Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[Douglas R]

Douglas; The Snorkel is presented at 1.66:1 on Sony's R1 disc, The Horse's Mouth is 1.66:1 on Criterion DVD, Carlton-Browne of The F.O. is 1.66:1 on Lions Gate R1 DVD. Room at The Top is 1.66:1 on Network's R2 DVD.

Thanks John!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Kindly provide that direct quote from Delbert Mann on his preference for MARTY. We've asked multiple times now.

Thank you!

 

[John Hodson]

Thanks John!

No, no; thank you Douglas; excellent work.

 

[bujaki]

And since when were all wide screen UA releases shot in 1.66? Not only Kino, but Criterion and other labels are perpetuating this myth. I saw many of these films on first release and they were not shown in 1.66.

 

[Timothy E]

Bob; any information on Midnight Lace (1960)? Universal have supplied yet another 2.00:1 HD master for the German Blu-ray release...

Here you go, John.

Capture.JPG

Thanks Bob; it's astonishing the amount of 2.00:1 HD masters are turning out these days, when the evidence of their own eyes should tell them otherwise.

The people doing the mastering for NBC/Universal are not doing their homework!

I am confused. It is no small wonder if the people doing the mastering are also confused about the correct aspect ratios for these films. This article at the 3dfilmarchive states that Universal adopted a house aspect ratio of 2.00:1 in mid-1953: "Filming resumed on June 3 with BORDER RIVER and THE GLENN MILLER STORY. The studio had now adopted 2.00:1 as their house ratio..." See http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/an-in-depth-look-at-creature-from-the-black-lagoon-1
I have observed that Universal has mastered a number of its late 1950s films in 2.00:1. When did Universal abandon 2.00:1 as its house ratio?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

As early as 1954, some U-I films were composed for 1.85:1.

 

[Douglas R]

Douglas; The Snorkel is presented at 1.66:1 on Sony's R1 disc, The Horse's Mouth is 1.66:1 on Criterion DVD, Carlton-Browne of The F.O. is 1.66:1 on Lions Gate R1 DVD. Room at The Top is 1.66:1 on Network's R2 DVD.

Updated documents to include those DVDs:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/clouddrive/share/g4AoimZeSKyC5FbGpGA2vb7-B94CkkQ4X3V97rs-XwU

https://www.amazon.co.uk/clouddrive/share/GT70ad2pcpJ6AtBX7-Zt7ZB2Qw_NafNB7A5nhjZrlek

Updates/corrections always welcome!

 

[revgen]

I've recently discovered that The Purple Plain (1954) starring Gregory Peck is available on blu-ray in Germany and France. Yet both product pages indicate that the presentation is 1.33 AR.

Link1

Link2

According to TCMDB, The Purple Plain was filmed in Britain by J. Arthur Rank and Twin Cities Film companies from January 1954 to March 12, 1954.

Bob mentioned earlier in this thread that J Arthur Rank began screening films in widescreen as early as 1953. I want to know for sure if 1.33 is the correct aspect ratio for the film.

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

It was General Film Distributors who released the film in its native Britain, not Rank.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

It's probably 1.66:1 which was the standard ratio at Pinewood by the end of 1953.

 

[John Hodson]

It's probably 1.66:1 which was the standard ratio at Pinewood by the end of 1953.

Savant notes that, on the (full-frame) R1 DVD, the titles appear to be formatted for 1.66:1.

 

[theonemacduff]

Those two files make for some depressing reading; though I'm not surprised that almost everything put onto disc by Studio Canal is wrong -- those guys don't seem to give two hoots.

 

[Gary Couzens]

Those two files make for some depressing reading; though I'm not surprised that almost everything put onto disc by Studio Canal is wrong -- those guys don't seem to give two hoots.

It's curious that their DVD release of A Kind of Loving in 2008 is in a ratio of 1.80:1 approximately, so presumably the film has an OAR of 1.85:1 and that didn't seem incorrect.

That was one of four "Sixties Classics" that Optimum (as was) released on the same day on DVD. My review says that the other three are all in "the then more usual ratio of 1.66:1". Of course I wouldn't say that now.

The other three were A Taste of Honey, Poor Cow and A Touch of Love (which was released in the USA as Thank You All Very Much). Anyone have a definitive on their ratios? Of course, the clips from Poor Cow in The Limey would have been in 1.85:1, but could have been zoomed or cropped.

 

[theonemacduff]

Yeah, I liked the use which Soderbergh made of Poor Cow in The Limey, very meta, and still a good story withal. One hopes that Soderbergh would be sensitive enough, and enough of a film scholar, to go back to whatever elements were available -- and the colour timing makes the fit between the two films pretty much seamless, so would assume he was either utilizing an excellent print or a negative (?) -- but as to the original ratios, I would let Bob weigh in on that, supposing that there is extant documentation. Taste of Honey I really liked when I was a teen, but haven't seen it since I was about 16 and don't have a clear memory of it (certainly not what AR it was) except Rita Tushingham (?) had really big, interesting eyes, like one of those big-eyed paintings that was fashionable a few years afterwards. She could act with just her eyes, which at the time I thought amazing. I don't think it had occurred to me before that that an actor could project pure thought and emotion without using any words at all. Plus, I think a couple of years later, she was in my neck of the woods making a film called The Trap, about a (I think) mail-order bride in the wild woods, fighting nature and overcoming. The Trap was almost certainly 1.85, so far as I remember, i.e., it wasn't projected as scope but it was widescreen.

 

[john a hunter]

Plus, I think a couple of years later, she was in my neck of the woods making a film called The Trap, about a (I think) mail-order bride in the wild woods, fighting nature and overcoming. The Trap was almost certainly 1.85, so far as I remember, i.e., it wasn't projected as scope but it was widescreen.

my memory seems to recall that it was a rare Scope feature for Rank at that time.
As I have never seen it, can't be sure.
Anyone out there who can?

 

[John Hodson]

I saw it at the cinema, but as it was 48 years ago, I'm afraid that detail has escaped me...

 

[ROclockCK]

Yeah, I liked the use which Soderbergh made of Poor Cow in The Limey, very meta, and still a good story withal. One hopes that Soderbergh would be sensitive enough, and enough of a film scholar, to go back to whatever elements were available -- and the colour timing makes the fit between the two films pretty much seamless, so would assume he was either utilizing an excellent print or a negative (?) -- but as to the original ratios, I would let Bob weigh in on that, supposing that there is extant documentation. Taste of Honey I really liked when I was a teen, but haven't seen it since I was about 16 and don't have a clear memory of it (certainly not what AR it was) except Rita Tushingham (?) had really big, interesting eyes, like one of those big-eyed paintings that was fashionable a few years afterwards. She could act with just her eyes, which at the time I thought amazing. I don't think it had occurred to me before that that an actor could project pure thought and emotion without using any words at all. Plus, I think a couple of years later, she was in my neck of the woods making a film called The Trap, about a (I think) mail-order bride in the wild woods, fighting nature and overcoming. The Trap was almost certainly 1.85, so far as I remember, i.e., it wasn't projected as scope but it was widescreen.

A touchstone subject for me. Growing up in Canada during the early 60s, this young buck saw a lot of Rank titles, mostly via double-bill matinees. During that formative period, I quickly recognized the Rank logo as a marque of quality, actually going out of my way to catch them, and paying more than casual attention to their production values. Even at that tender age, I recognized a class act when I saw it.

So FWIW I recall seeing a lot of 2.35:1 from Rank*, mostly Panavision, with some CinemaScope. No idea how native Brits saw these movies exhibited in the day, but our prints were usually w-i-d-e.

* Like The Trap from '66, with Oliver Reed...assuming that is the Rank picture you mean?

 

[seangood79]

Well this is an interesting turn of events. Wonder what the ratio is?http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/entry/view/id/425119

If this catches on, maybe we'll see digital versions of How the West Was Won or (fingers crossed) Abel Gance's Napoleon.

 

[theonemacduff]

So FWIW I recall seeing a lot of 2.35:1 from Rank*, mostly Panavision, with some CinemaScope. No idea how native Brits saw these movies exhibited in the day, but our prints were usually w-i-d-e.

* Like The Trap from '66, with Oliver Reed...assuming that is the Rank picture you mean?

Yup, The Trap is the one I meant, with Oliver Reed. Just to be clear, I was growing up in Canada in the late 60s too, and I can't swear to an AR for that movie, though I do remember thinking it was pretty cool.

Available on a German disc (two editions in fact), one of which is listed at 90 minutes, the other at 100, with IMDb listing it at 106, so I ain't sure what to make of that. Both discs appear to have English audio, if one is region-frei.

 

[Douglas R]

my memory seems to recall that it was a rare Scope feature for Rank at that time.As I have never seen it, can't be sure.Anyone out there who can?

Yes, THE TRAP (1966) was in 'Scope 2.35:1 widescreen. I remember it because I saw it at the Gaumont Sheffield which I was disgusted to see was still lowering the top screen masking in order to show the full width.

EDIT - Found the Kine Weekly entry listing it as Panavision.