector-calls-on-12-may-2014/

This despite the film being made by the same studio, during a similar production period, and looking even more so like a widescreen film than Belles does. Beggars belief.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

That's partially good news.

Somebody REALLY needs to reach out to them!

 

[EddieLarkin]

My polite email to them went unacknowledged, unfortunately. I'm surprised they didn't take the opportunity to at least tell me I had nothing to worry about in the case of Belles. Ah well.

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

There is only one problem I have, with regards to seeing films the way they were originally shown in theaters.

To start with, I'm sure there are plenty of people on this site, who share this particular interest of mine. I love seeing films with their correct opening logos, and more often than not, I find it jarring when the original logo has been replaced. My favorite plastered logos by far are ALL the United Artists Transamerica logos that were used from 1967 to 1981.

Take, for example, Raging Bull (1980). Raging Bull was filmed in 1.37:1, and presented in theaters in 1.85:1. It originally began with a B&W 1975 logo (the Transamerica T was colored in B&W), because obviously, the film was shot that way. Unfortunately, this variant of the logo was only intact on very early Home Video releases from 1981. All the versions from 1982 and onward had this logo plastered.

As you can see, there is lots of dead space in this logo, because this is an open-matte transfer. So my question is: How exactly would this logo have looked like when matted in 1.85:1 for theaters, like the rest of this film was?

 

[Professor Echo]

Bob, I asked this awhile back, but maybe you missed it. I have wondered for years if PRINCE VALIANT and THE BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH were ever projected at 2:55? Both of the Blus I have are 2:35. Do you have any documentation for these two titles? Thanks.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Sorry, I must have missed that.
Yes, both were originally shown 2.55:1.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Both of the Blus I have are 2:35.

The PRINCE VALIANT Blu is definitely 2.55:1.

 

[ROclockCK]

The PRINCE VALIANT Blu is definitely 2.55:1.

...apparently stretched horizontally to achieve that AR Eddie. And I don't think this was just a case of the CinemaScope 'mumps'*.

* At least in most shots. Look at the last two caps of Wagner surrounded by the round table knights in the background. In the 1st shot, everything in the frame looks artificially widened by approximately the same stretch, whereas in the 2nd shot, only Wagner in the foreground seems a bit 'mumpy'.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Hmm, I'm not sure I see it myself. Will have to examine it closer (in Paint!) later.

 

[ROclockCK]

What caught my attention was the width of the background heads in the 1st shot, compared to the 2nd. I mean, they're the same performers.

 

[Yorkshire]

From Kine Weekly.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Cool! You make that trip Steve?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

My polite email to them went unacknowledged, unfortunately. I'm surprised they didn't take the opportunity to at least tell me I had nothing to worry about in the case of Belles. Ah well.

Isn't it frustrating when knowledgeable people reach out to help studios get it right and they are ignored?

"Don't confuse me with the facts!"

 

[Bob Furmanek]

From Kine Weekly.

Dr.No.jpg

Thanks for sharing that, Steve!

Now that DR. NO is confirmed both in the UK and U.S. for 1.85:1, it would be great to get confirmation on the other Bond titles.

Kine Weekly is an untapped resource for OAR documentation on UK productions. I'd be VERY curious to see ratios for some of the Hammer productions.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

It appears that Kine Weekly is available for research on-line but I had no luck trying to search.
Can anyone figure this out?

http://www.uea.ac.uk/film-television-media/research/research-themes/british-film-and-tv-studies/british-cinema/kine-weekly

 

[EddieLarkin]

Yeah I linked to that a few pages back but I believe it is simply an index to help with searching the actual physical copies kept at the University of East Anglia. You search terms you're interested in and then note the record they appear in for easy finding once you're in the archive. I'd be curious to know where the document Steve posted came from, and if there's more!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thanks Nick, I missed your link. Sorry about that!

 

[Professor Echo]

Thanks to Bob, Eddie and Steve for the help on VALIANT and BLACK SHIELD. I guess they won't come out any other way, but they're still enjoyable to watch as is on Blu.I have a real affection for widescreen 50's adventure pictures and wish more would come out.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

BLACK SHIELD was also filmed non-anamorphically for presentation in 2:1.

 

[Jim*Tod]

Gee----TCM is showing THE WAY WE WERE in 1.77. The sad thing is that it is finally HD quality and the image looks better. It is just wrong. Please let TCM know you care about these things. I know they are sometimes at the mercy of the distributors, but as the last bastion of doing old movies right, we need to hold the line.