Hammer Films Blu Ray in the U.S. (1 Viewer)

[Jari K]

But as you say , most US equipment isn't compatible with 50hz so the chances of the US discs being 50hz seems unlikely when many people would not be able to play them.

I'm only talking about those Australian releases from Shock (where some are 1080i and some are 1080p).

 

[classicmovieguy]

Do you think it's been a concious budget-based decision for Shock, or simply a screw-up?

 

[bgart13]

Screw up.

 

[bluelaughaminute]

I see links around the internet to DVD Beaver often . Its been a long time since I took much of what he says as a true reflection of the discs in question because I see comments and opinions that wouldn't be posted by someone with a true knowledge of the subject.
Case in point - he's just reviewed the Australian Bluray of Quatermass Xperiment and raves on about the HD presentations of the bonus movies Quatermass 2 and X-The Unknown. Despite all being in 1080i Q2 and XTU are both upscales from SD masters and not very good ones at that yet he missed that . The quality immediately says not HD.
The original dvd's are from better sources too .

 

[Bob Furmanek]

He's not the only one to make a mistake on this release.
All three films were composed for widescreen.

 

[bluelaughaminute]

He's not the only one to make a mistake on this release.
All three films were composed for widescreen.

I was thinking more about his inability to tell that the 2 bonus movies were not true HD.

I think all the dvd's of QE I've ever seen were 4:3 , looked fine in 4:3 and being released on the back of the BBC broadcasts just as commercial tv was starting in the UK seemed appropriate for 4:3.
If they were composed for wider ratios in cinemas then so be it - but the 4:3 versions all look ok .

As we've seen around the forums there is no definitive evidence as to what ratio the films were made for .
We have SC releasing in 1.66:1 , we have Universal supplying in 2:1 and we have perfectly watchable 4:3 versions too.
Personally I've lost interest in the ratio problem.
It was worth arguing about when we were being forced to view 2.35:1 films with half the image missing but in this day and age , 1.66 or 1.77 or even 1.85 are fine as the difference between the 3 is not much specially if viewing with overscan on.
2:1 can look a little tight on some but not enough to stop me buying the discs or posting hundreds of comments about it like forum members on some other forums do.

The disappointing thing about the bonus movies on the disc is that they're not as good as the Anchor Bay dvd's so the convenience of having the 3 on one disc is not applicable for me.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I prefer to see the films in the theatrical ratio intended by the filmmakers...

 

[bluelaughaminute]

I prefer to see the films in the theatrical ratio intended by the filmmakers...

So do I - and when there is confirmed evidence to say what that ratio is then titles should be released like it.
When ratios are guesswork and speculation ( as many of the Hammer titles are) I'm happy if it looks good on my tv .
If Hammer themselves don't know what the intended ratios were then I doubt anyone else does either despite scouring historical records to get an average.
If a film is anything between 1.66 and 1.85 then either of those or 1.77 will suffice considering nobody knows for sure and the fact that not all cinemas would be setup for all ratios so the chances are that the films were made with a safe area in mind so that the films could be shown in any one of the above ratios

While there is only one version available who loses out by refusing to buy Brides of Dracula because its 2:1?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

There's no guesswork or speculation. British standards were firmly in place when all three films were photographed.

You'll find all of the documentation in the UK section of this article: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

 

[bluelaughaminute]

There's no guesswork or speculation. British standards were firmly in place when all three films were photographed.

You'll find all of the documentation in the UK section of this article: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

Then why does your post about the Quatermass films on the Aspect Ratio thread clearly show your 2 "guesses" for the first film and your guess for the second film too ? Followed up by John Hodsons guess and preference.
Because you don't know for sure.

British standards weren't set for movies to be made in a single ratio. Therefore nobody knows what ratio the director might have had in mind .
If all this research is so accurate why are movies of the era rarely released in ratios that don't get a whinge or two from various people .
One would expect Hammer themselves to have access to the documentation related to the movies released on Bluray .
The fact there are nearly 200 pages of aspect ratio discussion shows there is no end to the argument .
For better or worse I let the studios decide what ratios to release their own movies in . Then I decide.
If its a Bluray thats dvd quality like Curse of Frankenstein I sell it . If the ratio is questionable I see how I like it on my tv .
I'm not 100% happy with Brides of Dracula but as its the only version I'll stick with it in the hope of a better version as 2:1 is clearly too tight.
I know that John Hodson refuses to buy it - and on another forum in particular likes to remind everyone as often as possible what he thinks of it .
In the meantime I've watched it in HD which is what the Bluray is for .

But can we agree to differ on this .
If I wanted to argue about aspect ratios I would be on that thread but I don't because its almost pointless.
On the Roobarbs forum John Hodson has written a novel ( it seems like it anyway) composed of posts complaining about Curse of Frankenstein and Brides of Dracula . Volume 2 covers other Hammer films .
And the tedious repetition is why I avoid discussions on ratios ( Nothing against John though - his non ratio connected posts on Roobarbs are very informative and useful- thanks John)

 

[EddieLarkin]

If a film is anything between 1.66 and 1.85 then either of those or 1.77 will suffice considering nobody knows for sure and the fact that not all cinemas would be setup for all ratios so the chances are that the films were made with a safe area in mind so that the films could be shown in any one of the above ratios

Okay, but what does this have to do with the Blu-ray being released at 1.33:1? There's not a bit of documentation that suggests 1.33:1 could be correct, so getting them released in widescreen is what is important. We can deal with the .65/.75/.85 issue afterwards.

One would expect Hammer themselves to have access to the documentation related to the movies released on Bluray .

One would be dead wrong in making this assumption. They know nothing.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

One would expect Hammer themselves to have access to the documentation related to the movies released on Bluray .

You think?

 

[bluelaughaminute]

Okay, but what does this have to do with the Blu-ray being released at 1.33:1? There's not a bit of documentation that suggests 1.33:1 could be correct, so getting them released in widescreen is what is important. We can deal with the .65/.75/.85 issue afterwards.



One would be dead wrong in making this assumption. They know nothing.

It has nothing to do with the film being released in 1.33 :1 which is why I never mentioned it until Bob did.
But as I said , I'm pretty sure every time I've seen the film over the past 30+ years whether it be on BBC , C4 or on home video or dvd its always been 4:3 .
It's always looked ok in 4:3 .
Just because some documentation appears that hints that perhaps all the screenings since the 80's have been wrong is no reason to change it .
A widescreen version would presumably crop the current 4:3 version rather than add anything to the sides so perhaps they don't want to .
They probably think its too much trouble.
If they do crop it to widescreen the only response is likely to be hundreds more tedious posts that they've cropped it to the wrong ratio- as is the case with lots of other films on Bluray.
I can see why they can't be bothered.
If the knowledgeable people on here don't know for sure what the ratio is then why would they ?

 

[EddieLarkin]

At least StudioCanal only do it out of ignorance. Hammer have started releasing films from as late as 1973 in alternative 1.33:1 versions, and so it's clear what their game is: they are simply "boxy is beautiful" fanatics just like Wells, and appear to firmly believe that more information is always a good thing.

Even with Rasputin the Mad Monk, a CinemaScope film from 1966, they insisted on presenting two versions! A proper 2.35:1 version and a more open 2.55:1 version (by removing the soundtrack, as it were), better to demonstrate "insight into both the composition of the original frame by cinematographer Michael Reed, and the overall production design (by Bernard Robinson) of Don Sharp's film, as often an almost perfectly symmetrically composition emerges when seen at 2.55:1 which is absent from the 2.35:1 matted version."

One only has to look at the cap comparison of the opening title in the DVDBeaver review to see how dumb an inclusion this was:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_reviews_61/rasputin_the_mad_monk_blu-ray.htm

But as I said , I'm pretty sure every time I've seen the film over the past 30+ years whether it be on BBC , C4 or on home video or dvd its always been 4:3 .
It's always looked ok in 4:3 .
Just because some documentation appears that hints that perhaps all the screenings since the 80's have been wrong is no reason to change it .
A widescreen version would presumably crop the current 4:3 version rather than add anything to the sides so perhaps they don't want to .

Of course it's looked "okay" in 4:3; it was designed to be, precisely for TV viewings. Doesn't mean it was the ratio intended by the director, and it certainly was not the ratio it played at in cinemas.

 

[bluelaughaminute]

Of course it's looked "okay" in 4:3; it was designed to be, precisely for TV viewings. Doesn't mean it was the ratio intended by the director, and it certainly was not the ratio it played at in cinemas.

But as nobody knows what the ratio was its a pointless guessing game .
I'm not agreeing that 4:3 is correct - I'm saying that nobody knows if its 1.66,1.77 or 1.85 so whatever they do the aspect ratio whiners will be complaining .
AFAIK the Hammer titles where a 4:3 version is a bonus feature do include a widescreen version too .
So apart from your view that a 4:3 version is pointless whats the problem as long as the widescreen version is included ?
I don't watch the 4:3 versions either but I can't be bothered to whinge about something I don't watch.

Re Rasputin - IIRC the 2.55 ratio is what the film was shot in . It was trimmed down to 2.35 :1 to remove apparent curves at the edge of the picture related to the lenses .
In that sense 2.55 is what it should be in not 2.35:1 but I guess this was not an issue at the cinema.
Wasn't it the Roan LD and the original Anchor Bay dvd where the ratio was adjusted to 2.35:1 by William Lustig?

And yet another link to DVD Beaver . How am I supposed to take seriously anyone who can't even tell an upscale from genuine HD ?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Just because a film has not been presented in the AR the director intended for the past fifty+ years does not mean it shouldn't be seen properly in 2014.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

This information will help to explain what was happening in the UK at that time.

In March 1954, the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association sent out an elaborate questionnaire to the six principal UK production companies. They confirm that 1.65:1 will remain their intended production ratio, as previously recommended by the C.E.A.'s General Council.

By February 10, 1955, in an effort to "stabilize shooting methods in British studios," the Camera Technical Committee of the British Film Producers Association was now recommending 1.75:1 as the optimum ratio for British productions. Cinematographers will be instructed to compose shots loosely in order to work from 1.66:1 up to 1.85:1, with 1.75:1 being considered ideal.

On July 14 1955, there was an update of the British Standard that the BFPA, BKS, CEA and others had been working towards. It specified a common-top approach to image composition, and again recommends 1.75:1 to producers, with both 1.65 and 1.85 permissible.

On October 6, 1955, the Ideal Kinema reported: "Every projectionist will welcome the decision (reported in KINE last week) that the British Film Producers' Association has approved its technical committee's proposals for standardization on aspect ratios.

This is a matter in which the British industry, most commendably, has given a lead to the world, including the United States. The decision to standardise at a ratio of 1.75 to 1, tolerable for both 1.65 to 1 and 1.85 to 1, means that, very soon, the man in the box should be able to relax from the tiresome necessity of re-racking to prevent either topping or tailing his picture."

​

 

[bluelaughaminute]

Just because a film has not been presented in the AR the director intended for the past fifty+ years does not mean it shouldn't be seen properly in 2014.

No but the constant whinging from aspect ratio purists is a good enough reason for them not to bother . As nobody knows what the actual ratio is they'll never please everyone.

Your documentation is a good example of showing what was happening in the UK but it doesn't mean that every single film that was made took this into account and current guesses about what aspect ratio certain films are remain guesses .
Informed guesses perhaps but guesses nevertheless.

And guesses that studios choose to ignore apparently.

I couldn't help notice the paper is from December 1956 and refers to a previous ratio of 1.33:1 .
As Quatermass Experiment was made in 1955 then 1.33:1 could appear to be correct if the recommendations were not followed - doesn't appear to be a mandatory thing and as QE was filmed in 1955 as the changes were being discussed during the year there's no telling what ratio they would have chosen.

Are these documents the entire reason we're subjected to endless tedious ratio complaints every time a film comes out that doesn't abide by these "rules".
Not exactly gospel is it ?

If anything this illustrates the real possibility that QE was not filmed for widescreen at all.
If it took until October 1955 for a general agreement on a ratio to be made why would a Hammer film shot earlier that year be bothered about it ?

 

[EddieLarkin]

AFAIK the Hammer titles where a 4:3 version is a bonus feature do include a widescreen version too .
So apart from your view that a 4:3 version is pointless whats the problem as long as the widescreen version is included ?

I did not say it was a problem for them to release 4:3 versions alongside the widescreen versions, only that it reveals how they view all films shot flat widescreen. They want to see them completely open matte, even when the film comes from a period when showing the film open matte would have essentially been impossible, and that obviously the director made no consideration for it whatsoever, beyond making sure it looked "okay" for TV. If they could, they'd release The Godfather in an alternative 1.33:1 version too (as would Jeff Wells, who has blogged about preferring it this way).

I only point this out because you made the assumption that Hammer, being the studio and all, being the "professionals", would know how to present these films properly. Well they don't, and don't seem to care one wit about presenting the widescreen versions either at all (Quatermass) or correctly (Dracula, CoF, The Mummy), as long as they get their precious open matte versions on the disc. For this reason they should be derided.

 

[EddieLarkin]

I couldn't help notice the paper is from December 1956 and refers to a previous ratio of 1.33:1 .
As Quatermass Experiment was made in 1955 then 1.33:1 could appear to be correct if the recommendations were not followed - doesn't appear to be a mandatory thing and as QE was filmed in 1955 as the changes were being discussed during the year there's no telling what ratio they would have chosen.

Are these documents the entire reason we're subjected to endless tedious ratio complaints every time a film comes out that doesn't abide by these "rules".
Not exactly gospel is it ?

It mentions 1.33:1 as a presentation ratio, not a compositional one. Whilst the British Standards Institution's recommendations may not have been mandatory, Exclusive's declared policy to produce all future films in widescreen from July 1953 most certainly was. Relevant documentation can be found in Bob's already linked to article.

Quatermass did not begin filming until 15 months after this announcement, by which point all major studios in the UK had released many widescreen films already. Last but not least, looking at the film itself bears out that it was composed for widescreen. That is the basis that we complain about the wrong ratio been used.