Aspect Ratio Documentation (3 Viewers)

[Persianimmortal]

I have the 1.37:1 UK version of Sabrina, but I think Bob has clearly demonstrated beyond any doubt that this movie was always intended to be widescreen. A bit of a kick in the pants since I only recently bought it, but I'll probably replace it now with the US version when it comes out. Either that or use the Zoom function to simulate widescreen

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I first posted the confirmation of 1.75:1 for SABRINA in May, 2012:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/314271-funny-face-and-sabrina-eye-popping-blu-rays/?p=3813027

 

[Persianimmortal]

I stupidly assumed that the UK Sabrina Blu-ray, being an official Paramount release, would actually be in the correct aspect ratio. So I didn't check on those details before ordering it a few months ago. No idea why they didn't release it in the correct ratio all around the world to begin with.

Maybe I can just slap a "Jeffrey Wells Special Edition" banner across the top of the UK release and sell it on ebay

 

[Bob Furmanek]

You should NEVER assume that an official release will be in the correct, director-intended aspect ratio.

The list of widescreen films from the 1950's released in full-frame on DVD is rather lengthy.

 

[theonemacduff]

Interesting phrase in one of those fora: "classical period headroom bias." As a student of linguistic contortions of every kind, I must say, I love this. The world is the world; and words are only loose nets in which we try to catch it. To think that you have disposed of evidence about a state of the world by laboriously machining a new label on your basement lathe is evidence that you have mistaken the net for the world.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

"Bob Furmanek and his associated loons."

Brilliant!

http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=457196#p457305

 

[EddieLarkin]

If you're ever going to form a band Bob, you know what to call yourselves.

 

[John Hodson]

'Proud to be a loon'...

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Guess what?OAR Master Jack Theakston was pointing out 1.75:1 for SABRINA five years ago!

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/275054-films-that-need-dvd-releases-with-their-original-aspect-ratio-anamorphic-if-need-be/?p=3359769

 

[EddieLarkin]

Any theories as to why Sony decided to open up The Golden Voyage of Sinbad to 1.66:1, whilst keeping Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger at its theatrical 1.85:1? Seems odd to make an exception on just one particular Harryhausen film.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

If you're ever going to form a band Bob, you know what to call yourselves.

Count me in, Bob!

 

[Cine_Capsulas]

I don't understand how some people in the other forum can treat Mr. Furmanek like that. He is the authority in this specific matter, not them.

 

[Brandon Conway]

I don't understand how some people in the other forum can treat Mr. Furmanek like that. He is the authority in this specific matter, not them.

It's stubbornness. People don't like to learn that they were wrong / mislead about films they cherish. Most of us can accept that our understanding of widescreen in the mid-50s was askew until the last few years due to re-releases and repertory prints being screened open matte. Now that the information has been gathered/documented some have a hard time letting go of their experiences with these films.

(This is also why I don't hold a grudge towards video releases from 10 years ago or longer - everyone was in the same groupthink, What they do with the facts we now have is more representative of their willingness to be true to the filmmakers' intentions).

 

[John Sparks]

Any theories as to why Sony decided to open up The Golden Voyage of Sinbad to 1.66:1, whilst keeping Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger at its theatrical 1.85:1? Seems odd to make an exception on just one particular Harryhausen film.

I did a comparison of the old SD and the new BD and 1:66 looks perfect. The 1.85 looks zoomed in and the 1.66 shows a lot more info all around.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Right, but where is the consistency? Both were 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 on DVD, but only one gets opened up for Blu-ray. Did they just forget to open up Tiger or was there a reason not to do so?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I don't understand how some people in the other forum can treat Mr. Furmanek like that. He is the authority in this specific matter, not them.

Thank you Gustavo, but my research partner Jack Theakston is the one who began this important work about seven years ago. While I was knee-deep in 3-D, he was looking at 1953 studio policies with respect to different ratios. I've just picked up the ball these past few years.

He deserves a great deal of credit for uncovering the facts and clearing up these various mysteries on the early years of widescreen.

 

[trajan]

Whats up with HBO showing films that were 1:85 in the theater letterboxed to 2:35 on tv?

 

[Moe Dickstein]

examples? Perhaps your theater was showing them in the wrong ratio...

 

[Matt Hough]

Yes, it's usually the other way around - 2.35:1 films have been reformatted to 1.78:1 on HBO.

 

[trajan]

WAR OF THE WORLDS 2005 Just watched this today and there is no doubt it was being shown 2:35.Also SIDEWAYS. Just keep watching HBO and you will see some 1:85 films letterboxed to 2:35. Go figure.: