Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[haineshisway]

Gee----TCM is showing THE WAY WE WERE in 1.77. The sad thing is that it is finally HD quality and the image looks better. It is just wrong. Please let TCM know you care about these things. I know they are sometimes at the mercy of the distributors, but as the last bastion of doing old movies right, we need to hold the line.

Well, it IS available on a beautifully done Blu-ray.

 

[Yorkshire]

To answer a few questins...

I found a contact with some copies of Kine from the '60s. I currently have access to one from '62, but more are possibly on the way.

Most of the non-scope British productions are listed as 1.75:1.

All the films shot at Pinewood are listed as 1.75:1 apart from those produced by Disney/UA which are listed as 1.85:1.

This actually makes the whole thing very confusing. Why is Dr.No different?

As far as I can tell, neither (director) Young or (DoP) Moore had shot a frame of 1.85:1 in their careers. Up to Dr.No all of their films fell into one of these categories:

1 - Pre-widescreen
2 - British 'scope
3 - British flat (presumably 1.75:1 tolerable from 1.65-1.85)
4 - European (mixture of 'scope and flat, the latter presumably 1.66:1)
5 - Erm...'exotic' (Japanese, Mexican, South African - who knows)
6 - American (all 'scope - no 1.85:1 films at all)

So if you get a British director and DoP who were (for the most part) used to shooting 1.75:1 tolerable from 1.65-1.85, working in a British studio which was churning out films mainly in 1.75:1 tolerable from 1.65-1.85, with equipment and technical crew presumably set up and used to 1.75:1 tolerable from 1.65-1.85...

...why is it listed as 1.85:1, and how would they have shot this any differently?

I mean if UA said "We want you to do this in 1.85:1 instead of 1.75:1 tolerable from 1.65-1.85", then there must surely have been a massive temptation to say "Well, we protect for 1.85:1 anyway, we'll just carry on as normal".

More in a minute.

Steve W

 

[Yorkshire]

OKay, just a few words.

Myself and Bob have not always agreed, but I've never for a second doubted the validity of his research or the documentation it's uncovered. For me, the question has always been what directors, DoPs and projectionists typically did with thise figures.

What did directors/DoPs do with '1.75:1 tolerable from 1.65-1.85'?

I suppose there were 4 options:

1 - Shoot at 1.75:1 whilst simultaniously ensuring the shot was neither too open or too tight
2 - Shoot at 1.75:1 and just hope that, in the great scheme of things, nothing would turn out too open or too tight
3 - Shoot for 1.85:1 and don't leave it too open
4 - Shoot for 1.66:1 and make sure nothing's too tight

Biggest help we could get with this, (a) do we have any research on what masking UK cinemas were using at the time and (b) does anyone know of any UK directors/DoPs working at the time who could comment.

I'm going to stick my neck out - I think it's possible that the '1.66:1 myth' comes from most UK cinemas using 1.66:1 masking. Of course, if this is true, and the directors/DoPs were aware of that, this would have a big inflence on how they composed their films; I know a couple of posters here have said they spotted a difference when things went to 1.85:1, which I think wouldn't have been so obvious had that move come from 1.75:1.

It would certainly explain a lot.

Steve W

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Not much is documented on this.

According to Jack Theakston's initial research from 2007, Odeon/Rank's house ratio was 1.66 and ABC's was 1.75.

 

[Douglas R]

Not much is documented on this.

According to Jack Theakston's initial research from 2007, Odeon/Rank's house ratio was 1.66 and ABC's was 1.75.

I'm sure there was considerable variation outside of the main city centre cinemas. My memory (fallible no doubt) of cinemas I visited up to the mid-'60s in the suburbs of North West London is that the Granada always seemed to have a wider ratio than either Rank or ABC. I noticed that my local ABC, which I visited the most, always displayed a large amount of additional picture image on the left and right black borders so maybe they were projecting a 1.75:1 picture on a 1.66:1 screen!

 

[Yorkshire]

Cheers.

It really would be great to get 2 or 3 of these guys round a table in conversation and ask them what they did in practice.

Steve W

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Hmm, I've never been to a seance before!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Most of the non-scope British productions are listed as 1.75:1.

This ties in with Tom Crossplot's research findings as well. It's important to mention that this standard was established in 1955.

From our article: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

By February 10, 1955, in an effort to "stabilize shooting methods in British studios," the Camera Technical Committee of the British Film Producers Association was now recommending 1.75:1 as the optimum ratio for British productions. Cinematographers will be instructed to compose shots loosely in order to work from 1.66:1 up to 1.85:1, with 1.75:1 being considered ideal.

On July 14 1955, there was an update of the British Standard that the BFPA, BKS, CEA and others had been working towards. It specified a common-top approach to image composition, and again recommends 1.75:1 to producers, with both 1.65 and 1.85 permissible.

On October 6, 1955, the Ideal Kinema reported: "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.
The new standard, of course, does not apply to processes such as CinemaScope and VistaVision."​

 

[theonemacduff]

I don't know for a fact what aperture plates UK projectionists were using in that era, but I do know for a fact that as a kid (this would be in the early to mid-60s) I went to a local cinema in Hastings and saw The Flame and the Arrow, but for sure projected in a loose (non-cinemascope) widescreen ratio. Now, since this was made and released in 1950, there is probably no way it could have been shot wide, so this indicates that at least one UK projectionist decided not to try and swap out his aperture plate, and just blew the movie through a "standard"1.66 or 1.75 plate, and adjusted the image in the gate the first time it looked like the top of a head would be cut off, and then left it there. I tried the experiment of zooming my DVD copy of the film to 1.78, and for the most part it looked fine. Sorry, the point kind of got lost there: which was -- that UK projection was standardized at 1.66 or so, even to the extent that copies of older films were shown that way.

 

[Brent Reid]

This still goes on, Jon Paul. The Derby Quad, an arthouse cinema near where I live, trumpets special, actual 35mm film screenings every so often (!), but the trouble is that everything just gets projected to fill up a 1:1.85 matted screen, regardless of its original AR.

As often as not, this is done to 30s/40s academy ratio films, with several feet of the top and bottom of the image clearly spilling over onto the curtains. They look absolutely crap yet no one seems to complain about it but me.

The first time I saw this was a couple of years ago when I endured watching the middle 2/3rds of In a Lonely Place (1950), as part of a film festival. The second time was last year, for October Man (1947). On the second occasion I clearly and simply explained the previous problem when booking my tickets and was assured that it they would fix it and the film would be shown properly. They hadn't and it wasn't.

In most modern cinemas no one seems to know or care anymore about even the most basic technicalities of film screening. I could weep.

 

[Yorkshire]

Hmm, I've never been to a seance before!

I do think there'll still be quite a few British directors who worked in the '60s who are still with us.

Steve W

 

[Yorkshire]

Great stuff Bob, I find this stuff all the more interesting and compelling because it's like a great film where every answer raises ten more questions. Regarding:

"Cinematographers will be instructed to compose shots loosely in order to work from 1.66:1 up to 1.85:1, with 1.75:1 being considered ideal."

I'm sure that directors knew there were many cinemas in the UK and Europe cropping to 1.66:1. I'm sure many British films shown in the UK at either 1.66: or 1.75:1 will have been cropped in many US cinemas to 1.85:1. And I'm sure the directors/DoPs knew that, too.

As such 1.75:1 is obviously pretty much ideal. I think you could have viewfinders with multiple aspects marked for 1.66/1.75/1.85 and it'd be a complete and confusing mess. You have one mark at 1.75:1, and as long as you know it might go a bit either way from that you wouldn't go far wrong (which is I suppose what is meant there by 'loosely').

It must have been a very tough job for them. When I see On the Waterfront in those three ratios I marvel at how good they managed to get it to look in all three.

Steve W

 

[Bob Furmanek]

75 years ago, the New York World's Fair opened and unveiled the World of Tomorrow. One of the most popular exhibits was the first black and white polarized 3-D film.

IN TUNE WITH TOMORROW was shown daily in dual-35mm at the Chrysler Pavilion. Sadly, this landmark film does not survive in 3-D. However, NEW DIMENSIONS, the 3-D follow-up produced for the 1940 season does survive and we have restored it from original 35mm Technicolor elements.We'll be including that short plus some amazing 3-D color images taken at the Fair in our upcoming Blu-ray release, 3-D RARITIES. It's coming this fall from Flicker Alley!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

We have one side of IN TUNE WITH TOMORROW.If you know of a 35mm or 16mm flat print, please let us know!

 

[Moe Dickstein]

knowing that it wouldn't be cheap, could modern conversion techniques produce some approximation of the 3D version of In Tune With Tomorrow from the single remaining side?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Oh, absolutely.

But who would pay for it?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

If anybody with deep pockets is reading this, here's another lost 3-D film that we'd like to convert:

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/holygrail

 

[Brandon Conway]

If only one of us here had a James Cameron connection and got him interested! LOLSent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Dr Griffin]

If anybody with deep pockets is reading this, here's another lost 3-D film that we'd like to convert:

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/holygrail

Sorry, all I've got is a hole in my pocket.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

We must go to the same tailor!