Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[Doug Bull]

AMAZING, what else can I say about the article. ( oh yes. I love it )

Bob you are a true legend mate.

Doug.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thank you, Doug!

Even I was surprised at how quickly 1.37 was abandoned. I felt a little sorry for the format but it did have a pretty good run from 1932 to 1953.

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

Bob, I am impressed. Please keep it up. Especially with television during the 60's and 70's.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thanks but this will be the last article for a while.

I've got this bad habit: I like to eat.

I've just added info about MGM filming all of their 2.55 films in 1.75 as well. Thanks to Gary A. Hoselton for the confirmation!

 

[john a hunter]

Thanks but this will be the last article for a while.

I've got this bad habit: I like to eat.

I've just added info about MGM filming all of their 2.55 films in 1.75 as well. Thanks to Gary A. Hoselton for the confirmation!

And that would include Seven Brides would it not? Great article.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Yes, sir.

 

[Yorkshire]

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?

Bob, I don't want to open an old argument, but I know we like to keep things clear and (above all) accurate.

When Hammer were prepping CoF they said they were going to release it in 1.37:1 only.

You posted at their blog saying that it was probably 1.66:1 with a centre matte.

They then said they'd include both 1.66:1 cntre matte (as you suggested) and 1.37:1.

After the release (or certainly very close to it) you uncovered the documentation about 1.75:1 with a common top.

If I've mis-remembered any of that I apologise. But I don't think they ignored you.

Now fair enough, they did say they thought 1.37:1 was correct I suppose...but then again so did Criterion with OtW and you told them it was 1.85:, so I suppose either CoF needs moving up to the first list or OtW down to the second.

As I say, not opening old arguments, just wanted this for clarity and accuracy.

Excellent new article, by the way.

Steve W

 

[Douglas R]

I'm pleased to announce that my new article, THE FIRST YEAR OF WIDESCREEN PRODUCTION, is now on our website. It covers every feature - and most of the live action shorts - that were composed for widescreen in 1953. Hopefully, it will help to dispel many of the myths associated with this era. http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen The article took nearly a year to put together with a great deal of research and fact-checking in order to insure accuracy. I hope that you enjoy it. Please share the article so that more people will understand this turbulent period of transition within the industry. Thank you very much!

Fantastic Bob. An invaluable piece of work. It would be great to have something similar for the UK but I fear it's not possible due to a dearth of documentation. The UK trade papers rarely gave aspect ratio details and the studios and distributors are too often clueless!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thank you, Doug!

There might be more documentation in Kine Weekly than we realize. Somebody with access just needs to do the research. But I agree, it needs to be done, especially on the early years!

 

[haineshisway]

Let me chime in and say bravo for a terrific article - there will still be naysayers who will never understand because they know more, but you have done a great service for film history, the studios, and hopefully a few people will be convinced, but not the usual suspects we all know from elsewhere.

 

[RolandL]

I'm pleased to announce that my new article, THE FIRST YEAR OF WIDESCREEN PRODUCTION, is now on our website. It covers every feature - and most of the live action shorts - that were composed for widescreen in 1953. Hopefully, it will help to dispel many of the myths associated with this era.

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

The article took nearly a year to put together with a great deal of research and fact-checking in order to insure accuracy. I hope that you enjoy it.

Please share the article so that more people will understand this turbulent period of transition within the industry.

Thank you very much!

Great job Bob! I always liked this promotion for CinemaScope. The AR is over 4:1 (should be 2.55:1), has a deep curve like Cinerama (CinemaScope screens had a very slight curve), and the image is coming off the screen like 3D!

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Great job Bob! I always liked this promotion for CinemaScope. The AR is over 4:1 (should be 2.55:1), has a deep curve like Cinerama (CinemaScope screens had a very slight curve), and the image is coming off the screen like 3D!

"it's the modern miracle you see without glasses!"

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Oops, I had meant to include this article excerpt. It's just been added.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Let me chime in and say bravo for a terrific article - there will still be naysayers who will never understand because they know more, but you have done a great service for film history, the studios, and hopefully a few people will be convinced, but not the usual suspects we all know from elsewhere.

Thank you, Bruce!

Does this make the point? I'll send it to Jeff W.

 

[Patrick McCart]

This does strengthen not only the decline in non-widescreen, but the fact that 1.33:1 was nearly impossible by the 1950s for theatrical releases. It's not a coincidence that a lot of the films in question (like Magnificent Obsession and Touch of Evil) are considerably cropped on the sides to achieve 4x3 video editions, yet they're praised for the extra headroom.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

Thank you, Steve. I look forward to your reaction. Just to cover all bases, I've posted it on the Criterion forum and sent one via e-mail to Jeff Wells...

I just went through it on the iPad where I could read it and enjoy the extensive artwork. One thing I wonder, did Brigadoon ever get a dual-aspect release on DVD since it was filmed twice? Seven Brides for Seven Brothers did.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

No, the BRIGADOON DVD releases have been 2.55.

Here we go! http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2014/05/furmaneks-research-commendable-misses-point/#disqus_thread

Best response so far:

The widescreen Shane is undesirable- abomination is a little crazy- because it was originally composed for 1:37 by its director and DP. The same reason that a 1:37 Sabrina is undesirable. Furmanek seems to be the final word on what the AR intentions of the makers of these transitional films were. And he ought to be heeded. You seem one step away from suggesting we lop the sides off all post '53 films so you can pretend to yourself that you're getting more headroom.

 

[Mark-P]

I've just added info about MGM filming all of their 2.55 films in 1.75 as well. Thanks to Gary A. Hoselton for the confirmation!

I knew about Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and Brigadoon having been shot twice, as the "flat" versions have been shown on Turner Classic Movies and Brides even had the 1.75:1 version included on the DVD release, but I didn't know about the others. Wouldn't it be nice if when Warners gets around to putting all these movies on Blu-ray, that they would include both versions? But it won't happen as it doubles the cost to restore two films instead of one.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I found documentation that MGM continued to shoot two versions of their CinemaScope films until the end of 1954.

 

[theonemacduff]

What an amazing amount of work. What dedication. Fantastic. And of course, made all the slipperier to handle by virtue of the fact that 3-D was also gearing up and getting going at the same time. A wonderful article, and I thank you for taking the time and trouble to assemble all the documentation. As an oldster, I like to think that the 1950s were only a brief moment ago (age brings its own foreshortening, alas), but a few years ago while I was watching LA Confidential, I realized with a shock that I was watching a historical picture, an image of an era now so far in the past for most people, that they reacted to it in pretty much the same way they might react to a picture about the Civil War. Which means of course, that the work done for the article is not just undertaken as one might a hobby, but genuine historical research, worthy of its place in any historian's resumé. I don't know, Bob, if you think of yourself as a historian, but that's what that essay shows: a true historian, and like all such, having a quiet mastery of his subject. Thanks again for a great job of work. Many thanks also for including the data on how these films were exhibited, because of course, the filming is only half the equation, the other half being the actual exhibition of the pictures; and as an ex-projectionist (sort of) it's always interesting to hear about the trials and tribulations of "the only technologically minded fellow on the premises" as one of the articles says. And if almost all theatres were showing wide by the end of the year, Criterion's excuse for issuing a flat version of Riot in Cell Block 11 (that many theatres were not able to show wide) pretty much evaporates. Thanks again.