1. Guest,
    If you need help getting to know Xenforo, please see our guide here. If you have feedback or questions, please post those here.
    Dismiss Notice

Aspect Ratio Documentation

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Bob Furmanek, Mar 20, 2012.

  1. theonemacduff

    theonemacduff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    106
    Location:
    the wet coast
    Real Name:
    Jon Paul
    As I said, as accurate as I can make it, assuming a common centre. My understanding was that Super35 utilized a common top, but was that format even being used in 63? Or were there other formats using a common top in those days? In any event, as Bruce says, either of those framings, ratios, works well, nothing important cut off, nor heads nor chins. I didn't bother with 1.66 lines for that reason.
     
  2. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,477
    Likes Received:
    4,156
    In the early days of UK widescreen, they utilized a common top approach for framing. I'm pretty sure that practice only lasted for a few years.
     
  3. haineshisway

    haineshisway Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,980
    Likes Received:
    1,971
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    I believe this is correct and just about every shot in Lord of the Flies confirms it.
     
  4. HDvision

    HDvision Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    185
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Real Name:
    David
    Oh my god, you MEATCLEAVERED this shot!

    On a more serious note, that Blu-ray needs to be reissued in a more correct format. There's so much overheads space in there, you can drive a a truck through. I have no idea how this 1.33:1 master was approved of passed quality control. Is all one who worked on the movie as to do is say something, so that it becomes gospel, against all documentation, visual and common sense?
     
  5. Vincent_P

    Vincent_P Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    189
    Super-35 didn't ALWAYS use a common-top, there were plenty of movies shot in Super-35 that used a center crop. And even when "common top" was used in 4-perf Super-35, the "top" in question wasn't the top of the full film frame itself, but the top of the 1.85:1 center crop of the frame. So basically, it would be a center-crop 1.85:1 frame, with more matted off only on the bottom to achieve a 2.4:1 'Scope frame.

    Vincent
     
  6. Chuck Pennington

    Chuck Pennington Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2001
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    235
    BLACKBEARD'S GHOST - Ah, another fan of this film! Isn't the DVD awful? It's the same ratty transfer that has been used since the '80s for home video, and terribly cropped. I have an HD master of the film that looks great at 1.66:1, though I think it should probably be cropped to 1.75:1. Sad they haven't released this new HD master commercially on Blu-ray. :-( Glad I made one for myself.
     
    Rick2001ad likes this.
  7. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    8,641
    Likes Received:
    4,070
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    Just finding some time to catch up on this great thread.S35 was in use in '63 and thereafter, for the Universal Hitchcock productions. Would have to check records to see when it went from full to RA.In another post too far above to locate, someone queried aspect ratio of Kwai.Film was shot with an Arri and scope adopters in FA, and set for 2.55 with the thought of having mag prints and stereo.Never happened. In post, the lab ignored the FA and without balancing, covered the left side of the image with track, knocking the image off center at 2.35. All prints produced this way, and not corrected until, as I recall, the SE DVD.RAH
     
    theonemacduff and Bob Furmanek like this.
  8. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    28,168
    Likes Received:
    3,871
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    Great info, RAH.
     
  9. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,372
    Likes Received:
    303
    Well, I can only quote what's in front of me, which I did directly and in context. I have not misunderstood the content of the article, I've read it again, and it says what it says. If it was superseded, then fine, but that's quite different.

    If you have a copy of the full, final version it'd be great if you could post it, obviously, if that's okay. But that final version is not up at Bob's article.

    Steve W
     
  10. Mark-P

    Mark-P Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,890
    Likes Received:
    788
    Location:
    Camas, WA
    Real Name:
    Mark Probst
    You're using S35 to just mean shot full (silent) aperture, rather than the more modern process of Super35 of shooting full aperture, masking to 2.35:1 and optically converting to anamorphic in the lab.
     
  11. theonemacduff

    theonemacduff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    106
    Location:
    the wet coast
    Real Name:
    Jon Paul
    Okay, now the chickens of my lack of technical education come home to roost. FA I kind of get, i.e., full aperture, maybe, but RA I can't imagine what it might stand for. Anyone who has a tablespoon of enlightenment is welcome to toss it in my general direction. And thanks in advance. ;)
     
  12. Mike Frezon

    Mike Frezon Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2001
    Messages:
    35,939
    Likes Received:
    4,580
    Location:
    Rensselaer, NY
    Glad to oblige.

    RA = Robert Alda.

    :thumbsup:



    ;)
     
    Robin9 likes this.
  13. Moe Dickstein

    Moe Dickstein Filmmaker

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    916
    Location:
    West Hollywood, CA
    Real Name:
    T R Wilkinson
    I believe in that context it would be "Reduced Aperture"
     
  14. theonemacduff

    theonemacduff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    106
    Location:
    the wet coast
    Real Name:
    Jon Paul
    Ah well, this is how we learn. Robert Alda. Who woulda thought it? Grateful thanks extended to M&M.
     
  15. Rick2001ad

    Rick2001ad Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Real Name:
    Rick Foreman
    Found an interesting post from a few years ago regarding 1.75:1 from David Mullen ASC over at the cinematography.com boards:

    "Then I read an article in the British Cinematographer magazine of the late 1950's (at USC's archive) where a consensus of exhibitors and cameramen were favoring adopting 1.75 as the masked widescreen format."

    http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=9103

    If anyone has access (and the time to dig it up), it might be an interesting read.

    Rick
     
  16. Moe Dickstein

    Moe Dickstein Filmmaker

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    916
    Location:
    West Hollywood, CA
    Real Name:
    T R Wilkinson
    Did you hear that Mike? when put together we become a delicious chocolate candy treat!
     
  17. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,477
    Likes Received:
    4,156
    That consensus from UK exhibitors and cameramen was in 1955.

    The journal is Kinematograph Weekly which our UK widescreen expert Crossplot has been researching for his documentation.
     
  18. Mike Frezon

    Mike Frezon Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2001
    Messages:
    35,939
    Likes Received:
    4,580
    Location:
    Rensselaer, NY
    Every day I spend on the HTF, I learn something new.
    It's the least we can do!

    I provide the comic relief and you provide the legitimate, useful information! Kind of like "melt in your mouth, not in your hand." :D
     
    Moe Dickstein likes this.
  19. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,477
    Likes Received:
    4,156
    From Business Screen magazine: August 1953.

    Interesting to see the new widescreen techniques (only a few months old) were also being adapted to the industrial film market.

    3-D-and-Wide-8.53.gif
     
  20. theonemacduff

    theonemacduff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    106
    Location:
    the wet coast
    Real Name:
    Jon Paul
    That's actually pretty interesting, as it suggests that some industrial or public service type films were made in 3D. Would Bob have any data on those productions? Do any of them even survive? I for one would love to see a 20 minutes short on steel production in Pittsburg IN ASTOUNDING THREEE DIMENSIONS.
     
    Bob Furmanek likes this.

Share This Page