Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[Bob Furmanek]

I don't have a precise example of 1.75:1, but here are images from a film composed for 1.85:1 and protected for 1.37:1. This will give you an idea of the difference.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

From American Cinematographer, May 1953.

 

Thanks so much!

 

[Matt Hough]

That's a fascinating article, especially since Lucky Me and Helen of Troy went on to be shot in Cinemascope (not WarnerScope or was that their way of keeping the patented Cinemascope name out of the article) and Dial 'M' and Murders in the Rue Morgue were done in 3D which wasn't mentioned specifically for those two movies.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The idea behind the camera rig was the flexibility of doing either 3-D or WarnerScope. In the case of THE COMMAND, they did both. The 3-D version was never edited and it went out as the studios first Cinemascope release.
Both LUCKY and HELEN were announced early on for 3-D treatment. In fact, after the early success of HOUSE OF WAX, Jack Warner optimistically announced that WB was going to film everything in 3-D. Of course, those plans quickly changed!

 

[Mark-P]

According to Wikipepia: "In 1953, Warner Brothers also planned to develop an identical anamorphic process called Warnerscope, but after the premiere of CinemaScope, Warners decided to license it from Fox instead."

That's a fascinating article, especially since Lucky Me and Helen of Troy went on to be shot in Cinemascope (not WarnerScope or was that their way of keeping the patented Cinemascope name out of the article) and Dial 'M' and Murders in the Rue Morgue were done in 3D which wasn't mentioned specifically for those two movies.

 

[KMR]

I don't have a precise example of 1.75:1, but here are images from a film composed for 1.85:1 and protected for 1.37:1. This will give you an idea of the difference.

The airplane cockpit scene seems to be a prime example of something that was not protected for 1.37:1. (Mic shadow at top of frame, mysterious steering mechanism which is now understood simply to be something intended to be out-of-frame and only an aid to the actors.)

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Granted, it's a little sloppy but in Ed Wood and William C. Thompson's defense, most theaters (even smaller ones) would have played PLAN NINE in widescreen. The film was in production in November 1956 and 1.85:1 had become the industry standard by September of that year.
Contrary to what somebody once wrote about the filmmakers primary intent being future television showings, these films were intended to look their best in widescreen.

 

[Jeff Job]

According to Wikipepia: "In 1953, Warner Brothers also planned to develop an identical anamorphic process called Warnerscope, but after the premiere of CinemaScope, Warners decided to license it from Fox instead."

Warner Bros. developed lenses for their own "Scope" process called WarnerScope. They were initially used on tests for Judy Garland's "A Star is Born". The results were terrible - muddy colors and lots of distortion. The decision was made to switch over to CinemaScope for the film.
The details of all this can be found in Ronald Haver's book, "A Star is Born: The Making of the 1954 movie and its 1983 Restoration".

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Some updated information on INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, documented from original source materials.
Some other sites are claiming the film was always intended for Superscope treatment. This is not true.
July 6, 1953: Allied Artists announces 1.85:1 as their house ratio. All future productions will be filmed for widescreen but shot open matte to protect for 1.37:1.
March 23, 1955 - THE BODY SNATCHERS begins shooting on location. No mention is made of Superscope in the trades. As a point of reference, other Superscope productions are listed as such by other studios.

April 27, 1955 - End of principal photography.
May 28, 1955 - Superscope is announced for the film.

In conclusion, Don Siegel would have composed the film for the Allied Artists house ratio of 1.85:1. The Superscope release was 2.00:1. The difference in compositions between the two ratios is minimal but should be noted.
Bob

 

[John Hodson]

Bob, what's the situation with Vera Cruz; was that converted post shooting? Would the intended ratio have been 1.66:1?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

VERA CRUZ began shooting on location in Cuernavaca, Mexico in late February of 1954.
When Superscope was first shown to 800 exhibitors on Monday March 22, 1954 at the RKO 86th Street Theater in New York, scenes from VERA CRUZ were included in the demonstration. Based on that information, I would think the film was always intended for 2.00:1.

It was the first Superscope film released theatrically on December 25, 1954.

 

[John Hodson]

Interesting; I can't help but feel it looks a tad 'tight'. Thanks Bob.

 

[rdimucci]

Olive Films has announced a Blu-ray of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS for release on July 17, 2012. According to their presss release: "Olive's Blu-ray presents Invasion of the Body Snatchers in a 2.00:1 "Superscope" aspect ratio; the distributor has used a new HD transfer, one restored from the original negative."
So, apparently Paramount had the opportunity to correctly frame IOTBS back to 1.85:1, but will not be doing so.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Olive Films has announced a Blu-ray of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS for release on July 17, 2012. According to their presss release: "Olive's Blu-ray presents Invasion of the Body Snatchers in a 2.00:1 "Superscope" aspect ratio; the distributor has used a new HD transfer, one restored from the original negative."
So, apparently Paramount had the opportunity to correctly frame IOTBS back to 1.85:1, but will not be doing so.

It's quite possible the original 1.37:1 elements - which would be needed to correctly master in 1.85:1 - no longer exist...

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Interesting; I can't help but feel it looks a tad 'tight'. Thanks Bob.

Definitely not 1.66:1. The only UA productions filmed for that ratio as of February 1954 were filmed in the UK.
It's possible that some early footage was composed for either 1.75 or 1.85. However, the fact that it was included in the Superscope demo indicates it was not a post converted title. After all, the film was still shooting in Mexico when that demonstration took place.
United Artists began filming for widescreen in May of 1953 and the aspect ratios ranged from 1.66 to 1.85.

 

[John Hodson]

Ah; Bosley Crowther wasn't impressed with Superscope whatever the ratio. Thanks again Bob.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

If you think that's bad, you should read some of his reviews when Mr. Crowther was forced to sit through a 3-D movie. Yikes!
Jack Theakston and I have decided to take our widescreen article up through September 1956. That's when 1.85:1 became the accepted standard for domestic non-anamorphic widescreen photography.
Every domestic feature film in production from THE ROBE in February 1953 through September 1956 will be documented with the start of principal photography and the correct intended theatrical widescreen ratio. Our research with original, primary source materials will put to rest and clear up many of the myths about this mis-understood period of cinematography when directors were composing for widescreen while still protecting for standard academy.

The report will contain all original research. No data will be taken from books, articles or the Internet. There's too much wrong information out there!
Bob

 

[Douglas Monce]

Sounds great Bob. Can't wait to read it!
Doug

 

[rdimucci]

It's quite possible the original 1.37:1 elements - which would be needed to correctly master in 1.85:1 - no longer exist...

That appears to be the case. Olive issued a correction to their press release stating that BODY SNATCHERS was not remastered from the original negative. The original negative is lost; the film was remastered from a fine grain.
It's likely that all the surviving film elements are formatted for SuperScope, making an "opened up" 1.85:1 transfer impossible.