Aspect Ratio Documentation (4 Viewers)

[Matt Hough]

I was flipping around the dial yesterday and stumbled on Paul Newman in The Left Handed Gun. TCM was showing it in an open matte 4:3 presentation, and it's a 1958 film!

 

[BIANCO2NERO]

I was reading about the movie "Callan" (1974), starring Edward Woodward, the first film with optical soundtrack (Dolby Mono), and the AR was listed as 1.37:1. What was the theatrical aspect ratio?

This was a standard theatrical release (albeit based on the TV show of the same name) so would have been 1.85:1 - most home video releases, derived from VHS-era masters, have been open matte.

 

[theonemacduff]

Was rumaging around on various sites the other day looking for Fritz Lang related materials, and came across the Beaver's review of his late film, Tiger of Eschnapur, which, though it was a 1958 flick, was sent to DVD as a 1.37 image. IMDb concurs. But I wonder if anyone has any real information on the AR? If it was funded via a British company, surely it would most likely have been 1.75, and if US funded, then 1.85. Thing is, that when you look at some of the Beaver's screen caps (of an MOC disc), the widescreen ratio looks kind of tight. Did Variety or Kino Weekly ever list this film (and it's companion, Tomb of Love) along with the projected AR?

 

[haineshisway]

The two Lang films had to have been shot for widescreen - Lang had already made several widescreen films in the US and he and his producers would certainly have known that no cinema would have shown them open matte. My memory of the last time I looked at the DVDs was that it would matte properly, but I'd have to look again - could be zoomed in.

 

[david hare]

I agree the 4:3 open matte image looks and is wrong for these two films. There are lengthy shots and sequences in which you can see the set's floor hasn't even been dressed! (One of them is Debra Paget's first big hoochy cooch number to the statue.) A good guess would put 1.75 or more likely 1.66 for correct masked ratio. Thousand Eyes of Doctor Mabuse (1960) which Lang also made in Germany around the same time has always been released in 1.66 mask and looks correct in that. It could also probably yield easily to 1.75.
But there are a couple of things to consider. For one Lang fought with and generally didn't get on at all with his German DP, the aptly named Richard Angst. And there's nothing I can find on the record including Lang's long talks with Bogdanovich about AR issues but given Thousand Eyes was 1.66 ,to my eyes the two Indian pictures look right in 1.66 (which at least gets rid of the sloppy undressed studio floor issues. The most recent BDs released in Germany persist with 1.37 and the transfers are overly DNRed and generally not at all good at all for other things like color temp. Masters of Cinema in the UK has been going to do these for some time but they may be waiting for better 1080p masters. In any case I am sure Craig Keller and their technical people will be alert to the AR issue when and if they ever do these for BD.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Bob, can you (or anyone else, for that matter) explain how the Illusion-O "Ghost Viewer/Remover" lens for 13 Ghosts was intended to work? Was it simply a filtering out of certain colors like the 80s cereal box decoders or 80s Transformer toys?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Brandon, the ghosts are tinted red on the blue-colored film stock. If you look through the red filter, the ghosts are very vivid.

If you look through the blue plastic, the ghosts are filtered out and disappear.

In a new color print, the technique is very effective.

 

[Brandon Conway]

So the same principal of what I was assuming, but the blue film tinting didn't occur to me. A quick online look reveals that Sony released it properly on DVD. I might have to track that down to see it for myself.

EDIT: Obviously I'd have to use make-shift Illusion-O viewer. Would looking through either end of a standard cardboard pair of anaglyph 3D glasses work, or are the cyan/magenta filters not a good match for the blue/red intended for the Illusion-O viewer of this film?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Was rumaging around on various sites the other day looking for Fritz Lang related materials, and came across the Beaver's review of his late film, Tiger of Eschnapur, which, though it was a 1958 flick, was sent to DVD as a 1.37 image. IMDb concurs. But I wonder if anyone has any real information on the AR? If it was funded via a British company, surely it would most likely have been 1.75, and if US funded, then 1.85. Thing is, that when you look at some of the Beaver's screen caps (of an MOC disc), the widescreen ratio looks kind of tight. Did Variety or Kino Weekly ever list this film (and it's companion, Tomb of Love) along with the projected AR?

I can't find reviews in either Variety or Boxoffice on those titles.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Obviously I'd have to use make-shift Illusion-O viewer. Would looking through either end of a standard cardboard pair of anaglyph 3D glasses work, or are the cyan/magenta filters not a good match for the blue/red intended for the Illusion-O viewer of this film?

Ideally, you'd want the red and blue filters to fill your entire line of vision so you can look with both eyes and move the viewer to either see or filter the ghosts. The effect is somewhat minimized with anaglyph glasses.

 

[haineshisway]

I can't find reviews in either Variety or Boxoffice on those titles.

I believe the reason you can't find them is because they were severely edited down and released as one film here in the US, called Journey to the Lost City - that's the way to search for it. The imdb stupidly lists it as 2.35, which is completely wrong. The confusion probably arises from the "Colorscope" logo on the poster - completely meaningless, of course but indicating widescreen if not scope.

 

[ahollis]

So the same principal of what I was assuming, but the blue film tinting didn't occur to me. A quick online look reveals that Sony released it properly on DVD. I might have to track that down to see it for myself.EDIT: Obviously I'd have to use make-shift Illusion-O viewer. Would looking through either end of a standard cardboard pair of anaglyph 3D glasses work, or are the cyan/magenta filters not a good match for the blue/red intended for the Illusion-O viewer of this film?

If you look hard enough the first DVD release included two viewers with a coupon to send off and order extra. I'm positive the offer has expired but if you can find the version with the viewers they are easy to replicate. I ended up doing that copying the viewers on stiff cardboard and pasting them together with colored jell between.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

By the way, we pointed out 1.66:1 for QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT in June 2012.

It's nice that someone is paying attention!

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/313215-aspect-ratio-documentation/page-16#entry3833603

 

[John Hodson]

As I mentioned a while back, I tried the MGM HD remaster at 1.77:1 (my now venerable Oppo BD player can't scale to 1.66:1) and it looked damned good (*better* than damned good...) - apart from the opening credits (which clipped a little at the bottom), it wasn't too dusty at 1.85:1 either.Of course, I've no idea if that master is fully open-matte, but 1.66:1 should be the ideal compromise. And I'll reiterate; if you haven't seen QX wide, then you haven't really seen QX at all...

 

[Brandon Conway]

Ideally, you'd want the red and blue filters to fill your entire line of vision so you can look with both eyes and move the viewer to either see or filter the ghosts. The effect is somewhat minimized with anaglyph glasses.

A definite shortcoming, but one does what they can.

If you look hard enough the first DVD release included two viewers with a coupon to send off and order extra. I'm positive the offer has expired but if you can find the version with the viewers they are easy to replicate. I ended up doing that copying the viewers on stiff cardboard and pasting them together with colored jell between.

Thanks, but considering the DVD was released in 2001 I don't think my chances of getting one with the viewers is too great.

In either case, I'm sure I can build my own as you suggest if needed. (Gonna try to have a viewing with some friends, as this is right up our alley for "bad" or "novelty" film night).

 

[theonemacduff]

I believe the reason you can't find them is because they were severely edited down and released as one film here in the US, called Journey to the Lost City - that's the way to search for it. The imdb stupidly lists it as 2.35, which is completely wrong. The confusion probably arises from the "Colorscope" logo on the poster - completely meaningless, of course but indicating widescreen if not scope.

My bad, I knew that but forgot to include the info.

 

[RolandL]

My bad, I knew that but forgot to include the info.

I can only find this version when searching. No mention of glasses.

These must be the theatrical glasses

 

[Gary16]

Those glasses are what came with the dvd.

 

[Charles Smith]

I only have 13 Ghosts in the William Castle box set, and it has the color tints but no glasses. The tints on a regular pair of red/blue anaglyph glasses seems to work as intended.

 

[RolandL]

This eBay auction had them.