Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[Bob Furmanek]

MARTY will be seen on Blu-ray for the first time since the original theatrical release with Delbert Mann's intended 1.85:1 compositions.

I'm happy to report that we provided the documentation to insure mastering in the correct ratio.

 

[Robert Crawford]

MARTY will be seen on Blu-ray for the first time since the original theatrical release with Delbert Mann's intended 1.85:1 compositions.

I'm happy to report that we provided the documentation to insure mastering in the correct ratio.

Great job, Bob!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thank you, Robert.

It's an important film and it will be great to finally see it as the director intended. Kudos to Frank Tarzi and Kino-Lorber for trusting documentation from primary source materials!

 

[Gary16]

MARTY will be seen on Blu-ray for the first time since the original theatrical release with Delbert Mann's intended 1.85:1 compositions.

I'm happy to report that we provided the documentation to insure mastering in the correct ratio.

Yes! That's great news. When is it due for release?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

According to MisterLime in the Kino thread, it will out in July or August.

When asked, we will continue to provide documentation on the correct aspect ratio for these early widescreen films.

 

[haineshisway]

Thank you, Robert.

It's an important film and it will be great to finally see it as the director intended. Kudos to Frank Tarzi and Kino-Lorber for trusting documentation from primary source materials!

Marty-web.gif

So, I have to wear socks when I watch?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I was just asked by a journalist about our track record for OAR research and studio mastering.

Off the top of my head, here are the titles where our original documentation made a difference:

DIAL M FOR MURDER
CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON
ON THE WATERFRONT
SHANE
SABRINA
THE KILLERS
A HARD DAYS NIGHT
MARTY

Here's where our primary source materials for widescreen were ignored:

ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE KEYSTONE KOPS
ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE MUMMY
JOHNNY GUITAR
CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN
RIOT IN CELL BLOCK 11

Am I forgetting any titles?

 

[Brandon Conway]

I was just asked by a journalist about our track record for OAR research and studio mastering.

Off the top of my head, here are the titles where our original documentation made a difference:

DIAL M FOR MURDER
CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON
ON THE WATERFRONT
SHANE
SABRINA
THE KILLERS
A HARD DAYS NIGHT
MARTY

Here's where our primary source materials for widescreen were ignored:

ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE KEYSTONE KOPS
ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE MUMMY
JOHNNY GUITAR
CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN
RIOT IN CELL BLOCK 11

Am I forgetting any titles?

Lord of the Flies, maybe? (Not sure if you provided documentation for that one or not. A bit of a unique situation with the insight from a crewmember leading Criterion to go 1.33)

 

[Bob Furmanek]

No, I didn't provide anything to Criterion on that one.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Lord of the Flies, maybe? (Not sure if you provided documentation for that one or not. A bit of a unique situation with the insight from a crewmember leading Criterion to go 1.33)

Regarding Lord of the Flies, I forgot to post this very intriguing interview answer from the director from the Summer 1963 issue of Sight & Sound, who had been asked how he feels about improvisational shooting vs. more traditional controlled shooting:

When you take that answer with the fact that a great deal of the film looks like your typical run of the mill widescreen composition, but that regardless Brook, the DP and Gerald Fiel went with 1.33:1 for the Laserdisc, and later Fiel alone went with 1.37:1 for the Blu-ray, I think it's clear what happened in this particularly unique case.

As Brook says, two thirds were shot traditionally (i.e., controlled and made sure to look best at 1.66:1-1.85:1), whilst the rest was shot improvisationally, a "newsreel" style (crucially, by Fiel himself). I guess they all felt that a lot of this footage looked poor in widescreen and felt open matte was best where possible (i.e, on home video). It's the only explanation that considers everything. I've felt happy to watch the Blu-ray in 1.37:1 since reading the interview.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Unfortunately, all three widescreen FRANCIS films are full-frame on the new DVD release.

Sigh...

 

[Matt Hough]

Unfortunately, all three widescreen FRANCIS films are full-frame on the new DVD release.

Sigh...

Capture.JPG

c2.JPG

c3.JPG

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Gary16]

Too bad I already bought it but I could return it since I haven't opened it. Decisions. Decisions.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

They're probably older transfers, especially NAVY because I'm told it barely works when masked to 1.85 on the display. I bet it's been manipulated and zoomed in.

Any film composed for 2:1 should not look tight at 1.85!

So far as returning it, do you really think they're going to do another master on these films? They had one chance to do it right and you see the results.

VERY frustrating.

 

[Gary16]

I would really not send it back. Just always hoping they'll get the message eventually. So I guess Univetsal can now say "abbott and Costello and Francis" never made any widescreen movies.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Here's a fascinating article found by Jack Theakston. It's from the February 1955 issue of INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST, the leading industry trade journal for professional film operators. It illustrates the turmoil and efforts to establish a standard for widescreen presentation.

That same month, on February 10, 1955, in an effort to "stabilize shooting methods in British studios," the Camera Technical Committee of the British Film Producers Association began recommending 1.75:1 as the optimum ratio for British productions. Cinematographers will be instructed to compose shots loosely in order to work from 1.66:1 up to 1.85:1, with 1.75:1 being considered ideal.

 

[JoHud]

They're probably older transfers, especially NAVY because I'm told it barely works when masked to 1.85 on the display. I bet it's been manipulated and zoomed in.

The transfer of that and the other two aren't that old, definitely appears DVD-era and look better that a lot of their TCM loan-outs. About on par with the A&C transfers. But t does seem zoomed one way or another.

So far as returning it, do you really think they're going to do another master on these films? They had one chance to do it right and you see the results.

Yeah, this is the best we'll get for a long while. It took them 10 years just to get the last thee out on DVD.

 

[Gary16]

I have the first Francis on the original MCA Discovision CAV laserdisc. I'll have to compare it to see if the DVD transfer is that old.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

From April 1947 to January 1963, Robert A. Mitchell contributed monthly articles to International Projectionist. These were highly detailed, technical papers covering all aspects of motion picture projection and technology.

On his passing in March 1965, he was described as "an acknowledged authority in his field."

His 1957 book "Manual of Practical Projection" is essential reading, containing the best of his technical articles up to that time.

Despite our research and documentation, some people still cling to the belief that academy ratio films were being exhibited hand in hand with widescreen films in the mid-1950's.

Case in point: Gary Tooze (DVD Beaver) stated the following in his April 26 review of THE MOLE PEOPLE on Blu-ray:

Like The Monolith Monsters this is another Blu-ray from Anolis out of Germany. I'll be duplicating some of the comments from there. Duplicating that release this Blu-ray of The Mole People has the aspect ratio alteration from the 1.33:1 transfer in the The 6-disc Classic Sci-Fi Ultimate Collection to SuperScope 2.0:1 widescreen (as was 1956's Invasion of the Body Snatchers Blu-ray). We've added a couple of capture comparisons below. You can see you are losing and gaining information (mostly losing top and bottom). This was the time of the ambiguous ratios - some theatres equipped for widescreen - others not. The 2.0:1 was considered an 'in-house' ratio used by Universal and although filmed 'full' was matted depending on each individual theater's projectionist. The 2.0:1 looks okay - well, I'm not going to quibble about composition in this film.

That's not true. When THE MOLE PEOPLE was released in December 1956, the vast majority of theatres were converted to widescreen.

Robert A. Mitchell's comments in a June 1956 article concerning the status of 1.37:1 as a presentation format should set the record straight.

 

[JoHud]

Yes, that's definitely a myth. The only time any such ambiguity existed was at the very dawn of widescreen conversion in mid-1953. But saying the same about features from 1956-1957? No way. Monolith Monsters and The Mole People don't look right in 1.33:1. They were clearly framed for widescreen. Even cropping the DVDs confirmed it.

Though for some reason, The Deadly Mantis looked too cramped when the DVD was cropped to widescreen. I suspect that particular transfer or source print is zoomed.