New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Night of the Hunter AOR - Page 2

post #31 of 60
9/27/08 at 11:32pm

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

And that being said, I will re-iterate the same point I always make to the "they were composing for television" argument: why would they compose for the full frame knowing it would be cropped in the theater when it's simply easier to do what real DPs actually do, which is to compose for wide-screen and protect the image for later television airings? Doesn't that seem like sort of cutting out half when you can actually have all?
Reply
post #32 of 60
9/28/08 at 12:44am

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick McCart
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.

Given the advent of widescreen digital TVs, aspect ratios shouldn't even be a topic of discussion anymore. Unfortunately, many LCD screens suffer from the same overscan problem as tube TVs, and for whatever reason, the studios are still determined not to release some early widescreen films in their OAR.
Reply
post #33 of 60
9/28/08 at 2:00am
Thread Starter 

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Man, these mid 50's titles can be a pain. I bought Dial M because it said it was the original aspect ration. I do think that Academy ratio is probably ok in this case because the 3-d version was in this ratio. Did they shoot separate versions of this film like Oklahoma with Cinemascope and Todd-AO ot was the 2-d version just one of the strips of the 3-d version? Also, The Digital Bits review of Night of the Hunter said it was in OAR (sorry about AOR in the thread title, album oriented rock?!). Too bad there isn't any more definitive record on this. Like someone said, there are exceptions, and who knows, perhaps Charles Laughton, being a star of the academy ratio era preferred the ratio. I'd really like to see some specific info on these titles, aside from generalizations about the era.
Reply
post #34 of 60
9/28/08 at 2:57am

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob kilbride
Also, The Digital Bits review of Night of the Hunter said it was in OAR (sorry about AOR in the thread title, album oriented rock?!). Too bad there isn't any more definitive record on this. Like someone said, there are exceptions, and who knows, perhaps Charles Laughton, being a star of the academy ratio era preferred the ratio.

I usually prevaricate on issues of which I have no evidence, indeed no expertise, but I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that 'Night of The Hunter' was composed - beautifully - for widescreen.
Reply
post #35 of 60
9/28/08 at 3:04am

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Hodson
I usually prevaricate on issues of which I have little or no expertise, but I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that 'Night of The Hunter' was shot for widescreen.
You're right, it was shot in 1.85:1 ratio as listed on AFI.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3383335-post13.html
Reply
post #36 of 60
9/28/08 at 1:32pm

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Quote:
I bought Dial M because it said it was the original aspect ration. I do think that Academy ratio is probably ok in this case because the 3-d version was in this ratio. Did they shoot separate versions of this film like Oklahoma with Cinemascope and Todd-AO ot was the 2-d version just one of the strips of the 3-d version?

No, they shot it with one camera rig, which happened to have two strips of film running through two cameras. Making a "flat" version is as simple as showing only one of the two prints that are used during 3-D projection.

That being said, I think I answered your question about DIAL M's aspect ratio pretty well in the other post.
Reply
post #37 of 60
9/28/08 at 5:04pm

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

"Night Of The Hunter" looks fine in its broadcasts on MGM-HD, and appears to be 1.85 there.

Greenbriar Picture Shows
Reply
post #38 of 60
9/28/08 at 7:12pm

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Theakston
No, they shot it with one camera rig, which happened to have two strips of film running through two cameras. Making a "flat" version is as simple as showing only one of the two prints that are used during 3-D projection.

There's only one print. Dial M for Murder used the side by side anamorphic 3D system. Left and right images were squeezed together into a modified academy frame. A special double anamorphic lens unsqueezes the images, and overlays them during projection. See here:

3D Movie Magic

I think this is why there is speculation that it should be academy, or 1.66:1. Having the images squeezed side by side creates a considerable quality reducation (sort of like going from 35mm to Super 16mm). It seems strange that you'd then crop away a lot of the image.

So, I think Dial M for Murder may be a special case, one of those late Academy films. (Of course it was never actually shown in 3D during its initial release, that fad had passed by then. Fortunately I saw it in 3D during a revival about 15 years ago.).
Reply
post #39 of 60
9/28/08 at 9:21pm

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

DIAL M was shot with the Warner All-Media rig, which shot two separate strips of film at once. The side-by-side anamorphic prints you're referring to were made by a company called StereoVision in the 1970s along with prints of HOUSE OF WAX.

Original run prints of DIAL M FOR MURDER, as well as all of the '50s 3-D titles, were done using two strips of normal 35mm film in two projectors in synchronization.

Again, please see above for important information regarding DIAL M and its aspect ratio. You can take my word that I know what I'm talking about here, having run these films ON FILM and researched them with the aid of studio archives for years.
Reply
post #40 of 60
9/29/08 at 12:35am

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

I simply don't understand why certain people on this forum refuse to believe things when proof is offered by an expert like Jack Theakston. He even provided the page from the exhibitor magazine that states in black and white that the ratio for Dial M For Murder is 1:85.1. It's there on the first page of this thread - that's really the end of the story, other than the film looks perfectly framed at 1:85.1. And this constant bringing up of 3D - the film was filmed in 3D, yes, but never shown that way on its original release, just as Jack states above.
Reply
post #41 of 60
9/29/08 at 2:06am

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman
I simply don't understand why certain people on this forum refuse to believe things when proof is offered by an expert like Jack Theakston. He even provided the page from the exhibitor magazine that states in black and white that the ratio for Dial M For Murder is 1:85.1. It's there on the first page of this thread - that's really the end of the story, other than the film looks perfectly framed at 1:85.1. And this constant bringing up of 3D - the film was filmed in 3D, yes, but never shown that way on its original release, just as Jack states above.
I don't understand either as I agree that "Dial M for Murder" was also filmed in 1.85:1 ratio. By the way, the production date was 5 Aug--25 Sep 1953, according to AFI with the same widescreen ratio Jack Theakston noted in this thread.





Crawdaddy
Reply
post #42 of 60
9/29/08 at 3:53am

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman
I simply don't understand why certain people on this forum refuse to believe things when proof is offered by an expert like Jack Theakston. He even provided the page from the exhibitor magazine that states in black and white that the ratio for Dial M For Murder is 1:85.1. It's there on the first page of this thread - that's really the end of the story, other than the film looks perfectly framed at 1:85.1.

I've taken open matte DVDs of some of these early *widescreen* films (e.g., THE NAKED JUNGLE) and cropped the image (evenly at the top and bottom) using the video player on my computer. It was quite apparent using this procedure that some were too tight (usually at the top) when matted to 1.85:1. This means that either projectionists were supposed to matte the top and bottom of these films asymmetrically (which seems at least somewhat unlkely to me) or else the source prints for the DVDs were zoomed in some way during telecine (which also seems unlikely) or else these films were not really meant to be projected 1.85:1.

The worst example I found was the Universal DVD of THIS ISLAND EARTH, which I couldn't crop to more than about 1.6:1 without ruining some of the effects sequences. IIRC, exhibitor? magazine listed THIS ISLAND EARTH as having an intended ratio of 2:1, which is totally ridiculous unless the 4:3 image on the DVD is significantly different from the actual 35mm film element. I actually couldn't get much more than 1.6:1 out of this DVD even cropping the tight sequences asymmetrically.

The bottom line for me is that I'll believe that a 1.85:1 ratio (as opposed to 1.66:1 or whatever) is possible for these films when I see an anamorphic DVD and objects aren't being cut off at the top of the screen. I would guess that most of these films will crop to 1.66:1, but again, unless what's on full frame DVDs is significantly different from the film elements, then 1.85:1 is pushing it, regardless of whether or not the titles matte correctly.
Reply
post #43 of 60
9/29/08 at 4:19am

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEl
The worst example I found was the Universal DVD of THIS ISLAND EARTH, which I couldn't crop to more than about 1.6:1 without ruining some of the effects sequences. IIRC, exhibitor? magazine listed THIS ISLAND EARTH as having an intended ratio of 2:1, which is totally ridiculous unless the 4:3 image on the DVD is significantly different from the actual 35mm film element. I actually couldn't get much more than 1.6:1 out of this DVD even cropping the tight sequences asymmetrically.

The bottom line for me is that I'll believe that a 1.85:1 ratio (as opposed to 1.66:1 or whatever) is possible for these films when I see an anamorphic DVD and objects aren't being cut off at the top of the screen. I would guess that most of these films will crop to 1.66:1, but again, unless what's on full frame DVDs is significantly different from the film elements, then 1.85:1 is pushing it, regardless of whether or not the titles matte correctly.

Michael, can I suggest you take a look at the Beaver's comparison of This Island Earth here. The screencaps for the R2 transfer show significantly more information on the sides, as compared to the R1, and, to my eyes, looks perfectly fine wide. The comments, and the quotes taken from Savant's review, also clarify the situation.
Reply
post #44 of 60
9/29/08 at 6:55am

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Hodson
Michael, can I suggest you take a look at the Beaver's comparison of This Island Earth here. The screencaps for the R2 transfer show significantly more information on the sides, as compared to the R1, and, to my eyes, looks perfectly fine wide. The comments, and the quotes taken from Savant's review, also clarify the situation.

The extra info at the sides verifies that the full frame DVD is zoomed in and therefore not really *open matte.* I would assume that the other *open matte* discs I tried are zoomed as well, which explains why most don't look good when cropped to 1.85:1.

What I still don't understand though is why many films from 1953-1955 are released 4:3 on DVD when

1) they were obviously intended to be shown in a widescreen format

2) the studios have no problem releasing widescreen DVDs of films made after 1955
Reply
post #45 of 60
9/29/08 at 9:19am

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEl
The extra info at the sides verifies that the full frame DVD is zoomed in and therefore not really *open matte.* I would assume that the other *open matte* discs I tried are zoomed as well, which explains why most don't look good when cropped to 1.85:1.

What I still don't understand though is why many films from 1953-1955 are released 4:3 on DVD when

1) they were obviously intended to be shown in a widescreen format

2) the studios have no problem releasing widescreen DVDs of films made after 1955

Yes, some of those transfers you mention have been zoomed in rather than have their mattes opened, a frequent practice when TV transfers were originally being done. So, no, they won't crop well to their original ratio. I don't understand why studios continue to release obvious widescreen films in Academy ratio - like The Bad Seed, for one of many examples.
Reply
post #46 of 60
9/29/08 at 10:17am

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman
Yes, some of those transfers you mention have been zoomed in rather than have their mattes opened, a frequent practice when TV transfers were originally being done. So, no, they won't crop well to their original ratio. I don't understand why studios continue to release obvious widescreen films in Academy ratio - like The Bad Seed, for one of many examples.

The Deadly Mantis is the worst example I've seen. On the recent DVD, its zoomed so tightly people's heads are getting cropped at eyeline on a 14:9 matte

Its really a practice, like non-anamorphic, that should never have been entertained by the studios.
Reply
post #47 of 60
9/29/08 at 10:23am

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEl
The extra info at the sides verifies that the full frame DVD is zoomed in and therefore not really *open matte.* I would assume that the other *open matte* discs I tried are zoomed as well, which explains why most don't look good when cropped to 1.85:1.

What I still don't understand though is why many films from 1953-1955 are released 4:3 on DVD when

1) they were obviously intended to be shown in a widescreen format

2) the studios have no problem releasing widescreen DVDs of films made after 1955

MGM treats pretty much all films up to 1959 that way. Columbia and Warner less so, but exceptions like Homicidal (1961) and Black Scorpion (1957) slip through

I suspect laziness or ignorance is behind much of it
Reply
post #48 of 60
9/29/08 at 11:22am

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

You simply can't go by what's on VIDEO as opposed to what's on FILM. They're two totally different things, and there's all sorts of tomfoolery that goes on during the telecine sessions.

This frame from BLOOD OF THE VAMPIRE shows how extreme cropping can get on a DVD:



The full image is a scan from a 35mm film print from the year of release. As you can see, the film is hard matted to about 1.5:1 or so (typically so that houses running 1.66 can run it). The darker image is the R1 DVD from Dark Sky at 1.85:1, with the cyan border being 1.85:1 per spec and the red is 1.66:1.

Many people cried foul, but had no concept that while the film was being transferred at the correct ratio, it was terribly zoomed in and mis-framed.
Reply
post #49 of 60
9/29/08 at 11:35am

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Lion's Gate is also guilty of doing this too... compare the DVD transfer of WAR OF THE COLOSSAL BEAST with an original film print and see how much was cropped off of the top and sides to "accommodate" 4:3 television sets (I've overlaid a projection chart for your convenience):



Fact is, this sort of thing shouldn't be happening in this day and age of 16x9 televisions. The fact that they framed it down makes it clear that they understand there's too much headroom in order for the film to be shown wide, but they persist in doing these transfers in butchered versions of their open matte originals.
Reply
post #50 of 60
9/29/08 at 2:39pm

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Thanks for those illustrations, and I hope people learn from them, Jack.
Reply
post #51 of 60
9/29/08 at 9:41pm
Thread Starter 

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

I wish there was an up to date Non-OAR list but all the ones I have found are pretty old. Does anyone know where I can find an up to date list?
Reply
post #52 of 60
9/30/08 at 2:56am

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Great job Jack!





Crawdaddy
Reply
post #53 of 60
9/30/08 at 7:14am

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Two points about DIAL M: it is certainly composed for 1.85 presentation. We ran it that way at the second World 3-D Expo in 2006 and it looked great.

Jack is right: the squeezed anamorphic side-by-side 3-D version was created in the early 1980's for re-issue purposes. It has nothing to do with how the film was photographed or presented in 1954.

Also, this myth about the film not being released in 3-D in 1954 is false. DIAL M was available to any exhibitor that wanted the dimensional version. Of course, 99.9% played it flat, but we did find one small town 3-D playdate, and may have found one large city that played it in 3-D. Our research is ongoing.

One other point about aspect ratios. If you notice that listing from Exhibitor, you'll see that Warner Bros. was quite specific about the intended ratio. They weren't painting all their films with a broad brush. They obviously knew what the director and cinematographer intended, and 1.66, 1.75 and 1.85 are recommended for different titles. That's because several films were in production before 1.85 became the studios common standard.

By the way, Jack Theakston knows what he's talking about. His expertise of 3-D and early widescreen is second to none. That's why he's the head of research for our 3-D Archive!

For some accurate information about common 3-D myths that are now believed to be fact, check out Top 10 3-D Myths - 3DFPF - 3-D Film Preservation Fund a tax exempt 501(c)3 non profit corporation

Bob Furmanek
Vice President
3-D Film Preservation Fund
Reply
post #54 of 60
9/30/08 at 7:23am

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Furmanek
Two points about DIAL M: it is certainly composed for 1.85 presentation. We ran it that way at the second World 3-D Expo in 2006 and it looked great.

Jack is right: the squeezed anamorphic side-by-side 3-D version was created in the early 1980's for re-issue purposes. It has nothing to do with how the film was photographed or presented in 1954.

The R2 is presented 1.85:1 - again with more information each side - and looks great.
Reply
post #55 of 60
9/30/08 at 8:46am

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Thanks to Bob for that great and more importantly knowledgeable information. While I don't happen to think one or two playdates constitute a 3D release, the point is, of course, taken.

Now, what is with these colors? I thought I was on LSD when I logged on.
Reply
post #56 of 60
9/30/08 at 12:19pm

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman
Now, what is with these colors? I thought I was on LSD when I logged on.
It's the Iron Man colors.
Reply
post #57 of 60
9/30/08 at 2:10pm

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR
It's the Iron Man colors.

Will they go away soon, or will this acid trip go on for some time?
Reply
post #58 of 60
9/30/08 at 3:09pm

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

You can change the color scheme in your user control panel.
Reply
post #59 of 60
9/30/08 at 11:06pm

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Quote:
Originally Posted by cafink
You can change the color scheme in your user control panel.

I have a user control panel? Where do I have this?
Reply
post #60 of 60
10/1/08 at 12:25am

Re: Night of the Hunter AOR

Actually, it's at the very bottom of every page. On the lower left, where it says "Skin Chooser."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DVD