Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[Bob Furmanek]

Thanks for the confirmation, Peter.

Just about every screening of a non-anamorphic widescreen film from the 1950's has been shown full-frame in New York City repertory theaters since the 1970's.

"There's an image on the film, it must be seen."

The 3-D Blu-ray releases of DIAL M FOR MURDER and CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON would have been 1.37:1 if we hadn't provided the proper documentation to WB and NBC/Universal.

It's very gratifying when important people pay attention to new research findings.

"I’m appreciative as it’s a great help in solving the mysteries in our vault."​

​

Ned Price/Warner Bros.
Vice President of Mastering - June 6, 2013

 

[FoxyMulder]

Would all the 1.75:1 productions work at 1.66:1 or even 1.85:1 as well, would they be composed with safety in mind, right this second i'm thinking Hammer's Dracula which i have on blu ray, it seems to work, i'd rather have all the films as shot though, when was 1.75:1 phased out for 1.85:1. ?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Sure, flexibility was the idea.

By early 1955, the Camera Technical Committee of the British Film Producers Association was recommending 1.75:1 as the optimum ratio for British productions. Cinematographers were instructed to compose shots loosely in order to work from 1.66:1/1.65:1 up to 1.85:1, with 1.75:1 being considered ideal.

That standardization was implemented and in effect by October 1955.

1.75:1 appears to have remained the primary UK standard through the late 1960's, perhaps even later. Calling Crossplot?

 

[FoxyMulder]

Sure, flexibility was the idea.

By early 1955, the Camera Technical Committee of the British Film Producers Association was recommending 1.75:1 as the optimum ratio for British productions. Cinematographers were instructed to compose shots loosely in order to work from 1.66:1/1.65:1 up to 1.85:1, with 1.75:1 being considered ideal.

That standardization was implemented and in effect by October 1955.

1.75:1 appears to have remained the primary UK standard through the late 1960's, perhaps even later. Calling Crossplot?

That's good to know, your site has some great information and hopefully Hammer and other studio's will use it.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thanks, Malcolm.

Sadly, Hammer ignored our findings and when they did attempt a matte on the widescreen CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, they botched it terribly!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Bob,

You probably answered this question long ago, but today I was watching Pork Chop Hill on TCM. They presented it in 1.85 as it looks to be correct? I wish it was released again in its proper OAR.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Yes, 1.85:1 is correct.

I agree, a GREAT film!

 

[clambake]

I was going to say that's Rhonda Fleming in the middle.

Yes, I'm on the right.

Hey Bob, I wanted to see the pic of you and Rhonda (Im assuming there was one posted!) but no pic is showing up for me. I've tried checking this thread with Firefox and Chrome too, but no luck. Anyone have any suggestions, maybe I have some board setting turned on/off or something? Thanks.

 

[theonemacduff]

Hey Bob, I wanted to see the pic of you and Rhonda (Im assuming there was one posted!) but no pic is showing up for me. I've tried checking this thread with Firefox and Chrome too, but no luck. Anyone have any suggestions, maybe I have some board setting turned on/off or something? Thanks.

Yeah, no pic showing for me either, and I really wanted to see it. As to trolls, one way to define them is as those who are never wrong, whichever way the discussion turns.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Sorry, I only put it up for a few days. I didn't want it ending up as an image on Google!

 

[Stephen PI]

This was part of the description on Amazon UK for the forthcoming blu ray release on "Brides of Dracula" ;

.....Universal has remastered this to the correct 16x9 2:1 LB of the original US release......

Any comments?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

UI had been the prime advocate of 2.1 in the widescreen derby of 1953. They first rolled film for that ratio on June 3, 1953 with production of BORDER RIVER.

However, by 1960, there was only one feature on their release schedule composed for 2.1: PORTRAIT IN BLACK. All other non-anamorphic titles were 1.85:1, including BRIDES OF DRACULA and its co-feature, THE LEECH WOMAN.

 

[Lord Dalek]

So anybody know why Coppola has decided to use the Univisium ratio on Twixt?

 

[Yorkshire]

So anybody know why Coppola has decided to use the Univisium ratio on Twixt?

Wow, didn't know that. Wasn't it 1.85:1 in cinemas? If so, I think that's the first time I've seen it used to crop 1.85:1 top & bottom (as opposed to 2.40:1 at the sides).

Steve W

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Attempts at standardization on aspect ratios are nothing new. Exhibitors were calling for it from the summer of 1953 until late 1956!

In fact, here's the quote from Kine Weekly when 1.75:1 was adopted as the UK standard in 1955:

"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."

 

[Professor Echo]

Well, I finally broke down and bought THIS ISLAND EARTH even though it's full frame. So since Universal has just been waiting for me to buy it, you'll have me to thank when it gets announced for Blu.

 

[GregK]

There is a 1.85:1 version of THIS ISLAND EARTH available as a Region 2 DVD release.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/reviews/tie.htm

Slightly off topic here, but I for one would love to see the inclusion of the original Perspecta sound track for this title.. Properly decoded, of course!

 

[haineshisway]

There was a lot of contentious posting about the aspect ratio of Lord of the Flies - Criterion's transfer being full frame and supervised by one of the film's camera operators who was also one of the film's editors. Now, we all know that the film was not ever shown full frame, at least in the United States of America, and most likely anywhere else because the majority of theaters no longer had the ability to show full frame. It played here in 1.85 - what it played in in England is anyone's guess, but what's not a guess is it wasn't full frame - so 1.66 or 1.75 or 1.85 would be the other options. So, what are we to surmise when one of the film's operators and one of its editors make this decision on a film that is fifty years old. Would Peter Brook, even making a low-budget independent film, purposely shoot his film in a format that wouldn't be shown anywhere except TV? Would the film's producer allow the film to be made in a ratio that could not be shown? I saw this film twelve times back in 1963 in my local theater that showed these kinds of films back then - in 1.85, which is all they could show aside from scope.

But now having watched it, the evidence is clearly on the screen - there is no shot on view that wouldn't frame nicely at 1.66, 1.75 or 1.85, whereas mostly every shot in the film looks unbalanced in full frame. The real convincer comes early on when the camera does the long tracking shot showing each of the boys on the beach. You'll note how the operator keeps adjusting the height of the frame to be consistent. That says everything you need it to say. In full frame those moves make no sense. Matted, they make perfect sense. I'm sorry, but if they can do three versions of On the Waterfront (none of which are correct, BTW, since the image was zoomed), why can't they present Lord of the Flies the way it was shown in theaters and then this other thing?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Camera movement to keep action in widescreen safe is a sure-fire giveaway!

 

[Charles Smith]

That got me in the mood, so I just threw this one in to see how it looks.

Now, just guess which company is disabling the Blu-ray zoom button. Go on, take a guess. I can zoom to a full 1.78:1 using the TV's limited zoom function, but that noticeably cuts a little off the sides. So there's no enjoying the nice zooming gradations of the Oppo player on Criterion "full frame" Blu-rays.