Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[Mark-P]

Take That's Entertainment as an example. While the majority of clips are presented OAR, some of the montages cropped images for artistic purposes. And there were also at least 3 clips where they started out in the original 1.37:1 and then zoomed to 1.78:1 for effect. The instances I remember are "On the Atchison, Topeka, and the Santa Fe" from Harvey Girls, the rodeo number from Annie Get Your Gun, and finally the ballet sequence from American in Paris. Who am I to say, "how dare you alter the image!"?

 

[FoxyMulder]

Take That's Entertainment as an example. While the majority of clips are presented OAR, some of the montages cropped images for artistic purposes. And there were also at least 3 clips where they started out in the original 1.37:1 and then zoomed to 1.78:1 for effect. The instances I remember are "On the Atchison, Topeka, and the Santa Fe" from Harvey Girls, the rodeo number from Annie Get Your Gun, and finally the ballet sequence from American in Paris. Who am I to say, "how dare you alter the image!"?

Who are you, you are the consumer and if enough say how dare you, this practice would stop.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

yes, we must squash out artistic freedom at all costs.

 

[FoxyMulder]

yes, we must squash out artistic freedom at all costs.

Oh come now Ted, think about what you are saying.

Taking a film which has already been made and altering it by squishing the image so people are too thin or too fat, that isn't artistic freedom that is what i would call madness, it doesn't matter whether it's done in the name of art it's sore on the eyes.

 

[Brandon Conway]

A lot of art is purposely sore on the eyes.But aside from that, IMO one has to choose their battles, and how a filmmaker chooses to present archive footage they repurpose for their own film is not one that concerns me.Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk

 

[theonemacduff]

Speaking about the World at War series, I for one don't mind the 1.78 reframing, and I stress this is just a personal opinion. However, as a rationalization of that opinion I would adduce a couple of points. First of all, much of the footage was shot under, shall we say, stressful conditions, and often with lots of space around the ostensible subject of the shot, meaning that reframing often doesn't have a very great effect, and equally often simply highlights the subject by cropping away sky or ground, or stuff that doesn't particularly mean anything in terms of content. Second, it's quite clear from the restoration doc included with World at War that the reframing was not done in a thoughtless manner (crop everything with a common centre or common top), but rather by adjusting the frame so as to not miss anything really important from a given shot, moving it up or down as required. True, not all the results are absolutely stellar, but I've watched the original series four or five times, and the reframed one at least twice, three times on selected episodes, and I simply don't see any genuine shot butchery there -- UNLESS, that is, one thinks that any sort of reframing is in principle morally wrong. The aesthetics, of course, are always a matter of personal taste, and right or wrong in that sense doesn't apply.

 

[Brent Reid]

We all agree that the OARs have clearly not been adhered to & for no technical reason. Let's not get into a silly, endless discussion about whether or not altering old footage is acceptable. If you agree with it, fine. You may watch such efforts to your heart's content. I am free to not do so.

Some here seem determined to just rehash old arguments from earlier in this very thread. Once again, it's supposed to be about AR Documentation, not opinion. You can happily discuss artistic license & the supposed conditions under which film was actually shot, but that belongs in a separate thread: Aspect Ratio Conjecture.

I've documented two examples where the OAR has been changed. The Fall & That's Entertainment are others; does anyone have any more?

 

[Brandon Conway]

I'm sorry, but the point is moot. That's Entertainment is NOT the original films, and however it was decided to present the footage of other films within THAT film IS the correct AR for That's Entertainment as it was shown in theaters. No one was EVER free to watch some film clips in That's Entertainment in any other way unless you were NOT watching That's Entertainment.If you change how those clips are presented you are actually altering the theatrical version of That's Entertainment, The Fall, or whatever films made those choices to use those clips in that manner.You mentioned how Scorsese keeps AR. Well, in Hugo he converted many of the silent films to 3D. Do you also think that his 3D conversion of another person's 2D-only crafted film is wrong? Because to me it's the same thing - however Mr. Scorsese chose to present clips of other films in his film is correct by default for his film, regardless of how those films should be presented in their own screenings.Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I actually think this is a new argument, and I don't recall it being had before.If the intent is to view the original material, then one is viewing the original material. If an artist does something with that material and makes a new work, then it might (or might not) be altered to fit that new work - the person deciding how to use what are now "raw materials" are the creator of the new work.Seems pretty simple to me - and of COURSE nobody should be forced to watch any work of art.

 

[Brent Reid]

In reply to the previous two posts:
No you're not sorry or you wouldn't keep banging on about it.
This argument has been had before, several times - pages & pages of it.

It boils down to this: For the umpteenth time, this thread is titled Documentation, not Opinion, Supposition, Conjecture or anything similar. Bob actually had to change the name of the thread from Aspect Ratio Research, in an attempt to stop certain people from doing exactly what you're doing now.

I purposely didn't mention the 3D conversion of the Hugo clips because it's not an AR-related issue. What's more, that film was/is available theatrically & domestically in 2D. Care to tell me where I can buy the uncropped/unsquashed versions of the restored The World at War & Of Time and the City?

I'll return when this otherwise brilliant & illuminating thread is back on topic.

 

[Brandon Conway]

You're right - I'm not all that sorry that you're being so ridiculous about this. Tell me then - what's the DOCUMENTED aspect ratio of The Fall? Hey, guess what - its 1.85. I have the Blu-ray right in front of me. That means that everything in it should be 1.85, whether it's stretched, warped, upside-down, interlaced with one field backwards, or otherwise in the damn film - if the filmmaker of The Fall wanted it to be. Which he did. He made the film and used that footage in that manner. This footage as presented in The Fall was always stretched/cropped in the film The Fall, for the film The Fall the correct presentation is to have it stretched/cropped, and the DOCUMENTATION backs this up because that's how the film The Fall always presented the footage.

And with that, I'll leave you to fret about this absurd non-issue.

Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I'm sure Bob appreciates you being his Hall Monitor Brenty.We generally don't squelch conversations that are on-topic here, and considering this is very on topic - and I'd love to see some links to where this particular topic has arisen because I've read every page and don't recall it.

 

[FoxyMulder]

They sometimes show 4/3 programmes from the seventies and eighties in a squished 1.78:1 aspect ratio on British satellite television, obviously a mistake on someones part, it looks horrendous, now if a filmmaker chooses to take 4/3 footage and present it in a 1.78:1 squished up aspect ratio, no cropping of the material just squished up so everyone and everything within the frame looks unnatural well yes it is his or her choice, doesn't make it the right choice but it is theirs to make.

I still don't know how anyone can view such material and get enjoyment from it, if it's a five or ten second clip then not a big deal, if it's half an hour or more then yes it becomes a bigger deal and it's not something i would personally want to view.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Malcom, that we agree on.The right to do it? sure - do I want to watch it? nah. But think about say, the end of Robert Wise's The Hindenburg.The newsreel footage there is made to fill the 2.35 screen, and I think that's the right artistic choice because suddenly going into pillarbox would throw you out of the scene. So much so that Wise made his production footage go B&W for the crash to better blend with the newsreel footage.If you're watching the Hindenburg Crash newsreel, it should be 1.37, if you're watching Wise's film, it should be 2.35.I think that's all anyone is saying.

 

[Yorkshire]

I think there's something being missed here, and I think it gets missed a lot in internetland.

Time and the City is an excellent film. It's really not open to much question - it was hailed by film-lovers and critics the world over. Of course, you can argue that there's no such thing as a good or bad film, just personal taste. In that case we've nothing to discuss - move along.

But if you have any concept that there are objectively good films rather than everything being just subjective taste, then Time and the City is an objecively good film.

If you have 'standards' which prevent you from enjoying that, then the problem is with you, not with Terence Davies' work.

That's not saying everyone has to like Time and the CIty, though.

Steve W

 

[FoxyMulder]

If you have 'standards' which prevent you from enjoying that, then the problem is with you, not with Terence Davies' work.


Steve W

I haven't seen it, i assume you have, is much of the footage squished and unnatural looking as a result. ?

@HDvision

The moderators can move the last few posts into that thread if they wish so we can continue the discussion there.

 

[DVDvision]

If I may suggest, direct any discussion and opinion about framing changes in series and shows (including documentaries) in the following thread

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/319803-tv-shows-and-tv-movies-gone-w-i-d-e/

This topic here is about aspect ratio documentation

 

[theonemacduff]

Care to tell me where I can buy the uncropped/unsquashed versions of the restored The World at War

I hate to make a blatant sales pitch, but I've had my old copy (1.33 ratio) of World at War on Amazon.ca for nearly two years now, and the sad truth is, that no matter how many times I lower the price, nobody wants it. I keep it there mostly out of nostalgia. Had a guy from Québec almost buy it, but hélas, pas des sous titres en francais, so, no sale. Of course, there are lots of non-OAR reasons why nobody wants to buy the DVDs, but at the time I put it up for sale, I really thought, hey, there must be at least a few OAR fans out there who would want it.

As to why Bob changed the title, I agree, it was to stop a lot of repetitive discussion around the aesthetics of various aspects ratios, which of course can never be conclusive, since it is perceptually based; de gustibus non est disputandem, and all that. So apologies for potentially de-railing the thread and this will be my last post on World at War anyhow. Though it does occur to me that any documentary based primarily on newsreels would be a case of footage being (somewhat) repurposed, therefore, a different artistic creation, therefore, not necessarily locked into it's original shape or structure. Certainly, nobody would want to see the clips in World at War with their original music and narration, that almost oily false positivity that the newsreel script writers of mid-century specialized in.

 

[Ignatius]

Oh dear, I've inadvertantly kicked something off haven't I? I'm interested in the discussion but I agree that this probably isn't the place for it. Sorry.

It seems that Terence Davies is one of the few filmmakers whose artistic choices I will automatically and unnecessarily defend on internet forums.

 

[Greg_D_R]

Hmm, if only we had these for every film: