Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[Dr Griffin]

Going by the title image in Mark's post, and using that Paramount Framing Guide, it looks like 1.66:1 is not indicated. The left mark being 1.85:1, and right mark being 2:1.

 

[avroman]

Just been reading through the CinemaScope Handbook. I observed it is probably the British Version of the publication, as the word "theatre" is the British spelling, and also the illustrated Projector is the British "Ga
umont Kalee".



By the way, The Paramount Framing Guide was 1.85 : 1 (Top Line of the Guide), 2.0 : 1 (The Lower Line), and 1,66 : 1 (The Top of the Frame).
I screened almost all of Paramount's VistaVision movies in the 1950's and '60's.

 

[RolandL]

Just been reading through the CinemaScope Handbook. I observed it is probably the British Version of the publication, as the word "theatre" is the British spelling, and also the illustrated Projector is the British "Ga
umont Kalee".

Most of the advertisements I have seen have "theatre" for US movie theatres.

 

[ahollis]

Most US theatre companies spell it theatre.

 

[B-ROLL]

Most US theatre companies spell it theatre.

To some degree it may be a Trademark issue ... But TheatRE sounds so much more elegant than theater.

 

[Robert Harris]

The example from Toko-Ri is missing the top of the alignment scribe.

These were physically scribed into the beginning of each roll of camera negative, and reproduced in prints.

 

[Matt Hough]

TCM showed 1953's Latin Lovers yesterday at 1.33:1. Seemed like a lot of headroom. Should it have been widescreen?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

No, it began filming in December 1952 and is 1.37:1.

 

[Matt Hough]

No, it began filming in December 1952 and is 1.37:1.

Thanks, Bob.

They gave the open matte presentation today to Executive Suite and Tennessee Champ, and I'm pretty sure they were both widescreen.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Yep, both listed here: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Just six days to go for the gala New York City premiere of our restored DRAGONFLY SQUADRON in 3-D and widescreen. Tickets are selling fast so get yours as soon as possible! http://metrograph.com/film/film/236/dragonfly-squadron-in-3d

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Please help us save SEPTEMBER STORM, the only feature released in dual-35mm 3-D AND CinemaScope! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/3-dspace/september-storm-1960-3-d-digital-feature-film-rest

Kindly help spread the word on this one. Thank you!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

SEPTEMBER STORM Kickstarter: day 7 update with the 60 second TV commercial. Notice they do not say "3-D" as moviegoers were still recovering from the 1953/54 headaches. https://www.kickstarter.com/…/september-storm…/posts/1637334

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Day 12 update on the SEPTEMBER STORM campaign with the first before/after comparison from our test scan. We're pleased to say the results are VERY encouraging!

This proposed 3-D Blu-ray release will be Region Free.

Please help spread the word and help us save this lost 3-D/Cinemascope film before it's too late!

https://www.kickstarter.com/project...0-3-d-digital-feature-film-rest/posts/1641907

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Wow, thanks to your support and generosity, we've hit $20K! Mark Stevens won't need those binoculars much longer to see the finish line.

As promised, for the first time anywhere since 1960, you can see 3-D footage from our test scan!

https://www.kickstarter.com/project...0-3-d-digital-feature-film-rest/posts/1642727

 

[ahollis]

That is excellent news. [emoji3][emoji3][emoji3][emoji3][emoji3]

 

[Jimbo64]

Bob, I watched my TT blu-ray of Anastasia the other night and after I watched it I went to look at the review on bluray.com I was surprised to see them claiming the OAR was 2.55 and not the 2.35 it was presented in. I always thought the AR was changed midway in 1956 when the MagOptical prints became the standard and as this premiered in December 1956 the correct AR would be 2.35.... Any thoughts on this?

 

[Tony Bensley]

This is extremely preliminary, but I just saw ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE MUMMY (1955) listed as an upcoming release at Blu-ray.com with an "Original aspect ratio: 1.85:1" designation!

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Abbott-and-Costello-Meet-the-Mummy-Blu-ray/79653/

Oh, please let this be so, Universal!!!!

CHEERS!

 

[Gary16]

This is extremely preliminary, but I just saw ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE MUMMY (1955) listed as an upcoming release at Blu-ray.com with an "Original aspect ratio: 1.85:1" designation!

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Abbott-and-Costello-Meet-the-Mummy-Blu-ray/79653/

Oh, please let this be so, Universal!!!!

CHEERS!

Hallelujah!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Bob, I watched my TT blu-ray of Anastasia the other night and after I watched it I went to look at the review on bluray.com I was surprised to see them claiming the OAR was 2.55 and not the 2.35 it was presented in. I always thought the AR was changed midway in 1956 when the MagOptical prints became the standard and as this premiered in December 1956 the correct AR would be 2.35.... Any thoughts on this?

I don't know precisely when Fox changed over during production so can't say for sure on this one.

From our website:
The first composite release with both magnetic stereo and a mono optical track on one print was KISMET in December 1955. Magoptical prints were put into wide release in February 1957 with THE TRUE STORY OF JESSE JAMES.

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-stereophonic-sound