Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[EddieLarkin]

Again, that logic also supports the idea that 1.37:1 films can and/or should be opened up a little as well. What we always get instead is either 1.37:1 or a slightly tighter 1.33:1 (which weirdly no one ever complains about, despite the fact we're losing information). We never get something more open. It should be the same for widescreen films, whether they are 1.75:1 or 1.85:1. This isn't about anyone getting angry over the visual discrepancy (because as Steve says, there basically isn't any), it's about the ratio being known but not respected.

 

[DVDvision]

I don't think there should be debate about the triviality of getting things right instead of approximative regarding films formats in this thread. This is about getting things right, period. Documentation is very important because if you let if fall on the wayside, you will end up with presentations that were never intended, and we already have a truckload of those being issued left and right without any regard to preservation of the original presentation.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Again, that logic also supports the idea that 1.37:1 films can and/or should be opened up a little as well. What we always get instead is either 1.37:1 or a slightly tighter 1.33:1 (which weirdly no one ever complains about, despite the fact we're losing information). We never get something more open. It should be the same for widescreen films, whether they are 1.75:1 or 1.85:1. This isn't about anyone getting angry over the visual discrepancy (because as Steve says, there basically isn't any), it's about the ratio being known but not respected.

I agree with your general sentiment as it pertains to respecting the OAR. However, we've got bigger fish to fry as films are still being released on different video formats with greater ratio discrepancies than those you have stated in your post. I think most of us would like our films released in their OAR, but we have more serious battles to fight in this arena. IMO, our focus should be on stopping any widescreen film from being released in 1.33 or 1.37 ratios.

Again, to state my position one more time, I want every film to be released in any video format in it's OAR, but I think it's more prudent to focus our energies on the worse offenders who are releasing widescreen ratio films in 1.37/1.33 ratios.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don't think there should be debate about the triviality of getting things right instead of approximative regarding films formats in this thread. This is about getting things right, period. Documentation is very important because if you let if fall on the wayside, you will end up with presentations that were never intended, and we already have a truckload of those being issued left and right without any regard to preservation of the original presentation.

Yes, it's important, but there is only so much we can do and I feel getting the biggest offenders in this regard would have a greater impact for all of us.

 

[Yorkshire]

Again, that logic also supports the idea that 1.37:1 films can and/or should be opened up a little as well. What we always get instead is either 1.37:1 or a slightly tighter 1.33:1 (which weirdly no one ever complains about, despite the fact we're losing information). We never get something more open. It should be the same for widescreen films, whether they are 1.75:1 or 1.85:1. This isn't about anyone getting angry over the visual discrepancy (because as Steve says, there basically isn't any), it's about the ratio being known but not respected.

Eddie, given the other comments in my post, you're implicitly saying that RAH didn't respect The Godfather when he restored it.

I find that hard to swallow. But each to his own, I'm certainly not criticising, just saying it's not a priority for me.

A hypotheitical question. Let's say a film which should be 1.75:1 is released in 1.37:1 - the accompanying literature/documentary/whatever notes correctly and accurately that it was composed for 1.75:1, and you should mask/zoom accordingly. Another film, again should be 1.75:1, is released in 1.66:1 with a note saying (incorrectly) that this was the OAR.

Which most respects the OAR?

You see, it seems to me that it comes down to discussions about things that don't matter an awful lot.

But then again, you were always a funny lot in t'East Riding.

Steve W

 

[Vic Pardo]

If those frame-grabs are accurate, they have REALLY pumped up the color on this transfer. It looks more like somebody's fantasy of what dye-transfer was supposed to look like than the real thing!

And just for the record:

AllThatHeaven102955_zps6596843d.jpg

I saw ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS on the big screen back in the 1970s. If the color had jumped out of the screen like it does in those frame grabs, I think I would have remembered it. Although, to be honest, we're talking almost 40 years ago and a studio print that just happened to be on the shelf and not "restored" or newly struck for any reason. But still...

 

[Vic Pardo]

Back in the days of cinemascope movies cut in half for tv viewing it was an important argument but this droning on about whether a sliver of image is on screen but shouldn't be smacks of obsessiveness.

Obsessive? Participants in a 213-page thread devoted to "Aspect Ratio Documentation" obsessive? Noooooo....!

 

[EddieLarkin]

Eddie, given the other comments in my post, you're implicitly saying that RAH didn't respect The Godfather when he restored it.

I find that hard to swallow. But each to his own, I'm certainly not criticising, just saying it's not a priority for me.

A hypotheitical question. Let's say a film which should be 1.75:1 is released in 1.37:1 - the accompanying literature/documentary/whatever notes correctly and accurately that it was composed for 1.75:1, and you should mask/zoom accordingly. Another film, again should be 1.75:1, is released in 1.66:1 with a note saying (incorrectly) that this was the OAR.

Which most respects the OAR?

You see, it seems to me that it comes down to discussions about things that don't matter an awful lot.

But then again, you were always a funny lot in t'East Riding.

Steve W

In the sense that The Godfather's AR is 1.85:1, and it's 1.78:1 on the Blu-ray, then yes it too hasn't been respected. I don't like the idea of a theatrical aspect ratio being replaced with a television aspect ratio for the sake of convenience, in the same way that windowboxed opening credits remind me that I'm not watching a "film", only an approximation of it. How much difference does it actually make to the presentation? Essentially nothing. Is it as big an issue as a 1.85:1 film being released open matte? Of course not. It's not even half as much as a priority, and so yes it respects the OAR "more".

I'm not arguing that it's an actual problem, only that there is no excuse for it.

 

[Alan Tully]

In the sense that The Godfather's AR is 1.85:1, and it's 1.78:1 on the Blu-ray, then yes it too hasn't been respected. I don't like the idea of a theatrical aspect ratio being replaced with a television aspect ratio for the sake of convenience, in the same way that windowboxed opening credits remind me that I'm not watching a "film", only an approximation of it. How much difference does it actually make to the presentation? Essentially nothing. Is it as big an issue as a 1.85:1 film being released open matte? Of course not. It's not even half as much as a priority, and so yes it respects the OAR "more".

I'm not arguing that it's an actual problem, only that there is no excuse for it.

I've been down this road when transferring features for DVD several years ago. And those teeny tiny little black stripes top & bottom of the frame (for 1:85)...are actually going over picture information...& that tiny bit of extra picture info that it seems that you shouldn't be seeing, you might see at one cinema & not at another. Just leave those little black stripes out of the process. That's how I roll

 

[John Hodson]

I don't think there should be debate about the triviality of getting things right instead of approximative regarding films formats in this thread. This is about getting things right, period.

It is; that's what this whole thread is about. Getting it right.

For many years it's been thought that 1.66:1 was the British standard. Documentation, first hand evidence, is at last undermining that canard. It's not about whether If.... should have been presented at 1.75:1 (though it should have been) per se, it's about nailing a bright, shining lie. 1.66:1 when the AR was acutally 1.75:1 doesn't matter? Well, we're getting 1.66:1 when the framing should be 1.85:1, we're getting 2.00:1 when it should be 1.75:1, we're getting 1.78:1 when it should be 2.35:1, 1.37:1 when it should be 1.85:1. And so it goes.

Much of the research unearthed by Bob and his cohorts is righting wrongs; helping to get things right.

It matters.

 

[Yorkshire]

I've been down this road when transferring features for DVD several years ago. And those teeny tiny little black stripes top & bottom of the frame (for 1:85)...are actually going over picture information...& that tiny bit of extra picture info that it seems that you shouldn't be seeing, you might see at one cinema & not at another. Just leave those little black stripes out of the process. That's how I roll

You know, the one occasion I'd actually want the 'wrong' ratio is with 1.75:1 - I'd put every one of them at 1.78:1.

If you have a 1.78:1 telly or a projector set up for 1.78:1, then those tiny, tiny black bars really are just an annoyance, which do nothing to maintain directoral intent in reality. I doubt very much that any director on the planet would object.

Steve W

 

[EddieLarkin]

But Steve, then you're cropping instead of opening up! Sacrilege!

 

[Yorkshire]

But Steve, then you're cropping instead of opening up! Sacrilege!

I know, I know.



Steve W

 

[Yorkshire]

It is; that's what this whole thread is about. Getting it right.

For many years it's been thought that 1.66:1 was the British standard. Documentation, first hand evidence, is at last undermining that canard. It's not about whether If.... should have been presented at 1.75:1 (though it should have been) per se, it's about nailing a bright, shining lie. 1.66:1 when the AR was acutally 1.75:1 doesn't matter? Well, we're getting 1.66:1 when the framing should be 1.85:1, we're getting 2.00:1 when it should be 1.75:1, we're getting 1.78:1 when it should be 2.35:1, 1.37:1 when it should be 1.85:1. And so it goes.

Much of the research unearthed by Bob and his cohorts is righting wrongs; helping to get things right.

It matters.

I don't totally disagree, but...

If the film was shot at 1.75:1, apparently it should have been shot tolerable to between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1. If the documentation we have is correct, then most viewings in the US will have been in 1.85:1, and the UK's biggest cinema chain will have shown it at 1.66:1, and Lindsay Anderson will have bneen aware of that.

So, was LA actually shooting at 1.75:1 as a perfect frame, or as a compromise ratio which could go a little bit wider or a little bit less-wide, which is what the documentation implies.

In which case (the latter), and to answer you're point that "it's important", I'd have to answer "Maybe, but not very".

Now I'll tell you what would be important. If 1.66:1 became a new middle point, where you could go anywhere between 1.75:1 and 1.50:1, then yes. But if the documentation says 1.75:1, tolerable to 1.66:1/1.85:1, then 1.66:1 is absolutely fine.

Who was the biggest perfectionist in cinema? Stanley Kubrick. And look what his memo said about Barry Lyndon. Even the uber-nit-picker of cinema had tolerances. I don't really feel I can set myself up as someone more picky than Kubrick - that'd just be daft.

Steve W

 

[John Hodson]

The whole point in my bringing up the issue in the first instance was that a supplement on Eureka's fabulous new BD of If.... contained first hand evidence that the British standard at the time was 1.75:1.

The fact that the film itself should have been presented at 1.75:1 rather than 1.66:1 is a side issue. And I agree that 1.66:1 is 'tolerable' - that really *is* the point - hard 'from the horse's mouth' evidence that British cinematographers were instructed to shoot at 1.75:1, tolerable for 1.85:1 and 1.66:1.

Can I add that the Eureka disc with it's wealth of supplements is truly fabulous; even should you already have the Criterion disc, the Eureka offering is well worth owning for the fascinating interviews with various members of cast and crew therein.

 

[theonemacduff]

Jon Paul, that's not a widescreen film.

Rats. I figured it might be, given the headroom in the shots, and the date, but such is life; sometimes one ends up with one's foot in one's mouth. I will leave the pic up and your comment as a monument to failure to check sources. I'm wondering about some of the other Network discs, however, which have later dates than Eight O'Clock Walk -- are they also 1.33 OAR?

 

[John Hodson]

They're presenting Ballad in Blue in 1.33:1, or as they say: "Presented in a brand-new High Definition transfer from the original film elements showing the maximum filmed picture area..."

 

[DVDvision]

Shouldn't it be 1.37:1 instead of the 1.33:1 TV format? It's a film right?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The differences between 1.66, 1.75, 1.85 and 2:1 may not seem significant today at home but they represent how the director was framing the shot. The differences were significant in theaters sixty years ago and that's why aperture plates were available in each ratio.

Copyright holders now have the opportunity to present these films in widescreen for the first time since the original theatrical release.

They should not fall back on long-standing myths. They should do their homework and original research on the production history of their assets and get it right.

When concrete documentation exists, they should not let their own personal belief or preferences cloud their judgement. They have that obligation to the creative team which created the work that they now control.

This may seem "obsessive" to some but realistically, how many more times will films like DUEL IN THE JUNGLE, JOHNNY GUITAR, RIOT IN CELL BLOCK 11, ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS, ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE MUMMY, THE LADYKILLERS or PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE get mastered in HD?

Food for thought...

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Love those aperture plates. I used to work with plates that had the ARs ground in a strip, and you would simply slide to the appropriate AR. Most had only two, but one theatre had a plate with 1.85, scope and 1.66:1. Sometimes I miss those days, then I remember I was getting paid peanuts.