Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[Bob Furmanek]

No but we do have articles and other documents to accurately document most of the shorts from that era.

 

[John Hodson]

From the Kino Lorber Classic Facebook page:

MARTY'S ASPECT RATIO
After examining the film elements and consulting with the studio and outside experts, we've decided to release our DVD and Blu-ray of MARTY in anamorphic 1.33:1. There is not a lot of head room in the print, and at 1.85:1 too much of the image was being cropped. So we are releasing it in 1.33:1, the preferred aspect ratio of the studio, and the ratio at which The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences screens their prints of MARTY.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Oh for the love of...

Even this ugly looking youtube clip shows they're talking nonsense:



How many times do you count the camera operator shifting up and down with the actors to keep heads within the widescreen framing?

 

[John Hodson]

I wonder who the 'outside experts' are?

BTW, register your complaint here.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Kino is using an older transfer that may very well have been zoomed/manipulated during the transfer. The constant camera tilting throughout to keep the actors in frame for widescreen tells the story.

So far as the Academy running it full frame?

Well, some assume if there is an image on the print then it MUST be seen...

 

[EddieLarkin]

Kino is using an older transfer that may very well have been zoomed/manipulated during the transfer.

After reading their statement again I can see they're choosing their words carefully; they're not saying 1.33:1 is right, just that 1.85:1 doesn't work for the "print" they have. But if they're missing side information they should just crop it less. 1.78:1, 1.75:1, 1.66:1, whatever works best. 1.33:1 will be too much.

 

[John Hodson]

Kino-Lorber have had their chance to get this new line off to a flying start and they've blown it. It doesn't bode well; '...the preferred aspect ratio of the studio...' my backside...

Bob, I feel for you on this one - you provided the research and they've stabbed you in the back.

 

[Paul Penna]

From the Kino Lorber Classic Facebook page: After examining the film elements and consulting with the studio and outside experts, we've decided to release our DVD and Blu-ray of MARTY in anamorphic 1.33:1.

What is "anamorphic 1.33:1"?

 

[EddieLarkin]

What is "anamorphic 1.33:1"?

Not what they're using. They mean 16x9 with black borders (i.e., how every 1.33:1 film is released on Blu-ray).

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Kino-Lorber have had their chance to get this new line off to a flying start and they've blown it. It doesn't bode well; '...the preferred aspect ratio of the studio...' my backside...

Bob, I feel for you on this one - you provided the research and they've stabbed you in the back.

Thanks, John. I won't lose any sleep over it but I feel bad that we will not be seeing the film as the director intended.

It's only the "preferred aspect ratio of the studio" because they're working from an older, open-matte transfer and nobody will spend the money to pull the 35mm elements and do it properly.

 

[Matt Hough]

Looks like I'll be using my trusty Samsung Blu-ray player for some slight zooming. I'll try it at 1.66:1 once I get it.

 

[EddieLarkin]

I'm already imagining what Jeffrey Wells' idiotic response to this will be...

 

[John Hodson]

It's only the "preferred aspect ratio of the studio" because they're working from an older, open-matte transfer and nobody will spend the money to pull the 35mm elements and do it properly.

Which in itself sounds the alarm bells for Kino's new line; I'm predicting more than this AR cock-up. Caveat emptor.

 

[Timothy E]

No but we do have articles and other documents to accurately document most of the shorts from that era.

Were the Warner Brothers cartoons shown in a wide aspect ratio in the 1950s? There were some complaints when the studio released some of the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies in 1.85:1 on some of their All Stars DVD collections. I know Design for Leaving(1954) was one of the cartoons released on DVD in that wider format, and that drew some complaints. I know that I have always seen those cartoons shown in Academy ratio and I am curious if they were ever shown wider in theaters.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

How they were shown in theaters is not documented but trade and studio documents can be found in the "Shorts, Cartoons and Newsreels" section of this article: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Looks like I'll be using my trusty Samsung Blu-ray player for some slight zooming. I'll try it at 1.66:1 once I get it.

That's a shame. You really shouldn't have to do that in order to watch the film properly.

 

[bujaki]

I may keep my pre-order at Amazon simply hoping that the print at least will be complete. These experts are obviously not relying on documentation. Zooming should not be the answer. We should be getting the product the way it was meant to be seen.
Bad opening salvo for the Kino line. What a shame!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

To be honest, red flags went up when I learned they were planning to crop an older transfer. I kept my fingers crossed and hoped for the best.

This illustrates the dangers of working from an element that may have been manipulated.

 

[bujaki]

Last night TCM showed some early Hammer noirs, four directed by Terence Fisher. The ones shot or released in '52-'53 were shown in academy ratio. THE UNHOLY FOUR, released in 1954, was shown in glorious widescreen. So Fisher was shooting widescreen by then, but the experts at Hammer still insist that Curse of Frankenstein was shot academy? Oh well...

 

[Brandon Conway]

I'm already imagining what Jeffrey Wells' idiotic response to this will be...

The gloating should be epic LOLs, but then depression that many in this world and online will think he's "right".