Night of the Hunter AOR

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Well, to add some confusion, the R2 and R4 versions of Dial M for Murder are 1.85:1 "Dial M For Murder" Warner Home Video - Region 2, 4, 5- PAL vs. Warner Home Video - Region 1- NTSC vs. Cine Korea - Region 0 - NTSC vs. Unknown company (Bootleg) 3D version - Region 0 - NTSC

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Both films were made for widescreen exhibition, standard practice for major studio films by then

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Films of that day (and even up to the 1980s) were shot with no hard matte. It was taken for granted by the theaters that they must be run widescreen, generally at 1.85:1 unless noted.

In the first couple of years (1953-1955) of widescreen, aspect ratios were listed in trade magazines. As you can see below from Motion Picture Exhibitor, DIAL M was meant to be shown at an aspect ratio of 1.85:1.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

I wouldn't call 1:66 to 1 "widescreen". Let's not get carried away and hack off the top and bottom of every movie from the past 60 years so it will fit on a widescreen TV.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Excluding non-anamorphic discs, DVDs of films shot at 1.66:1 tend to show up as 1.78:1 (16:9 fullscreen) on an HDTV, which means a not-insignificant amount of information is lost at the top and bottom of the image.

Sometimes this cropping happens because the DVD was authored at 16:9, and sometimes it happens because the TV overscans 1.66 films to 16:9. In any case, viewing a 1.66 film on an HDTV can be annoying, since the heads of actors are often cut off at the top of the screen - e.g., the famous shot of Christopher Lee baring his fangs in HORROR OF DRACULA.

The cropping of 1.85:1 films to the 16:9 HD frame usually isn't as bad, since the amount of information lost is smaller and limited to the sides of the image, where there usually is a bit more leeway than at the top or bottom.

I've read that there are a few HDTVs now without overscan, but of course eliminating overscan won't do you any good if the DVD is authored at 16:9, and most are from what I've seen.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

This isn't really a fair example, as even at 1.66, the top of his head is cropped, yet not so severely. It happens to be how the shot is framed.


Not the case if there isn't a hard matte on the film that is exactly 1.85:1 (which is almost never). What ends up happening in the transfer is that a little extra space is opened up on the top and bottom.


Well, whether you think 1.66 is "widescreen" isn't very important to anyone. But what is important is that a studio respects the aspect ratio of their film in transfer using documents in their possession rather than peoples' opinions and 50-year-old memories. It would lead to a lot less confusion.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

I'll take your word for it on that particular shot, but the framing looks bad to me on a good number of DVDs of 1.66 British films. For example, the top of Geoffrey Toone's head is cut off all throughout TERROR OF THE TONGS. I suppose maybe what I'm seeing can be attributed to the height of some actors or maybe to the style of British filmmakers, but I haven't noticed any such problems on 1.85 films cropped to 16:9.


Unless the real world aspect ratio of a 1.66 or 1.85 film is exactly 1.78:1, then a 16:9 transfer should show small black bars at the sides or top and bottom of a display, assuming zero overscan by both the display and DVD player. Using my computer monitor and DVD-ROM (which have zero overscan), I've never actually seen black bars with any anamorphic DVD of any non-Scope film. I can only conclude then that 1.66 and 1.85 films are always cropped exactly to 16:9 when transferred to a 16:9 DVD, which indicates that some small amount of information is generally being lost somewhere. Whether or not this information is significant will obviously depend on the film, but again, the framing on a lot of DVDs of British films looks bad to me.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

My Oppo DVD player is set to output 1080p and my Samsung 1080p display is set to 1:1 mapping so I have zero overscan. I have a number of widescreen film DVDs of varying ratios, including the 1.66:1 films in the Hammer set you mention, that are displayed perfectly correctly with black bars showing.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

I'm skeptical that all films shown in 1.66:1 were meant to be shown in that format. For example, in Vincente Minnelli's autobiography he complains that The Band Wagon (1953) was sometimes shown cropped to 1.66:1 during exhibition which he says was never his intention.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

We all know there were examples in 1954 of studios taking films in Academy ratio and cropping them, Shane also being an example. But that stopped very quickly and the studios dictum from 1954 on was no more Academy ratio films in the US. Therefore, a transfer like Warners' The Bad Seed in Academy ratio is completely wrong and all you have to do is look at the headroom to know that. Dial M For Murder looks so right in 1.85:1 and never looked good open matte, but that's always how we've gotten it in the US. The region 2 DVD finally got it right. We've always gotten Night Of The Hunter open matte, too - when I finally saw it in 1.85:1 it was a true revelation.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

My point is that they're not cropping it, they're just doing the transfer at 16:9 and leaving a little extra space open at top and bottom. They're not transferring it at 1.85:1 or whatever and cropping it. That doesn't make any sense if you can do it the other way around.

The converse DOES happen for 1.66:1 film (such as the aforementioned HORROR OF DRACULA).

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

I'm skeptical that every movie shot over the past 50 years should be matted to a 1:85 ratio. I'm always amazed to hear how unimportant everything at the top and bottom of the screen is (even in the middle of the screen), but the stuff on the very side of the screen is REAL important. Most directors of the past 50 years knew that the films would be seen on TV full frame went out of there way not to include important picture information on the sides, but the "let's matte every film ever made" bunch seem to ignore that.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Assuming I understand you correctly, then the extra space should appear on a 16x9 HDTV as small black bars at the top and bottom (1.85) or sides (1.66) of the screen, assuming the transferred film has an aspect ratio roughly equal to 1.85:1 or 1.66:1, respectively.

Again, having gone through a lot of different HDTV and DVD player combinations, I've never see any black bars with anamorphic DVDs of non-Scope widescreen films, which probably means that most HDTVs and/or players are overscanning (cropping) properly transferred 1.85 or 1.66 films to 16x9.

John Hodson points out above that he does see black bars using an Oppo player and a Samsung TV, but you're likely not getting features like 1:1 pixel mapping and zero overscan with lower or mid range equipment, which means that most people are losing some of the picture when watching DVDs of 1.85 or 1.66 films.

My experience is that this overscan problem isn't that significant for the 1.85 ratio, but for 1.66 you definitely notice a lot of heads and other objects at the top of the screen being chopped off relative to the way these objects appear on TCM prints.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

You've got me wrong. My insistence on matting is only for films that were clearly meant to be seen in widescreen, which is pretty much every major studio film made since 1953. Check the documents, check the press releases. I'm certainly not advocating cropping Casablanca

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Erm... we're having a line of communication severed here somewhere

Films that are listed as being transferred at 1.85:1 on the back of the box are seldom actually 1.85, but 16x9. This we have established.

But what you're thinking is that they're transferring this 1.85 film and cropping it on the sides, which isn't the case. They're simply transferring the film at 16x9 and leaving a little open space on the top and bottom.

Now, that being said, there are a few films out there that do their transfers at 1.85 for whatever reason. In that case, yes, you'll get thin black bars at the top and bottom.

But the truth is that there really aren't all that many true 1.85 presentations.

With 1.66:1 films, the only examples I can cite-- those early Hammers that are 1.66-- yes, they're basically doing a tilt-and-scan on them in order to fit them to 16x9. If that, even. Usually they just do a 16x9 transfer and say "to hell with it" and the result is what you got with HORROR OF DRACULA.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Warners have already held their hands up on 1.66:1 films and vowed to present them properly where applicable - certainly, I'm confident that the next iteration of 'Horror of Dracula' (c'mon Warners and release it soon) will be spot on. In recent times, Universal and Sony have been doing a pretty good job in this regard, as did Paramount (when they gave a damn).

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

No, most 1.85 films are 1.85, and on a display with no overscanning will have very slight letterboxing. It sounds like you're confusing the overscan with an actual 1.78 frame.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

That's not what I've seen, both from sitting in on a telecine session and from looking at an image reduced on a monitor. Just flipping through a number of DVDs, I'm seeing a 16x9 transfer and no black bars on the top and bottom.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

I think I've now found a software player for my computer which displays a proper 16x9 frame without overscan. The screencap below (from THE SPIRIT OF THE BEEHIVE) shows how a properly transferred *1.66* film should look on an HDTV. Excluding the black bars at the sides, the film image has an aspect ratio of approximately 1.63:1.

In contrast to my computer monitor, what my LCD TV displays is a smaller 16x9 frame taken from within the 16x9 image you see below. The result is that the black bars at the sides are gone and the top and bottom of the Frankenstein poster are slightly cropped off.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Which means, of course, that your LCD TV has overscan. So does mine.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

You are wrong. Many directors shot in full frame and new that a little would be cropped off in theaters. The whole idea that these directors were dead against any of the top and bottom of the picture being seen even though they shot it with an open matte is insane. I think many directors would be horrified to find out that 1/3 of the picture is being hacked off to fit a widescreen TV.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Every anamorphic 1.85:1 DVD from Universal I've seen has had thin little black bars at the top and bottom. I still have a 4:3 TV set, and watching on that I can easily tell the difference between 1.85 and 1.78. Take a look at Vertigo, Psycho, and Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, all are anamorphic 1.85 and all have very thin black bars.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Interesting, Matt. I will check that out. Thanks for the examples.


What is your source for this "information"?

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Hey Jack, it's nice to hear from you. I don't know if you remember, but I used to post as "Beggar" on the Harold Lloyd Forum. If I remember correctly, I think you used to post as TServo?

Anyway, I think there's a lot of miscommunication going on in this thread.
According to imdb.com, there are no less than THREE aspect ratios for Dial M for Murder (none of which are 1.85). For the original WarnerVision dual-strip 3-D process the film would've been projected at the classic Academy 1.37:1 ratio, and for the anamorphic 3-D process the film was 1.17:1. For standard 2-D projection, the film was matted to 1.66:1.

For 1954 films, I think there's quite a bit of grey area as to proper aspect ratios. As we all know, most 1.85:1 films are filmed 1.37:1 but the directors and cinematographers frame for 1.85:1 projection. Anthony Mann's Thunder Bay was filmed 1.37:1 and INTENDED by Mann for 1.37:1, but Universal wanted to jump in on the widescreen bandwagon and released the film 1.85:1.

Dial M, being an EARLY '54 film (Rear Window, for instance, is a LATER '54 film and is properly matted for 1.66:1), was probably a victim of the studios' rash hard-matting in its 2-D version. Given that the film was intended for 3-D 1.37:1 projection, I think Warner's current DVD is appropriate.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Scroll up and look at the list that's been provided from Motion Picture Exhibitor - you can't argue with what it says, and it's not rocket science to look at the open matte transfer and see all the unnecessary headroom. Clearly, in the Exhibitor, WARNERS themselves provided the information on the ratio for Dial 'M' For Murder. It's not a case of over-cropping just to cash in because if it was it wouldn't look right in 1:85.1. No heads are chopped off and the framing seems just right.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

[quote=Jack Theakston]Interesting, Matt. I will check that out. Thanks for the examples.



What is your source for this "information"?[/QUOT My "source" came from the exact same source that tells us that all movies shot since 1950 are meant to be shown in a 1:85 ratio so that they can fit on a widescreenTV. The same source that tells us that all information at the top and bottom of the screen is "superfluous" and should be removed by black bars. The source that video geeks know what cameramen and directors who have been dead for 40 years meant to be seen in their films. Basically the same source that has told you every film needs to be seen at 1:85. I hope this answers all your questions.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

No one is saying "all films after 1950" or only 1.85:1.

Generally, most major studio films after around 1954-1956 can be considered to be intended for widescreen matting. There's always exceptions and some should be matted less than others.

I think aspect ratios have turned into a ridiculous debate on a lot of forums. It's mostly common sense and simple research. Come on, there's arguments over 1.85:1 films being "butchered" to 1.78:1.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Hey Matt. Yes, same Jack Theakston here.


Just my personal experience talking here, but I'd advise against using IMDb as any sort of legitimate source, particularly technical info. It is, after all, a user contributed (and totally anonymous) website, and for that fact alone is subject to all sorts of misinformation.


This is correct. I've run THUNDER BAY in 35mm a number of times and 1.85 is clearly not the aspect ratio for the film-- in fact, the titles don't even block for it. It is also correct that it was screened in some venues widescreen (and in fact, was the film that introduced the flat 1.85:1 ratio).

On that note, there's a great deal of inter-office information that I've had access to that would support the fact that right after Universal released that film (May, '53) that they'd already blocked all of their viewfinders for the 1.85:1 and even 2:1 formats and were already filming for those ratios. Films that were being released by September were all lensed for 1.85 by that company. Other studios, such as Columbia, were also ready in a timely manner by May and June. There was no technical set-backs. It merely meant marking viewfinders accordingly, and an entire studio's camera line-up could be done overnight.


No, I disagree with you there. For starters, the release date on DIAL M was May of '54, with the production being sometime in the fall of '53. It was shot with Warner Brothers' "All Media" rig, which was built specifically for wide-screen photography as one of its assets. I was also fortunate enough to go through the WB file on the film at USC, with some correspondence between producers and Hitchcock discussing the wide-screen format. There was clearly no confusion in terms of the aspect ratio they were going to be shooting in. So as far as I'm concerned, that cleared the air for me about DIAL M's aspect ratio.

Indeed, there is less confusion about the early '50s titles than there is about titles made AFTER that era because it is so well documented. I've got a number of articles talking with directors and cinematographers about shooting in the wide-screen format, including George Sidney on KISS ME, KATE, a film that was released in November of '53. When Bob Furmanek and I were writing an article about HONDO, we also established that director John Farrow was lensing for wide screen as well, and wrote to Jack Warner in concern that the 3-D close-ups he was filming would be hard on audiences' eyes.

It seems to me that, as Patrick McCart stated probably better than I could have, that this thing has become more ridiculous than it should be, with all sorts of folks adding their two-cents where they really don't have any knowledge of the topic in the first place.

Such as...


No, you really didn't answer any of my questions here. What you seem to be spouting is either biting satire or pompous ignorance of the facts. Sorry.

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

[quote=chas speed]
As Mr. Theakston, a man who knows whereof he speaks, says above it answers no questions. If you have a "source" telling you all films since 1950 should be 1:85.1 then your "source" is beyond ignorant. Once films were filmed for widescreen presentation and were matted thusly, the information that is masked from the full aperture negative IS superfluous and often includes tops of sets, mics, and ridiculous headroom that no cameraman would ever want seen. The directors and cameramen framed their films for the cinema not television. But frankly your entire posting history in this thread reeks of trolling.