Coming Soon From Olive Films (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

You are wrong. The original negative of this film is 1.66:1 - The studio researched this and found out that the intended ratio for this UK/US production was 1.66 - It might've been screened at 1.77 or 1.85, but that doesn't mean that was the intended ratio. Not everything on the web is true.

Here we go.....

 

[MisterLime]

By "outside", of course, I mean anyone outside of their own walls. Our dear Bob here, for example, is hardly an "outsider"!

You may be surprised, but these companies usually have some really knowledgeable individuals working for them. Everything is researched and decisions are made to benefit both the fans of the label and the company itself. In a perfect world every film ever made would be released completely restored and at an affordable price. You cannot satisfy everyone, I think we should be happy that there's a company out there releasing films like HELL'S HALF ACRE and reintroducing a great filmmaker like John H. Auer.

 

[EddieLarkin]

But thought too much would be lost with HELL'S HALF ACRE, THE ATOMIC KID and JOHNNY GUITAR and decided to release these supposed 1.66 or 1.85 titles at 1.37:1.

This would be funny if it wasn't so depressing. Here is a cap from THE ATOMIC KID:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=64166&position=19

How would a 1.66:1 crop lose too much information?

Combine this evidence with the fact that the films production began more than a whole year after Republic started shooting widescreen films, it simply becomes in an inarguable fact that THE ATOMIC KID was composed wide. Whoever the "really knowledgeable individuals" were who decided to master the film at 1.33:1 have only proved their complete lack of credibility.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Before this latest discussion gets nasty with people crossing the line with their comments, let me say a few words that all of us need to adhere to. I want to remind members that spirited and constructive discussion is welcome on the HTF, but let's remain respectful as I can see this latest round of OAR discussion getting out of hand very quickly. We've been there and done that, let's not repeat it again. Please keep your emotions in check by sticking with the facts as we know them. Personal shots across the bow gets us nowhere as it degrades the discussion into a cesspool of personal bitterness.

Please, take my warning seriously. Thank you.

 

[John Hodson]

I think there are enough experts at these mastering houses and studios. Again, the correct ratio is 1.66:1

Olive can't even take a few minutes to find out who Bob Furmanek is, exactly what he's about, and the plain fact that he's spent a deal of time putting experts at mastering houses and studios on the right track.That's a shame.

 

[Brandon Conway]

The original negative of this film is 1.66:1 - The studio researched this and found out that the intended ratio for this UK/US production was 1.66 - It might've been screened at 1.77 or 1.85, but that doesn't mean that was the intended ratio. Not everything on the web is true.

A 1.66:1 image on a negative does not automatically equate to a 1.66:1 intended theatrical presentation.

While much information on the web is false and based on misinformation, the trades research by Mr. Furmanek and his associates is not just mere speculation. It's actual research with actual period documentation, much of it correcting internal studio misconceptions that are often (but by no means always) based on incorrect traditional assumptions.

I don't doubt that Olive & Paramount have good people on top of these matters; it's more a recent discovery in the last few years that in reality those individuals don't have access to the breadth of documentation that has newly been rediscovered.

 

[bgart13]

Bob has worked with many companies on releasing proper presentation of movies. Do not disregard him or his knowledge. Just because he posts on forums does not make him a fanboy -- it makes him an expert who likes to interact with fans online to discuss movies and share his knowledge.

 

[TheSteig]

Before this latest discussion gets nasty with people crossing the line with their comments, let me say a few words that all of us need to adhere to. I want to remind members that spirited and constructive discussion is welcome on the HTF, but let's remain respectful as I can see this latest round of OAR discussion getting out of hand very quickly. We've been there and done that, let's not repeat it again. Please keep your emotions in check by sticking with the facts as we know them. Personal shots across the bow, gets us nowhere as it degrades the discussion into a cesspool of personal bitterness.

Please, take my warning seriously. Thank you.


Well said Robert
I , for the life of me, cannot begin to fathom why a bitter argument would happen over a films aspect ratio...One person says "this", the other person says 'that" ...and while disagreeing is understandable, to take it to cases of insults and vicious arguing is ridiculous (and immature)There are more important things in this world to worry about, and have nothing to do with Fire Maidens of Outer (boredom) Space...or films for that matter

 

[MisterLime]

A 1.66:1 image on a negative does not automatically equate to a 1.66:1 intended theatrical presentation.

While much information on the web is false and based on misinformation, the trades research by Mr. Furmanek and his associates is not just mere speculation. It's actual research with actual period documentation, much of it correcting internal studio misconceptions that are often (but by no means always) based on incorrect traditional assumptions.

I don't doubt that Olive & Paramount have good people on top of these matters; it's more a recent discovery in the last few years that in reality those individuals don't have access to the breadth of documentation that has newly been rediscovered.

Really, so you know everyone at Olive and Paramount - So no one at these companies who are involved in hundreds of re-mastering jobs per year know what they're doing, they need to talk to bloggers and get their expert opinions. I'm sorry, but the fact is that the intended ratio for this film is 1.66 and it has nothing to do with the aspect ratio of the negative. As I said before, They've released 1.78 and 1.85 versions of many titles that had negatives of 1.37 because the intended ratio was different. I guess they flip a coin and decide if it'll be 1.37 or 1.78 and take it from there. Also, these are the same non-film people who acquired these films for release.

 

[Doug Bull]

"Blowing Wild" has always been a favourite of mine.
Especially the rousing Dimitri Tiomkin score and the title song sung by Frankie Laine.

 

[John Hodson]

Oh dear...

 

[EddieLarkin]

Okay, do you perhaps know the reasons as to why HELL'S HALF ACRE, THE ATOMIC KID and JOHNNY GUITAR ended up 1.37:1? I don't mean the subjective views of people at Olive and Paramount regarding how the films look at various ratios, but actual objective documentation. What documents or other objective evidence led them to believe the films were composed to 1.37:1?

Because in the case of all three films, production started after Republic made the studio wide change to widescreen shooting. Later, the trades instructed exhibitors to matte the screens to a wide ratio. All of this evidence is freely available here:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/313215-aspect-ratio-research/

So what evidence do Olive or Paramount have that contradicts it?

 

[John Morgan]

Blu-ray.com has the cover art for Olive's upcoming blu ray of FIRE MAIDENS OF OUTER SPACE at a 1.75:1 ratio. I have been waiting for this corn-popper. The release date is July 30,

 

[Brandon Conway]

Really, so you know everyone at Olive and Paramount - So no one at these companies who are involved in hundreds of re-mastering jobs per year know what they're doing, they need to talk to bloggers and get their expert opinions. I'm sorry, but the fact is that the intended ratio for this film is 1.66 and it has nothing to do with the aspect ratio of the negative. As I said before, They've released 1.78 and 1.85 versions of many titles that had negatives of 1.37 because the intended ratio was different. I guess they flip a coin and decide if it'll be 1.37 or 1.78 and take it from there. Also, these are the same non-film people who acquired these films for release.

MisterLime, I implied none of the negative spin you are attributing to my statement. Olive & Paramount have done some quality work - no one is denying this. It's also true that many studio releases for this period have been incorrectly released open matte in the past, in particular DVD from the releases from the 2000s. Dial M for Murder is a specific example that can be pointed to: open matte on DVD, properly widescreen on the Blu-ray. Per Mr. Furmanek, his research of period documentation assisted Warner in discovering where their prior documentation was faulty. This isn't said to blame anyone at Warner from ~10 years ago (far from it - they've been doing great work for longer than that!), but only to say that their breadth of information was limited at the time and has since been expanded upon.

As for myself, I'm no rookie in regards to the home video industry from a professional angle. I've been part of the industry for nearly a decade.

As for Mr. Furmanek's credentials, he can speak for himself quite well as being anything but a mere blogger.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Wow, the condescending attitude is quite surprising and a bit disappointing.

I guess they have not seen this article: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

FIRE MAIDENS is composed for 1.75:1 and protected for 1.66:1.

In short: 1.75:1 is the correct ratio.

 

[Thomas T]

Here we go again indeed! Representatives from Warners and Fox used to contribute and interact with the HTF until contentious posters rendered their time here unpleasant and they simply stopped posting to the HTF's detriment.

Mr. Lime has taken his time to provide us with information regarding Olive's schedule and newest releases. It would be a pity if a certain badgering segment caused him to throw in the towel too.

With all due respect to both Mr. Furmanek and Mr. Lime, determining the intended aspect ratio for a near 60 year old film (1.66, 1.78, 1.85) can be difficult and I doubt a definitive answer is possible. One can only hope that everyone does the best they can with the information they have at hand and call me a philistine but while putting up with a P&S transfer for a Scope film is infuriating, I'm not going to lose sleep over the difference between a 1.66 and a 1.78 ratio or a film shot 1.37 but with the possible intention of masking it at a later date.

Bottom line: I'm grateful to have Hell's Half Acre on DVD and it looks just fine to me the way it is.

 

[EddieLarkin]

The intention to matte was a definite one. It's great that you won't lose any sleep over a widescreen film being presented open matte, but we are dealing with facts here. There are a few films where the aspect ratio is debatable; HELL'S HALF ACRE isn't one of them, nor are THE ATOMIC KID or JOHNNY GUITAR. Their presentation by Olive is the result of misinformation, not a difference in opinion.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Republic, as a matter of studio policy, converted to 100% widescreen cinematography on May 15, 1953.

They were the last studio to announce their new widescreen policy to exhibitors. They did so by placing a full-page ad in the trades on August 1, 1953.

 

[revgen]

If you watch JG, you'll see the actor's heads are sometimes touching the top of the frame and releasing it at 1.78 would've cropped off the tops of some key images and you see much more in the 1.37 version.

Republic Studios' house ratio at the time of Johnny Guitar's production and release was 1.66. Not 1.78. So cropping it at 1.78 would've cropped out key elements.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I've worked in the industry since 1980. I'm a published author, film preservationist, award-winning producer and 3-D historian.

My credentials: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/312058-meet-bob-furmanek-htf-golden-age-3-d-consultant/

I reached out to Olive on behalf of my long-time friend Jerry Lewis when they first released some of his Paramount films on Blu-ray.

I never got a reply...