Aspect Ratio Documentation

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

  1. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,323
    Likes Received:
    4,688
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    As I stated earlier in this thread, if anybody has grown tired with the direction this latest discussion has taken then simply don't respond to it or offer another aspect issue to discuss in its place.
     
    Bob Furmanek, nara and ThadK like this.
  2. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder 映画ファン

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,613
    Location:
    Scotland
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    As René ( Descartes ) once said "I think therefore i am" of that i am 100% certain.
     
  3. haineshisway

    haineshisway Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,164
    Likes Received:
    2,216
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    Can you please stop? Kino has never looked at the FILM elements for Marty. Period. They looked at the TRANSFER they were given and made a determination based on that transfer. You know it, and yet you still do this. I know we're supposed to ignore you by now, but really.
     
    nara and ThadK like this.
  4. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    309
    Real Name:
    Steve
    And to think, I used to agree with Descartes...

    Steve W
     
  5. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    309
    Real Name:
    Steve
    Now this is a tad misleading.

    My position is not 'nothing is 100% certain, therefore we can't be 100% certain about the documentation, therefore ignore the documentation'.

    My position is, 'nothing is 100% certain, so get as much evidence as you can and do your best'.

    Steve W
     
  6. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    309
    Real Name:
    Steve
    Yes, but what we don't know is whether that was a zoomed scan or a scan of the whole frame.

    A scan of the whole frame would be just as good for the purposes we're discussing.

    Steve W
     
  7. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    9,278
    Likes Received:
    5,160
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    Agreed. But I disagree with the propriety of the printed word in the extract listing the film at 1.85. I had numerous discussions about the film with someone who would know better, inclusive of how the changes were made, and how they might be brought back to 1.37.

    RAH
     
  8. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,757
    Likes Received:
    5,162
    MARTY opens at the 3,500-seat Chicago Theatre in July, 1955.

    Marty-Chicago-July-55.gif
     
    John Hodson and ThadK like this.
  9. ThadK

    ThadK Stunt Coordinator
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    191
    Oh, Bob, but is there any proof that Mann approved that screening in Chicago? Is there a scan of a 35mm frame present in that photo? Hmm, I THINK NOT!
     
  10. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    309
    Real Name:
    Steve
    The dog is about to cross the road. The chicken stops him at the last minute and says "I wouldn't do that, you'll never hear the last of it".

    In that spirit...
    I wouldn't do that...

    :D

    Steve W
     
  11. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    309
    Real Name:
    Steve
    OH! A-HA! HA HA HA!

    I used to come to the forum for information about Blu-ray Disc releases.

    I wasn't counting on the cutting edge alternative comedy.

    Steve W
     
  12. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,757
    Likes Received:
    5,162
    Some additional information:

    On September 3, just four days before the start of principal photography, Variety listed the film as a widescreen production.
    Marty Variety.JPG

    Some people have speculated that Mann was bucking the system in order to present MARTY on the big screen with the same visual content that had worked so well on television when first broadcast on May 24, 1953. This is not true.After Mann visited the VERY CRUZ location, the goal was to expand and adapt the subject matter to the big screen. Film Bulletin pointed out this fact in a July 11, 1955 article discussing the disappointing boxoffice performance of DAVY CROCKETT, another big screen production recently taken from TV.
    Marty-for-film.gif
     
    ThadK likes this.
  13. haineshisway

    haineshisway Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,164
    Likes Received:
    2,216
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    No, what you stated as fact was that Kino had inspected the FILM elements, which they have not. Do I need to highlight that in your post or will you just acknowledge you had that incorrect? For whatever it's worth, for as long as I've been reading your posts on this forum, you have ignored facts, stated incorrect information and then just move to the next target. I suppose that's fine, if one likes that sort of thing, but you really must not post information that is completely untrue, like Kino inspected the FILM elements for Marty. A scan of a frame of a transfer we know nothing about is irrelevant to the point.
     
  14. Douglas R

    Douglas R Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,044
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    Real Name:
    Doug
    I've gone through the '60s issues of Kine Weekly. Unfortunately the publication did not give the ratios of every production. It seemed to be up to the studios as to whether they provided the information and some, such as MGM Boreham Wood and Associated British at Elstree simply stated "widescreen" for anything other than 2.35 scope. Therefore the ratio for BLOW UP is not listed. According to IMDB, GEORGY GIRL was shot mainly on location and also at at Shepperton but Kine Weekly doesn't list the film at all. Presumably it got missed - so no aspect ratio information for that film either I'm afraid.
     
    Brent Reid likes this.
  15. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,757
    Likes Received:
    5,162
    From International Projectionist: February 1956

    Mann and LaShelle used a lot of low-key lighting and with the reduced aperture openings for flat widescreen projection, this did not translate well to the big screen. The timing problem should have been corrected in the lab.

    A new widescreen master could correct this issue and give us a version of MARTY that would truly be better than ever before.

    Marty-projection2.gif
     
    ROclockCK and John Hodson like this.
  16. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,757
    Likes Received:
    5,162
    According to someone named Pecker, the trade journals cannot be trusted and the "dubious nature of replying on the aspect ratios listed in trade papers is coming to light all the more as time goes on."

    Funny, I seem to remember similar comments a long time ago on the Hammer blog about the "dis-credited" trade journals...

    Start at post #54: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=240655&page=3
     
    ThadK likes this.
  17. nara

    nara Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    UK
    Real Name:
    Hugh
    Can we move on please? This getting very silly. :(
     
  18. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder 映画ファン

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,613
    Location:
    Scotland
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    Pecker is Yorkshire aka Steve, i guess he doesn't trust the trade papers.
     
  19. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,323
    Likes Received:
    4,688
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    Yes, it's very silly. I'm surprise that more people didn't just move on as we keep going around this merry-go-round.
     
  20. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,757
    Likes Received:
    5,162
    Here's a handy reference to all of the MARTY widescreen documents in one post. Please feel free to quote and link as needed.

    Hecht-Lancaster Productions announced a two year/seven film distribution deal with United Artists on February 9, 1954. The first three features produced under this contract were all widescreen: APACHE was 1.85; VERA CRUZ was Superscope 2:1 and THE KENTUCKIAN - which was filmed at the same time as MARTY - was CinemaScope 2.55:1.In his auto-biography, Ernest Borgnine talks about Delbert Mann visiting the location of VERA CRUZ in Mexico in order to study the new cinematic techniques. This would have been sometime in April, 1954 and was five months before cameras rolled on his first film as a director.
    Marty Borgnine quote.JPG

    The Director of Photography was Joseph LaShelle , a man who knew his way around a camera. He won the Academy Award in 1945 for his work on LAURA. In the widescreen era, he had previously lensed RIVER OF NO RETURN and four CinemaScope shorts, including the twice Oscar-nominated JET CARRIER.He certainly would have known how to compose MARTY for widescreen while protecting the compositions for 1.37:1.In September 1954, Merle Chamberlin (Director of Projection at MGM) stated, "All of the studios are convinced that the old 3/4 picture is gone and the wider aspect ratio is here to stay."

    1.75.jpg

    On September 3, Variety listed the film as a widescreen production. Four days later on September 7, MARTY began production on location in New York.

    Variety continued to list MARTY as a widescreen production throughout late November when shooting was completed at the Goldwyn studio in Hollywood.

    Marty Variety.jpg


    When released in April, 1955, both the Hollywood Reporter - an important daily trade journal read within the industry - and Boxoffice - a bible for exhibitors - list 1.85:1 as the intended ratio for MARTY.

    Marty-3.26.55-top.jpg

    Here's the July 1955 opening "on wide screen" at the 3,500-seat Chicago Theatre:

    Marty-Chicago-July-55.gif

    Some people have speculated that Mann was bucking the system in order to present MARTY on the big screen with the same visual content that had worked so well on television when first broadcast on May 24, 1953. This is not true.After Mann visited the VERY CRUZ location, the goal was to expand and adapt the subject matter to the big screen. Film Bulletin pointed out this fact in a July 11, 1955 article discussing the disappointing boxoffice performance of DAVY CROCKETT, another big screen production recently taken from TV.

    Marty-for-film.gif

    Mann and LaShelle used a lot of low-key lighting and with the reduced aperture openings for flat widescreen projection, this did not translate well to the big screen. The timing problem should have been corrected in the lab.A new widescreen master could correct this issue and give us a version of MARTY that would truly be better than ever before.From International Projectionist: February 1956

    Marty projection2.jpg

    Regarding the director and his preference, here is a post that was shared in another thread:
    Back in 2005 we ran MARTY at the Cinecon film festival over Labor Day weekend at the American Cinematheque's Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood. Director Delbert Mann was in attendance and he was quite moved by the film's reception that day. Unfortunately we couldn't get Ernest Borgnine to attend, as I believe he was working somewhere. A shame, as this was Mann's last public appearance and he would have loved for Borgnine to be there.

    We licensed a 35mm print from MGM and it was presented in 1.85. Nothing appeared cropped, all of the titles were where they should be. I would imagine that print is still available for repertory screenings, should anyone want to show it. It looked great a decade ago anyway!

    To read about the industry-wide transition to widescreen in 1953/54 - both in the U.S. and the UK - please visit: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

    For more information on the first year of widescreen production, please visit: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen
     

Share This Page