Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[Brent Reid]

There's a commonly available pirate DVD-R of The Trap, the origins of which are explained here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061115/board/flat/213742751
There are also links to watch it on YouTube.

At least one of the German DVDs is non-anamorphic:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R2ONT2BTW2NL9F/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B001XJBHYK

There are also Spanish and Italian editions...

 

[john a hunter]

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.

Didn't realise that it was filmed by the great Robert Krasner-El Cid, Fall of Roman Empire, Alexander the Great, etc.
Wished I had seen it at my local,the Stamford Hill Gaumont, but like Doug, would have been pissed off when the masking was lowered for Scope.

 

[EddieLarkin]

A different Kino insider posts at Blu-ray.com these days. He says Witness to Murder will be 1.75:1!

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=9731604&postcount=720

Woooooo!

 

[DaveF]

Please no mocking of fellow members nor industry reps.

 

[EddieLarkin]

My comment is a positive one...

edit: Nevermind!

 

[ROclockCK]

Please no mocking of fellow members nor industry reps.

FTR, I can assure you it was just a spoofy-goofy bit of fun Dave. Sorry if it had a mocking vibe...I won't post anything like it again.

 

[Doug Bull]

I just finished reading an excellent magazine article discussing VistaVision and also touching on the first wide screens installed in Australian Cinemas during the 50s.

The author indicated that "Ma and Pa Kettle at Waikiki", which is listed at IMDB as Academy Ratio, would have been shown in Sydney on the new Wydascope Screen with considerable slices of the top and bottom of the frame missing.

I'm guessing that it was actually framed for Widescreen and that the Wydascope Screen was most likely the correct ratio.


Doug.

 

[DaveF]

FTR, I can assure you it was just a spoofy-goofy bit of fun Dave. Sorry if it had a mocking vibe...I won't post anything like it again.

Thanks. It was easily misunderstood. I won't mention my college-freshman attempt at satire, held up by the professor as an example at how *not* to do satire...

 

[Brent Reid]

We're really up against it in terms of trying to educate people to even be aware of aspect ratios, much less care about them.
Have just returned from a v posh wedding where there were a sea of guests brandishing their smartphones, shooting hundreds of horribly-composed 'vertical' photos and videos. When I gently tried to show some of them that the subjects (small groups of people posing for the camera) were eminently more suited to horizontal compositions, I was mostly met with blank stares. One or two thanked me then promptly went back to their default vertical mode. The results looked terrible, but I had a great chat about their folly with the two pro photographers who attended - cue much eye-rolling from us!

This 3 min Vertical Video Syndrome clip is the funniest thing I've seen all year; it nails the whole problem and everything this forum is about:


If you care at all about correct AR, I urge you to watch it!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Outstanding!

 

[Mike Frezon]

Brent: I've already sent that link off to a bunch of family and friends (who should know better!).

Thanks.

 

[DaveF]

We're really up against it in terms of trying to educate people to even be aware of aspect ratios, much less care about them.
Have just returned from a v posh wedding where there were a sea of guests brandishing their smartphones, shooting hundreds of horribly-composed 'vertical' photos and videos. When I gently tried to show some of them that the subjects (small groups of people posing for the camera) were eminently more suited to horizontal compositions, I was met mostly met with blank stares. One or two thanked me then promptly went back to their default vertical mode. The results looked terrible, but I had a great chat about their folly with the two pro photographers who attended - cue much eye-rolling from us!

The problem is that it's easier to hold a phone vertically than horizontally when taking photos and video.

 

[Charles Smith]

The problem is that it's easier to hold a phone vertically than horizontally when taking photos and video.

Exactly. People want to do this stuff with one hand, and few if any are going to be swayed by any of the arguments people like us would make.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

They're just paying homage to the Bolex/Elgeet 16mm 3-D system with its vertical, door-shaped image.

 

[Douglas R]

Thanks for the nostalgic Bolex ad Bob. I used to work for the company decades ago!

 

[theonemacduff]

It's like an episode of The Muppets on crack...... A howl; a hoot; I laughed; I cried.

 

[ROclockCK]

Okay, as it happens Disney's DVD of In Search of the Castaways fell into my hands this weekend, so I spun it up for some good old nostalgic fun. On a lark decided to try watching it widescreen this time. Although the DVD case said 1.33:1 full screen, the IMDb says 1.37:1, so I thought I might be able to zoom it to 1.78:1, at least approximating its original 1:75:1 theatrical ratio (again going only by the IMDb, but that seemed to jibe with info earlier in this thread).

Unfortunately, the result of my centre zooming was pretty hideous, because both ARs *seem* to share a common topline (well, more or less). Here are a couple of quick and dirty simulations of what is on that Disney DVD, and how it *appears* they would have extracted the widescreen theatrical version back in '62:

So my question for Bob F. or anyone else who might know: "Was a common topline standard practice for Disney spherical widescreen?"

BTW, also worth noting is that with few exceptions Ellenshaw's matte paintings and effects filled out the entire 1.37:1 frame and also looked good in that AR (in some shots like the second example, IMO better). Which begs another question, "Were there any specific Disney studio directives to protect widescreen theatrical pictures for eventual TV broadcast on the World of Disney?"

It was just an oddly schizoid experience watching this movie full screen 4:3 because it sometimes seemed right...then not quite right...then way off...and then right back to okay again...even within the same sequence.

 

[Adam_S]

A common top will look more correct then a center crop when cropping a zoomed telecine.

 

[Mark-P]

Okay, as it happens Disney's DVD of In Search of the Castaways fell into my hands this weekend, so I spun it up for some good old nostalgic fun. On a lark decided to try watching it widescreen this time. Although the DVD case said 1.33:1 full screen, the IMDb says 1.37:1, so I thought I might be able to zoom it to 1.78:1, at least approximating its original 1:75:1 theatrical ratio (again going only by the IMDb, but that seemed to jibe with info earlier in this thread).

Unfortunately, the result of my centre zooming was pretty hideous, because both ARs *seem* to share a common topline (well, more or less). Here are a couple of quick and dirty simulations of what is on that Disney DVD, and how it *appears* they would have extracted the widescreen theatrical version back in '62:

So my question for Bob F. or anyone else who might know: "Was a common topline standard practice for Disney spherical widescreen?"

BTW, also worth noting is that with few exceptions Ellenshaw's matte paintings and effects filled out the entire 1.37:1 frame and also looked good in that AR (in some shots like the second example, IMO better). Which begs another question, "Were there any specific Disney studio directives to protect widescreen theatrical pictures for eventual TV broadcast on the World of Disney?"

It was just an oddly schizoid experience watching this movie full screen 4:3 because it sometimes seemed right...then not quite right...then way off...and then right back to okay again...even within the same sequence.

The DVD is side-cropped, not open-matte. You won't be able to get a proper widescreen presentation by matting the DVD. Here, for comparison are the shots from the widescreen presentation on Vudu.

 

[ROclockCK]

The pillarboxing on your captures threw me off for a second Mark...now I see the difference. Thanks!

Hmmm...why would Disney not transfer a spherically shot film full frame on a 4:3 DVD? Seems a tad weird side-cropping the widescreen image, which is already cropped vertically???