Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[RolandL]

High quality 35mm prints were the primary goal of the Ultra Panavision system when it was first introduced. Modifying a theatre's screen to show the full 2.76:1 aspect ratio was not something many theatres would be willing to do. Check out some great info on the Wide Screen Museum web site:

http://widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/mgmpanavision1.htm

http://widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingup2.htm

List of movies filmed in MGM Camera 65/Ultra Panavision and how they were released for Road Shows

Raintree County 35mm
Ben-Hur 70mm anamorphic in some theatres
Mutiny on the Bounty 70mm anamorphic in some theatres
How The West Was Won (Segments) 3-panel Cinerama
It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World 70mm Cinerama
The Fall of the Roman Empire 70mm flat
The Greatest Story Ever Told 70mm Cinerama
The Hallelujah Trail 70mm Cinerama
Battle of the Bulge 70mm Cinerama
Khartoum 70mm Cinerama

 

[Bob Furmanek]

To be honest, I never looked for anything on the 65mm/Cinerama titles. I always figured those films had been well researched and documented so that's why I focused primarily on 3-D and non-anamorphic widescreen from 1953 to 1958. I felt that was the area that suffered the most from lack of research.

WIth Blu-rays still coming out in 1.37 of widescreen films, we need to get the word out on what was happening at the studios during that time. That's why Jack Theakston and I started this OAR crusade.

 

[Richard--W]

Bob and Jack are have been generous in sharing their research with us. Most professionals publish their conclusions but not the nitty gritty research. With Bob and Jack we can see how they arrived at their conclusions. This remains the most informative and instructive thread on HTF. My favorite thread as well.

 

[ahollis]

Yes. Thank you Bob and Jack for sharing your knowledge and backing it up with actual printed facts. I have always found the three periods of transition for film to be fascinating, sound, widescreen, and now digital.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thank you, it's our pleasure.
We initally thought to save all the data for a book, but the information is needed right now and we decided not to wait.

 

[bgart13]

Bob (& Jack), what's been the oddest or strangest title/situation you've found while doing research for things like this?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Curse of Frankenstein, without a doubt.

 

[bgart13]

Haha, alright, then!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

It's certainly the worst case scenario for all logic and reason flying out the window.

Not to mention the complete dismissal of all written evidence/documentation from primary source materials.

When I saw random frames pulled from a 1953 film for comparison purposes, and the acceptance of those frames (and some claim of victory) from the people in charge, I threw up my hands and walked away.

And the Rule of Feet.

Must not forget the Rule of Feet...

 

[Robert Harris]

High quality 35mm prints were the primary goal of the Ultra Panavision system when it was first introduced. Modifying a theatre's screen to show the full 2.76:1 aspect ratio was not something many theatres would be willing to do. Check out some great info on the Wide Screen Museum web site:

http://widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/mgmpanavision1.htm

http://widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingup2.htm

List of movies filmed in MGM Camera 65/Ultra Panavision and how they were released for Road Shows

Raintree County 35mm
Ben-Hur 70mm anamorphic in some theatres
Mutiny on the Bounty 70mm anamorphic in some theatres
How The West Was Won (Segments) 3-panel Cinerama
It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World 70mm Cinerama
The Fall of the Roman Empire 70mm flat
The Greatest Story Ever Told 70mm Cinerama
The Hallelujah Trail 70mm Cinerama
Battle of the Bulge 70mm Cinerama
Khartoum 70mm Cinerama

Mad World prints were struck both normal squeeze, as well as rectified, for heavily curved screens.
RAH

 

[Mark-P]

Interesting information on today's Warner Archive Podcast about the Bowery Boys and aspect ratios. The latest collection includes a couple of widescreen releases, but for one film in the collection, Private Eyes, which was released in December of 1953 all the documentation they could dig up listed the movie as 1.85:1, however when they tried to master it at that ratio they discovered there were many shots where essential information was being cropped, so they surmised that the switch to widescreen probably happened mid-shoot, so they decided that 1.37:1 was the best way to present this particular film.

Link to the podcast

 

[Bob Furmanek]

That's odd. Allied Artists went wide on May 7 and PRIVATE EYES rolled on June 24.

Hmmm...

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Here's the announcement. My apologies for the poor quality scan.

I'd like to see the shots with "essential information" that prompted this decision.

 

[Mark-P]

Here's the announcement. My apologies for the poor quality scan.

Alllied Artists wide 7.3.JPG

I'd like to see the shots with "essential information" that prompted this decision.

I've added the link to the podcast which just became available. They mentioned heads being cut off.

 

[DVDvision]

I haven't seen Warner's new Private Eyes disc, but the old TV transfers in 4/3 shows a movie that looks made widescreen to me.

 

[Mark-P]

I haven't seen Warner's new Private Eyes disc, but the old TV transfers in 4/3 shows a movie that looks made widescreen to me.

If you listen to the podcast, you will hear that they say a lot of the shots were perfect for widescreen but some were not which led them to the conclusion that the switch to widescreen happened in the middle of filming.

 

[DVDvision]

I got that, it's just that for example, it can happen a head is cut off in the full gate version, that is meant to be framed from the chin to the eyebrows in the widescreen one. That's why as Mr Furmanek says, it would be good to see examples, hoping they didn't go academy from an armchair specialist perspective.

 

[revgen]

Original. Thanks to HDvision.

1:66 aspect ratio. Top cropped.

1:66 aspect ratio. Bottom cropped

1:66 aspect ratio. Bottom and Top equally cropped

1:85 aspect ratio. Top cropped.

1:85 aspect ratio. Bottom cropped.

1:85 aspect ratio. Bottom and Top equally cropped.


Even in the more friendly 1.66 ratio, heads are cut off if cropped at the top and arms are cut off when cropped at the bottom. Despite using a more centered cropping approach (both bottom and top equally cropped), the image looks pretty tight in 1:66, and even tighter in 1:85.

I think Warner's made the right call keeping it at Academy Ratio.

 

[DVDvision]

The TV version is probably zoomboxed and cropped from the sides already. You can't draw any conclusions, other than general, from it. (Apart that there is enough headroom and bottom empty space fitting a widescreen framing).

 

[Adam_S]

the center crops for 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 on those look fine. Not sure what the point is of the other variants because you're not representing a common top with those crops.