Aspect Ratio Documentation

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Bob Furmanek, Mar 20, 2012.

  1. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder 映画ファン

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,614
    Location:
    Scotland
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    I hear ya, my old friend Dumbo used to complain about the same thing, mind you he worked for the circus.
     
    AnthonyClarke and Stephen_J_H like this.
  2. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,442
    Likes Received:
    4,803
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    In fairness to those of us that feel the difference between 1.66 and 1.75 is not that significant in the home theater environment, I don't think a movie filmed in widescreen should be released on BD/DVD/digital download in 1.33/1.37. I just want to make sure that's clear and I don't begrudge anyone that continues to fight the good fight in regard to every film being released on video in their OAR.
     
    ROclockCK and Bob Furmanek like this.
  3. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder 映画ファン

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,614
    Location:
    Scotland
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    The evidence is being provided in this thread, people do know which is correct, certainly Bob knows so there is no reason why the studio that owns the film shouldn't know, it's just laziness, the studio's aren't doing proper research.
     
    Bob Furmanek likes this.
  4. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,799
    Likes Received:
    5,332
    Studios - in an effort to appease nervous exhibitors - were stressing flexibility. But when these films were sent to theaters, there was only one "preferred" ratio.

    I feel that's how the films should be mastered today.

    Reel-band-web.jpg
     
  5. John Hodson

    John Hodson Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    4,531
    Likes Received:
    316
    Location:
    Bolton, Lancashire
    Real Name:
    John
    I have that feeling of deja vu. All over again.

    EDIT; and now I haven't. Must have been a horrible dream.
     
  6. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,442
    Likes Received:
    4,803
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    I think it's more than just laziness.
     
  7. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,799
    Likes Received:
    5,332
    Their last three films are widescreen. KOPS is 2:1; MUMMY and HENRY are 1.85:1.
     
  8. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,799
    Likes Received:
    5,332
    Thank you, Moderators!
     
    John Hodson and HDvision like this.
  9. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,799
    Likes Received:
    5,332
    If they were filmed after the fall of 1953, they are most likely widescreen.

    Network does not seem receptive to documentation on the issue. I sent them material on DUEL IN THE JUNGLE - including quotes from the director on filming for widescreen - and there was no reply...
     
    theonemacduff likes this.
  10. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder 映画ファン

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,614
    Location:
    Scotland
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    Lack of financial resources and manpower. ?

    I could understand that if it were MGM or a smaller label but they could use a site like this for additional help before making some of their decisions, as Bob says above, some labels don't seem receptive to receiving help on the matter.
     
  11. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,442
    Likes Received:
    4,803
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    More like lack of beancounter support.
     
    Stephen_J_H and FoxyMulder like this.
  12. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder 映画ファン

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,614
    Location:
    Scotland
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    So it's the same issue that's being debated in The Alamo thread.
     
  13. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,799
    Likes Received:
    5,332
    That's why I feel it's important to get the aspect ratio correct now.

    Many of these titles will not get another chance.
     
    Stephen_J_H, John Hodson and HDvision like this.
  14. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,442
    Likes Received:
    4,803
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    I agree with you, but it's more important to me that Apache and The Train get widescreen releases on BD than the differences between 1.77 and 1.85. Anyhow, I've said my piece so carry on the good fight.
     
    Bob Furmanek likes this.
  15. Gary Couzens

    Gary Couzens Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    30
    Interesting. I have actually projected a 35mm print of IF... and I showed it at 1.66:1 because I felt that looked right. (We did have a lens and gate for 1.75:1 but didn't use it very much when we invested in 1.66:1 and 1.85:1.) I don't doubt what you're saying, though. I haven't seen the film in anything other than 1.66:1: that film showing at University and the DVD which I watched and reviewed several years ago.

    The film was shot open-matte, and showing it that way would have revealed some full-frontal male nudity in a shower scene, which wasn't visible in 1.66:1. I know this, because when I checked the print, there was a splice in the middle of that scene. A projectionist took a souvenir, I suspect.
    I would have done, if I were reviewing this disc, which I haven't seen. I'm in a combination of restricting my reviewing and taking a break, and that disc was one I couldn't take on. I did review the previous DVD from Paramount, though.


    He wasn't the only one. Eric Rohmer shot in Academy (apart from his debut feature, THE SIGN OF LEO, which is 1.66:1) until well into the 1980s, and continued to do so on most of his features shot in 16mm. Jacques Rivette's LA BELLE NOISEUSE was shot in 35mm and is 1.37:1.

    Not always. I've seen 1.66:1 films shown in 1.75:1 where the cropping is noticeable. The first two times I saw BETTY BLUE (a 1.66:1 film for sure) it was projected in 1.75:1 and it was obvious to me that that wasn't correct.

    I once had to tell staff at the National Film Theatre that they had shown a film in too wide a ratio: Margarethe von Trotta's L'AFRICANA, shown in the London Film Festival, shown in 1.75:1 and obviously composed for 1.66:1 and noticeably cropped.

    On the other hand, I once saw a French SF film called L'UNIQUE at the same venue, and at the top and bottom of the screen during the opening credits was wording in French saying "This film is not being shown in the correct ratio of 1.85:1." As you may have guessed, it was being shown in 1.75:1, or possibly 1.66:1 (I don't remember).
     
    HDvision and Bob Furmanek like this.
  16. HDvision

    HDvision Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,069
    Likes Received:
    190
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Real Name:
    David
    That's awesome. But then one can't trust the credits either, like the focus puller or the director, they are old and don't know how one watched the movies for the last 30 years which is how the movies are. (joke mode off)
     
  17. Billy Batson

    Billy Batson Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    680
    Location:
    London
    Real Name:
    Alan
    Looking at the March 1969 edition of Films & Filming, If... went on general release on the 9th of March on the ABC circuit, not Odeon. If fact I remember all the Paramount's I saw at the time were all shown in ABC cinemas. Ha, I really am captain sadness.
     
    Yorkshire likes this.
  18. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    309
    Real Name:
    Steve
    Ah, excellent bit of information.

    Of course, the question is whether LA would have known this would be the case.

    Steve W
     
  19. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    309
    Real Name:
    Steve
    For me, this is key.

    It's never excusable to crop what should have been seen, and far less problematic to show a little more than what was composed for, especially in these cases where 1.75:1 films were supposed to be tolerable to 1.66:1 anyway.

    A film shot in 1.66:1 cropped to 1.75:1 might look cramped, and vital information which audiences were intended to see may even be missed. But a 1.75:1 film opened slightly to 1.66:1 will not look hideous, or even poor. It may look just a little loose.

    Steve W
     
  20. Timothy E

    Timothy E Supporting Actor
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    982
    Likes Received:
    61
    Real Name:
    Timothy Ewanyshyn
    Did trade papers in the 1950s like Boxoffice provide recommended aspect ratios for short subjects as well as features? I am thinking of shorts like The Three Stooges, Looney Tunes, and other short subjects.
     

Share This Page