Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[Bob Furmanek]

EIGHT O'CLOCK WALK began production in late June 1953 and is 1.37:1.

 

[John Hodson]

I do find it funny that a member of the crew directly contradicts the aspect ratio of the transfer. I wish there was an interview like that on all incorrect 1.66:1 discs!

It's also frustrating that not one review has mentioned it.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Ignorance is bliss?

 

[Gary OS]

I'm still waiting for the day when I can watch Abbott & Costello Meet the Mummy in the correct AR. I'm guessing it will never be released that way though.


Gary "it's hard for me to even imagine watching Bud & Lou in a wide-screen type format - but it would be interesting" O.

 

[Gary16]

I'm still waiting for the day when I can watch Abbott & Costello Meet the Mummy in the correct AR. I'm guessing it will never be released that way though.


Gary "it's hard for me to even imagine watching Bud & Lou in a wide-screen type format - but it would be interesting" O.

Unfortunately you're probably right but I've successfully zoomed it up to almost 2:1 and it works perfectly. At least it's a workaround if your setup will allow zooming.

 

[EddieLarkin]

It's also frustrating that not one review has mentioned it.

Does the booklet say "presented in an aspect ratio of..." or "presented in its original aspect ratio of..."?

 

[John Hodson]

You're right; it says 'format: 1.66:1 OAR', and 'If.... was shot in the 1.66:1 aspect ratio'.

You'd obviously have to actually watch the supplemental interviews to hear the AR reference (and it is, as said, a passing reference), but I wonder how many reviewers have actually done that?

 

[EddieLarkin]

Reviewers may not have, but whoever QC'd the disc definitely will have. Eh, I guess it's not so much of a difference to go to the bother of changing the master. You'd think they could amend the booklet though...

 

[John Hodson]

Reviewers may not have, but whoever QC'd the disc definitely will have. Eh, I guess it's not so much of a difference to go to the bother of changing the master. You'd think they could amend the booklet though...

The point is Eureka *couldn't* change the master; they were contractually obliged to take what Paramount gave them.

 

[DVDvision]

If this was on another forum you would have people, I mean couch potatoes, going "what does the focus puller knows" lol.

The problem I think is in the minds of the people in charge. Their minds are pretty much locked regarding formats. No amount of proof and actual witnesses will change anything because they are locked in. 1.66:1 it is.

EDIT: as a publisher, you can do what you want. You just piss at the heads that trows badly framed masters, or horrible PQ masters, at you. I've done it and it works. You just need to take a stand.

Ignorance is bliss?

 

[mongosito]

Jon Paul, that's not a widescreen film.

Which he should have been able to tell from his own messed up still .

I may send my UK disc of " If" back .
Shame on them presenting it at 1.66 instead of 1.75. Think of the amount of extra image we've got that we should not be seeing.
Still we could always zoom our tv's to the correct ratio . Who cares about the slight loss of quality as long we can't see too much headroom

 

[mongosito]

It's also frustrating that not one review has mentioned it.

Maybe because they're not too worried about whether a sliver of image is on show that may or may not be approved by the director.

We're not talking 2.35 cropped to 4:3 or even 1.66 cropped to 2:1 here.
1.66 and 1.75 difference is minimal

 

[DVDvision]

There's nothing sad in getting things right

 

[mongosito]

There's nothing sad in getting things right

I edited that bit as it was a tad harsh .
As this thread shows though it's not certain they're right anyway - see example of earlier post .
Much of it is speculation based on documentation so while it's possible to say whether something should be widescreen whether it's 1.66, 1.75 or 1.85 is open to debate .

And whinging that something you think should be 1.75 has been released as 1.66 is a bit sad really.

I can understand disappointment of wide films being 4:3 but the 3 ratios are not significantly different enough to justify the hand wringing on here specially when nobody seems able to confirm for certain which one of the 3 any of these movies should be.

While the review linked to earlier was a bit harsh the guy does have a point.
Nobody seems to care about the content anymore - it's whether the ratio is right.

Back in the days of cinemascope movies cut in half for tv viewing it was an important argument but this droning on about whether a sliver of image is on screen but shouldn't be smacks of obsessiveness.

By all means keep flying the flag to stop wide films being issued in 4:3 but arguing the toss over the 3 ratios seems to be a waste of resources.

As long as the cropping does not go too far (Brides of Dracula for example) the message is getting through

 

[Dr Griffin]

I edited that bit as it was a tad harsh .
As this thread shows though it's not certain they're right anyway - see example of earlier post .
Much of it is speculation based on documentation so while it's possible to say whether something should be widescreen whether it's 1.66, 1.75 or 1.85 is open to debate .

And whinging that something you think should be 1.75 has been released as 1.66 is a bit sad really.

I can understand disappointment of wide films being 4:3 but the 3 ratios are not significantly different enough to justify the hand wringing on here specially when nobody seems able to confirm for certain which one of the 3 any of these movies should be.

While the review linked to earlier was a bit harsh the guy does have a point.
Nobody seems to care about the content anymore - it's whether the ratio is right.

Back in the days of cinemascope movies cut in half for tv viewing it was an important argument but this droning on about whether a sliver of image is on screen but shouldn't be smacks of obsessiveness.

By all means keep flying the flag to stop wide films being issued in 4:3 but arguing the toss over the 3 ratios seems to be a waste of resources.

As long as the cropping does not go too far (Brides of Dracula for example) the message is getting through

That made me smile.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Much of it is speculation based on documentation so while it's possible to say whether something should be widescreen whether it's 1.66, 1.75 or 1.85 is open to debate .

In some cases it is open to debate, in many cases it is not. Let's stick to the latter. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that a 1.75:1 film is unwatchable, ruined, or barely any different aesthetically if it's instead shown at 1.66:1. But the film has one correct ratio; in cases where this is known, that ratio should be adhered to. It's not hard. We could open all 1.37:1 films on the left a bit and present them at 1.44:1 instead. The difference would be basically the same, but what would the logic be behind it? Wouldn't you argue that 1.37:1 should be respected? Wouldn't it bug you a little that companies are releasing pre-widescreen films at 1.44:1 when you know the correct ratio is something else, and they should know it too?

 

[John Hodson]

Maybe because they're not too worried about whether a sliver of image is on show that may or may not be approved by the director.

We're not talking 2.35 cropped to 4:3 or even 1.66 cropped to 2:1 here.
1.66 and 1.75 difference is minimal

What concerns me most is the confirmation that the film was shot at 1.75:1 and not, as most still assume, at a de facto 1.66:1. We need to get the message across that 1.66:1 was not the British standard and any acknowledgement of evidence such as exists on the supplements of If.... would surely help.

 

[Alan Tully]

What concerns me most is the confirmation that the film was shot at 1.75:1 and not, as most still assume, at a de facto 1.66:1. We need to get the message across that 1.66:1 was not the British standard and any acknowledgement of evidence such as exists on the supplements of If.... would surely help.

Yeah, 1968. Like any UK cinema would have been showing films in anything other than 1:85 & 'scope!

 

[Yorkshire]

Well, when this comes up I always remember what RAH said in response to the Blu-ray Disc release of The Godfather restoration - someone was complaining they were in 1.78:1 instead of 1.85:1.

He said the films were rarely presented with a 100% accurate ratio in the cinema, and 1.78:1 was more than close enough.

In short, if 1.78:1 is close enough to 1.85:1 for RAH, then 1.66:1 is close enough to 1.75:1 for me.

Add to the fact a couple of other things - just as 1.78:1 shows a little more than 1.85:1, then 1.66:1 also shows a little more than 1.75:1, and I'd rather it that way than the other way around. Also, it would appear that Odeon (the largest cinema group in the UK) were projecting in 1.66:1, so the director/DoP were probably aware it would be mainly shown in that ratio.

What all that adds up to, for me, is that whilst it's worth pointing out the very slight difference between 1.75:1 and 1.66:1, it really isn't worth raising one's blood pressure.

Steve W

 

[Alan Tully]

I'd agree with Yorkshire, it's not a deal breaker for me. It's not like it's 'scope zoomed in to 16:9 like a lot of films are on the telly, now that's worth a high blood pressure moment.