One Eyed Jacks on Blu-ray (2 Viewers)

[Peter Apruzzese]

Dr Griffin, when we have films like Saving Private Ryan and The Fugitive which are in 1.85 aspect ratio on DVD and Blu-ray, as they should be, in theory, with the 16 X 9 widescreen ratio (1.777 to 1 ratio) HDTVs and screens that most of us use, there should be very thin bars at the top and bottom of the video image when we view slightly wider 1.85 ratio films such as those. But because a small percentage of overscan is almost always intended for 16 X 9 video displays (to make sure that a 16 X 9 TV's screen is always filled by a 16 X 9 aspect ratio picture as the TV's components age) a 1.85 aspect ratio movie is almost always slightly cropped at the top and bottom, as evidenced by the lack of bars, meaning that most of us always miss seeing a little of the image that the cinematographer and director intended viewers to see.

They usually open up the top and bottom and do not crop the sides when they release a 1.85 movie in 1.78. The vast majority (and I mean about 98.99%) of 1.85 films are not made with a hard matte in camera.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Dr Griffin, when we have films like Saving Private Ryan and The Fugitive which are in 1.85 aspect ratio on DVD and Blu-ray, as they should be, in theory, with the 16 X 9 widescreen ratio (1.777 to 1 ratio) HDTVs and screens that most of us use, there should be very thin bars at the top and bottom of the video image when we view slightly wider 1.85 ratio films such as those. But because a small percentage of overscan is almost always intended for 16 X 9 video displays (to make sure that a 16 X 9 TV's screen is always filled by a 16 X 9 aspect ratio picture as the TV's components age) a 1.85 aspect ratio movie is almost always slightly cropped at the top and bottom, as evidenced by the lack of bars, meaning that most of us always miss seeing a little of the image that the cinematographer and director intended viewers to see.

Yeah, I'm sorry I made the comment, but I was basically kidding. As far as overscan goes, I can turn it off on my display, so I see the full image.

 

[Mike Boone]

They usually open up the top and bottom and do not crop the sides when they release a 1.85 movie in 1.78. The vast majority (and I mean about 98.99%) of 1.85 films are not made with a hard matte in camera.

Thank you Peter, for curing a little ignorance on my end.

 

[Worth]

Dr Griffin, when we have films like Saving Private Ryan and The Fugitive which are in 1.85 aspect ratio on DVD and Blu-ray, as they should be, in theory, with the 16 X 9 widescreen ratio (1.777 to 1 ratio) HDTVs and screens that most of us use, there should be very thin bars at the top and bottom of the video image when we view slightly wider 1.85 ratio films such as those. But because a small percentage of overscan is almost always intended for 16 X 9 video displays (to make sure that a 16 X 9 TV's screen is always filled by a 16 X 9 aspect ratio picture as the TV's components age) a 1.85 aspect ratio movie is almost always slightly cropped at the top and bottom, as evidenced by the lack of bars, meaning that most of us always miss seeing a little of the image that the cinematographer and director intended viewers to see.

Not really, There's a much wider variance in masking even in the best cinemas with the most careful projectionists than the difference between 1.78 and 1.85.

 

[Alan Tully]

It should be noted that those thin black lines are put over picture information, I don't know why they bother, but as I've said, I don't mind either way.

 

[OliverK]

Not really, There's a much wider variance in masking even in the best cinemas with the most careful projectionists than the difference between 1.78 and 1.85.

People would be shocked to see how much is/was cut off in professional cinemas, even in theaters with a flat screen. Curved screens that admittedly have a unique look are even worse in all cases that I have witnessed,

 

[Stephen_J_H]

It should be noted that those thin black lines are put over picture information, I don't know why they bother, but as I've said, I don't mind either way.

True, but that information was never intended to be seen, contrary to Jeffrey Wells' assertions. I suppose he would want E.T. in 1.37:1, except that if he bothered to read anything, he'd know that DOP Allen Daviau composed the film loosely for 1.75:1 and shot with a 1.66:1 hard matte in-camera.

 

[OliverK]

True, but that information was never intended to be seen, contrary to Jeffrey Wells' assertions. I suppose he would want E.T. in 1.37:1, except that if he bothered to read anything, he'd know that DOP Allen Daviau composed the film loosely for 1.75:1 and shot with a 1.66:1 hard matte in-camera.

You obviously know very little about what others like to call "breezy headroom"

 

[Jari K]

I believe this was a "public domain" title. How did they resolve the copyright issues? Just curious.

 

[John Hermes]

I believe this was a "public domain" title. How did they resolve the copyright issues? Just curious.

Fox apparently did it on Beneath The 12-Mile Reef, so I guess it's possible sometimes.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

And the Friedrich-Wilhelm-Murnau-Stiftung was able to rescue Metropolis from public domain as well.

 

[AlanP]

Is there a release date for it yet??

 

[willyTass]

2 weeks away if you can get tickets

http://www.festival-cannes.fr/en/article/62136.html

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

So, off topic but from Willy's link...

There is this mention under William Friedkin:

He will also introduce a restored surprise film at Buñuel Theater and Sorcerer (1977) at the Cinéma de la Plage.

Friedkin said a while back that Warner Brothers were prepping an HD release of Cruising that would be released on blu-ray through Warner Archive...I wonder if this is the "surprise" film.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The only reason Paramount stressed flexibility with the VV AR in the fall of 1954 was to appease theater owners that had been inundated with multiple formats and aspect ratios for the past 15 months. Make no mistake, as per studio policy (and as we have proven beyond any doubt with our documentation from primary source materials) the intended ratio for VV was 1.85:1 from day one.

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

 

[Everett S.]

Wow it is priced @ 199.99 for the crappy old transfer. I wish there was a way to let others know about this new transfer.@ Amazon. The new restoration is not out yet ,hope this clears my post up.Was very upset over the price on Amazon !!!

 

[willyTass]

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The stunning new restoration of ONE-EYED JACKS from Universal Pictures and the Film Foundation premiered yesterday at the Cannes Film Festival.

I'm pleased to report it was presented in the miracle of 1.85:1, which was the intended aspect ratio for VistaVision from day one.

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/16/marlon-brando-one-eyed-jacks-cannes

 

[John Hermes]

1.85? He still isn't buying it.
http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/...s-pops-in-cannes-but-it-didnt-look-like-1-85/

 

[Robert Crawford]

1.85? He still isn't buying it.
http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/...s-pops-in-cannes-but-it-didnt-look-like-1-85/

Who cares what he thinks?