Aspect Ratio Documentation (7 Viewers)

[Bob Furmanek]

DRAGNET should be 1.75.

 

[Gary16]

DRAGNET should be 1.75.

Thanks. It's been on VHS and DVD but always full frame. I wish they would do a proper transfer. There are even existing radio "Dragnet" episodes where Jack Webb promotes the movie as being "in color and widescreen."

 

[Doug Bull]

Thanks. It's been on VHS and DVD but always full frame. I wish they would do a proper transfer. There are even existing radio "Dragnet" episodes where Jack Webb promotes the movie as being "in color and widescreen."

It was run Widescreen at this provincial Australian City back in 1956.

Doug.

 

[SultanOfWhat]

Bob Furmanek posted the exhibitor page for Godzilla on page 166. I thought people might like to see this Kodachrome photo of the Godzilla marquee taken on Broadway in Manhattan from what appears to be its initial run in 1956.

Wider view:

 

[theonemacduff]

When I saw the Beaver's caps for Dragnet, it seemed immediately obvious that the shots had been framed with widescreen exhibition in mind, so I did a quick Photoshop comparision of how a shot would look in 1.85 and 1.66. I never thought to try a 1.75, but you can just imagine a red line in between the blue and the yellow.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The 1.75 listing is from Variety, the "Show Business Bible."

It's really a shame that so many early widescreen films have not been seen in their director-intended ratios in nearly 60 years

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I'm looking for copies in any format of the following three features:

THE FIGHTING LAWMAN - Allied Artists - 1953

FIGHTING BAD MAN - Allied Artists - 1953

HOLLYWOOD THRILLMAKERS - Lippert - 1954

Thank you very much!

 

[Brandon Conway]

THE FIGHTING LAWMAN - Allied Artists - 1953

This film is available on DVD-R from warnerarchive.com as part of the Wayne Morris Double Feature (paired with The Marksman (1953)). Website says they are 1.37:1.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Excellent, thank you very much Brandon!

 

[Brent Reid]

Just tried to watch Terence Davies' Of Time and the City (2008) - had to switch it off after a few mins, despite wanting to see it for years. It's a correct AR aficionado's nightmare: it seems to consist entirely of 1:33/7 footage horizontally squashed or cropped to fill a 1.85:1 frame... & this guy's hailed as a master filmmaker!

How on earth this received widespread release & rave reviews with no one flagging up this anomaly escapes me. Why on earth couldn't all the footage have been pillarboxed into a widescreen frame? That approach didn't hurt the success of Fish Tank (2009), The Artist (2011) or various other recent releases.

While I'm at it, the recent fantastic restoration of The World at War (1973-74) was absolutely ruined by being transferred to BD in 1.78:1. This landmark series consists entirely of academy ratio footage & has been cropped in its entirety. I & countless others have literally decided not to buy the otherwise brilliant BD set purely because of this.
In this case pretty much every review, on Amazon & elsewhere, roundly criticises Fremantle Home Entertainment (UK) & A&E Home Video (US) for their wrongheaded & utterly disrespectful decision to release it this way.

 

[Ignatius]

Just tried to watch Terence Davies' Of Time and the City (2008) - had to switch it off after a few mins, despite wanting to see it for years. It's a correct AR aficionado's nightmare: it seems to consist entirely of 1:33/7 footage horizontally squashed or cropped to fill a 1.85:1 frame... & this guy's hailed as a master filmmaker!

Of Time and the City is one of the few films where I'd say that the presentation of archive footage totally doesn't matter. If you can't find a way to switch that part of your brain off and immerse yourself in the film then you're missing out on something really wonderful.

 

[Brent Reid]

I don't agree in the slightest. The correct aspect ratio of a film always matters - no exceptions; that's what we're here to discuss. If you think that there are egregious examples of unnecessary stretching & cropping that for some personal reason get a free pass, then it would appear you're actually posting in the wrong thread.

I'm positive that on all other counts, Of Time and the City is a wonderful film. Nothing I've ever read or heard over the years has led me to think otherwise. However, it would be even more wonderful if the whole thing didn't look like something hurriedly uploaded to YouTube by some spotty teenager, with no thought whatsoever for it not being squashed to fit a widescreen frame.

The name of this thread is Aspect Ratio Documentation, not Opinion - & the two examples I've given above are entirely relevant to the subject.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Except I'd argue that if a filmmaker uses archive footage in his own film he can present it in any way he pleases and in that context it will be correct, because it'll be how he decides to release it.Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk

 

[FoxyMulder]

Except I'd argue that if a filmmaker uses archive footage in his own film he can present it in any way he pleases and in that context it will be correct, because it'll be how he decides to release it. Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk

I agree with Brenty, i am not a fan of squished/stretched or cropped footage, i might be able to live with cropped footage if it's carefully redone but squished/stretched footage is appalling and shouldn't happen, see The Big Country as one example, luckily i managed to get a version of that which fixed the issue, i didn't get it from MGM who refuse to acknowledge the issue.

 

[Patrick McCart]

The ending to Tarsem's brilliant film The Fall has the same issues. The film itself is gorgeously shot and was even brought through a 4K DI (shot on standard 35mm). However, the silent film montage at the end is made up of what seems to be public domain stock footage sourced. Analog video stretched to 16x9. It looks horrible. Compare to the similar montage in Scorsese's Hugo that's made up entirely of beautiful new scans pillarboxed within 1.78:1. Even in the theater, the excerpts from Safety Last! and A Trip to the Moon looked absolutely stunning. I would hope that The Fall is someday "revised" to use better quality sources since it's jarring and clearly the result of just not having the budget to use anything else but poor quality video.

 

[Brandon Conway]

I agree with Brenty, i am not a fan of squished/stretched or cropped footage, i might be able to live with cropped footage if it's carefully redone but squished/stretched footage is appalling and shouldn't happen, see The Big Country as one example, luckily i managed to get a version of that which fixed the issue, i didn't get it from MGM who refuse to acknowledge the issue.

Yeah, but that's still a different issue, IMO.

Casablanca as a film should be released 1.37. Random Hypothetical Movie that is 2.35 can have clips of Casablanca in it stretched/cropped/distorted/colorized/digitally altered to include zebras and if that's what the director of Random Hypothetical Movie decided to do with the footage then that's how it should be on video, because that's how they decided to present it. If I want to watch Casablanca correctly I only really care about how it looks itself and not in other productions. Sure, it's annoying when a filmmaker crops/stretches/alters footage of another film in their film, but it's not "wrong" in the same sense in my view.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Yeah, but that's still a different issue, IMO.

Casablanca as a film should be released 1.37. Random Hypothetical Movie that is 2.35 can have clips of Casablanca in it stretched/cropped/distorted/colorized/digitally altered to include zebras and if that's what the director of Random Hypothetical Movie decided to do with the footage then that's how it should be on video, because that's how they decided to present it. If I want to watch Casablanca correctly I only really care about how it looks itself and not in other productions. Sure, it's annoying when a filmmaker crops/stretches/alters footage of another film in their film, but it's not "wrong" in the same sense in my view.

I haven't seen Of Time and the City but IF most of it is footage that is squished/squeezed/cropped then it's wrong, it can be fine for a few minutes but not an entire feature film, just my opinion and based on what Brenty had to say above.

There are better ways to handle such footage.

 

[Brent Reid]

Talking about the wishes of modern director X is irrelevant & dodging the issue. I'll bet anything that, as a lauded filmmaker, ol' Terence had access to all the original, unaltered footage he used, direct from the BFI's archives. He simply dropped a b*llock.

Butchering the odd clip within a larger work is barely tolerable, but to construct a whole mainstream, general-release film out of such clips? Unforgivable. To say the least, it's completely disrespectful to all the skilled directors & cameramen who carefully framed & shot the original footage.

There are loadsa clips & several uploads of the whole film on YouTube that accurately reflect the travesty that is contained on the BFI's DVD. In addition, there's a HD trailer on the BFI's very own YouTube channel: .

Hugo is an outstanding example of how archive footage should be presented within a contemporary feature - but then, Martin Scorsese really is a master filmmaker!

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I'm with Brandon on this one - The original film should be in the intended ratio.Once the material is being repurposed for another work, then all bets are off.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I'm with Brandon on this one - The original film should be in the intended ratio.Once the material is being repurposed for another work, then all bets are off.

Kinda like the clips of the The Wizard of Oz at last night's Oscar Award telecast, eh?