Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[BIANCO2NERO]

Indeed; contemporary projectionists memories are always interesting to read. As per 'grand todger' (great name) from here:


Of course, that particular thread also underlines the perils that rely on research conducted purely on the internet and on 'Chinese whispers'. This quote:


We know much of this to be complete balderdash; the implcation that as late as 1959 widescreen productions were the exception rather than the rule? I'm afraid not. The Dam Busters at 1.37:1? Proven beyond doubt to be a Metroscope production. But the BFI's admission on OARs is completely understandable. For decades they, and us, have relied on nothing other than anecdotal evidence, the repetition of half-truths that have become blurry and obfuscated with each passing year. The belief that 1.66:1 dominated Europe is very deeply ingrained to the point that any other opinion is looked on with deep suspicion.

But if that opinion is back by hard fact, by documentary evidence, then the BFI - all of us - must think again, and keep digging.

Defitely in the 'for what it's worth' folder as I realise I am wading into this very late in the day, but with regards to Dam Busters it seems potentially hasty to refer to it as a 'Metroscope' production, for the simple reason that the film was released by Warners and not MGM and said widescreen logo / brand doesn't appear on any of the posters I have seen for it, only on that Pathe Newsreel of the Royal premiere - and since it was just a system that matted an academy image, it is also possible that it was a logo added for the Royal Premiere only perhaps but not elsewhere. It in no way takes away from Anderson's comments as the decision to potentially exhibit the film matted (in Metroscope or WarnerScope, which is more likely) would have been made well after the end of filming.

 

[John Hodson]

I understood that Warner only distributed the film in the US and for the UK it was Associated British-Pathé*. Metroscope matted the full frame BTW, not an Academy image.

I think you are wide of the mark regarding the 'after the fact' decision on AR; the film clearly mattes down *perfectly* for widescreen projection.

EDIT - I think you're refering to the fact that ABPC was part owned by Warner?

 

[Yorkshire]

Defitely in the 'for what it's worth' folder as I realise I am wading into this very late in the day, but with regards to Dam Busters it seems potentially hasty to refer to it as a 'Metroscope' production, for the simple reason that the film was released by Warners and not MGM and said widescreen logo / brand doesn't appear on any of the posters I have seen for it, only on that Pathe Newsreel of the Royal premiere - and since it was just a system that matted an academy image, it is also possible that it was a logo added for the Royal Premiere only perhaps but not elsewhere. It in no way takes away from Anderson's comments as the decision to potentially exhibit the film matted (in Metroscope or WarnerScope, which is more likely) would have been made well after the end of filming.

I haven't followed the discussion on The Dam Busters either.

The only thing I know about that is, at the time of the premiere, The Empire Liecester Square was owned by MGM.

It'd be interesting to see if there's any other footage of film premieres at that venue showing 'Metroscope' as the process used.

Steve W

 

[BIANCO2NERO]

I understood that Warner only distributed the film in the US and for the UK it was Associated British-Pathé*. Metroscope matted the full frame BTW, not an Academy image.

I thik you are wide of the mark regarding the 'after the fact' decision on AR; the film clearly mattes down *perfectly* for widescreen projection.

EDIT - I think you're refering to the fact that ABPC was part owned by Warner?

Hi John - yes, I was thinking of this because ABPC was part of Warners, as you point out. And absolutely, I take your point about the matting of the full aperture width - I merely meant that it was done in post-production. Anderson may have got mixed up but given that he was quoted on the matter I was just looking for a way that made sense of it. Aesthetics aside, i do wonder if the Odeon being a Metro house really did have an impact. Sheer conjecture of my part, based on nothing but air.

 

[John Hodson]

I think this has been posted, but it's pertinent:

 

[Yorkshire]

I think this has been posted, but it's pertinent:

dambusters.jpg

Yes, that's from the premiere at the Empire Leicester Square, as discussed above.

Steve W

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thanks Bob, but do bear in mind that AKiNY was his first film made abroad, in London, & released everywhere except the US in 1957, following Charlie's 1953 exile to Switzerland.
Its belated US release came in 1972, just ahead of his triumphant return for the 44th Oscar ceremony.

I daresay it was likely screened then in 1.85, but what I'm more curious about are its 1957 play dates & intended AR.
As I said before, all home video releases to date, thanks to what I've learned here, now look distinctly OM. With the caveat that DVD screenshots are not as conclusive as an actual print, there are many to be seen online, including at DVDBeaver:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdreviews17/chaplin_king_in_new_york_dvd_review.htm

If I can get proof that it was originally composed & projected in widescreen, there's a good chance I can directly influence the AR of future releases...

Brent, it has widescreen written all over it.

By the time of production, 1.75:1 was the UK standard.

Before anybody starts believing contemporary labels on cans as any form of documentation, here is my research policy: unless it dates from the year of release, it's worthless.

I remember seeing a 35mm print of AWAY ALL BOATS at Universal and the label read 1.37:1...

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Coming from the UK i have to say i do get Steve's argument, 1.75:1 seems a strange aspect ratio, i would have thought 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 but 1.75:1 seems strange, did they perhaps compose the film for 1.75:1 which is inbetween the other two aspect ratios and release the film in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

I'd like to have more info on all this as 1.75:1 seems a weird aspect ratio to choose.

Malcolm, if you check out my article, you'll read the steps that lead to 1.75:1 becoming the UK standard in 1955.

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

"Widescreen in the United Kingdom" is roughly two-thirds into the article.

All the information presented is documented from original, primary source materials. Special thanks to Tom Crossplot and Doug Raynes for their valuable contributions to the accuracy of that data.

Here's an important quote:

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.
The new standard, of course, does not apply to processes such as CinemaScope and VistaVision."​

 

[Yorkshire]

Brent, it has widescreen written all over it.

By the time of production, 1.75:1 was the UK standard.

Before anybody starts believing labels on cans as any form of documentation, here is my research policy: unless it dates from the year of release, it's worthless.

I remember seeing a 35mm print of AWAY ALL BOATS at Universal and the label read 1.37:1...

In case you missed it, I'll post it again:

"Indeed - because I worked in a repertory cinema for six years, during which I must have physically handled many hundreds if not thousands of film cans (the overwhelming majority of which would have been of distribution prints from the original theatrical release), and I can say with a fair degree of certainty that I never saw any of them specifying a 1.75:1 projection ratio on the label.

Because had I spotted such a thing, I'd have immediately flagged it up with my boss, because we could only show 1.66:1 or 1.85:1, not anything in between. (We had masking for four ratios: Academy, 1.66:1, 1.85:1 and Scope). I suspect had we encountered such a thing, we'd have shown it in 1.66:1, which would make very little practical difference and would ensure that the audience saw everything that was intended to be seen - but I honestly don't remember being involved in having to make such a decision.

Same with the years I spent at the BFI examining 35mm archive copies on Steenbecks - again, the optimum aspect ratio would be printed on the label, and I honestly don't recall ever seeing 1.75:1 being specified. And the prints I examined included dozens from precisely the 1950s-70s period we've been talking about."

Just to clarify again:

the overwhelming majority of which would have been of distribution prints from the original theatrical release

 

[Bob Furmanek]

When I began this thread on March 20, 2012, our research was ongoing. Since that time, much data has been discovered which has cleared up many of the myths and corrected decades old information/speculation.

Therefore, I have changed the title from Aspect Ratio Research to Aspect Ratio Documentation.

Hopefully, this change will eliminate the abundance of useless information taken from previous Betamax, VHS, Laser Disc, DVD and Blu-ray releases. It will also eliminate contemporary labels on film cans or repertory bookings from the last 40 years being used as documentation on the original intent.

If anyone cares to utilize such information, please start a new thread. Thank you.

 

[Yorkshire]

When I began this thread, our research was ongoing. Since that time, much data has been discovered which has cleared up many of the myths and corrected decades old information/speculation.

Therefore, I have changed the title from Aspect Ratio Research to Aspect Ratio Documentation.

Hopefully, that will eliminate the abundance of useless information taken from previous Betamax, VHS, Laser Disc, DVD and Blu-ray releases. That will also eliminate contemporary labels on film cans being used as documentation on the original intent.

If anyone cares to utilize such information, please start a new thread. Thank you.

Just for clarity, if a director says "I shot film 'X' intending it to be in this ratio" does that count as 'documentation'?

Steve W

 

[Robert Crawford]

When I began this thread, our research was ongoing. Since that time, much data has been discovered which has cleared up many of the myths and corrected decades old information/speculation.

Therefore, I have changed the title from Aspect Ratio Research to Aspect Ratio Documentation.

Hopefully, that will eliminate the abundance of useless information taken from previous Betamax, VHS, Laser Disc, DVD and Blu-ray releases. That will also eliminate contemporary labels on film cans being used as documentation on the original intent.

If anyone cares to utilize such information, please start a new thread. Thank you.

Excellent idea!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Steve, this is the last time that I'm replying to you.

I have no doubt the BFI employee handled many archival prints.

So have I over the last 33 years in this business!

As I indicate in my article, it is VERY rare for an original reel band (where the AR would have been designated) to survive on a film after the initial theatrical play-dates.

Therefore, the BFI may have handled vintage prints but they did not have the original year-of-release information. The original studio-issued reel bands were replaced with generic labels. I've seen thousands of those and all the post-1970 repertory prints have them as well.

Just like the contemporary label on the Japanese can of DRACULA which states 1.66:1, it's useless.

Will you please start your own thread to spread undocumented information? It's cluttering up the accurate data that we are working so hard to share.

You referred to us as "enthusiastic amateurs" and that spoke volumes. If you continue your attempt to discredit all of our hard work in trying to finally set the record straight, I will stop contributing here.

Thank you.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I know that we have some former repertory theatre projectionists reading this discussion.

Can you tell me how many original 1950's period reel bands (with AR information) you have seen on prints over the last 40 years?

Thank you!

 

[nara]

For those unfamiliar with the phrase, I would suggest you Google "Invincible Ignorance".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy

We seem to have a severe case of it here, and I'm really getting fed-up with the spoiling of a superb thread.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

For those unfamiliar with the phrase, I would suggest you Google "Invincible Ignorance".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy

We seem to have a severe case of it here, and I'm really getting fed-up with the spoiling of a superb thread.

Amen to that, Nara!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Based on some feedback I've received, it looks like this thread will have to be moderated more closely in order for it to continue to provide a valuable service to the membership. The administrative staff prefers not to go this moderation route, but we will do everything in our power to ensure this thread remains open and viable for the good of the overall membership.

 

[Brent Reid]

Long overdue. Was surprised at the dissenting voices that chimed in when I previously aired my concerns.

Here's to a positive, productive future for this thread!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thank you, Robert.

Hopefully this decision will encourage some important archivists who left the thread to come back and share their findings...

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I know that we have some former repertory theatre projectionists reading this discussion.

Can you tell me how many original 1950's period reel bands (with AR information) you have seen on prints over the last 40 years?

Thank you!

None on any of the hundreds of repertory prints I've handled, whether it's a vintage print or a new print (which have computer labels and are sometimes correct). The most common marking is a piece of white artist's tape with hand-written notations regarding sound, reel number, cue instructions, and aspect ratio. I've had plenty of prints with incorrect aspect ratio labels, the most common error seems to be black & white films from the late '50s and '60s that are marked 1.66 when they are clearly 1.85.

I've corrected many a mis-marked label.