Aspect Ratio Documentation (4 Viewers)

[Bob Furmanek]

Just to be clear, I believe that GWTW should only be seen in 1.37:1.

I'm just presenting info on how it was supposed to be shown in the 1954 reissue. It was certainly not recommended for the standard ratio.

 

[Douglas R]

I saw it on television a few times, i think it may have been shown 1.33:1 and seemed fine in that aspect ratio, it's enjoyable enough, i wonder what that Italian version contains that makes it twenty minutes longer, it would be nice to see and compare. .

I have the German DVD which contains the original long version with English language. The cut version is also included but with only Italian and German audio. The long version restores numerous short edits throughout the film which makes the film flow much better. Many of the restored scenes only have Italian dialogue and in those instances English sub-titles are provided. The aspect ratio is curiously 1.55:1 for both versions.I saw the film when it was first released in 1954. I saw it again at the NFT sometime in the '70s when they showed the short version in a 1.37:1 print. Don't ask me to remember what the ratio was when I saw it as a 9 year old in 1954 though!

 

[Yorkshire]

The aspect ratio is curiously 1.55:1 for both versions.

NO!

Please, no, no, no.

We've had 1.20:1, 1.33:1, 1.37:1, 1.66:1, 1.75:1, 1.85:1, 2.00:1, 2.20:1, 2.35:1, 2.39:1, 2.40:1 and upwards.

If you introduce a new ratio like 1.55:1 I'm just going to suggest we all go back to 20" 4:3 monitors and stick black cardboard over the front as the whim takes us.

If I may quote Mr.Gumby "MY BRAIN HURTS!"

Steve W

 

[Yorkshire]

This is the first reference to the reissue, one year before the July 1954 dates.

GWTW.gif

I never knew they did that so early.

I though the widescreen re-issues of GWTW came much later than that.

With the likes of this and Shane it's clear the studios had an agenda to sell widescreen to the masses, even with films clearly intended for another ratio.

Steve W

 

[haineshisway]

I never knew they did that so early.

I though the widescreen re-issues of GWTW came much later than that.

With the likes of this and Shane it's clear the studios had an agenda to sell widescreen to the masses, even with films clearly intended for another ratio.

Steve W

This is news? Once they went widescreen, as has been stated ad infinitum in this thread, yes, they had the agenda to sell it to the theater owners and the masses. The reality was that within a couple of years there WERE no more theaters that could properly show Academy and so of course things were all shown widescreen. I saw a screening of Singin' in the Rain at the Fine Arts theater in LA circa 1974 or so - 1.85 because that's all they could show. It was fine if you didn't mind not seeing Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor's feet during the dance numbers.

 

[zoetmb]

I just don't understand the reasoning behind the inventors of digital cinema. The Scope format has had a major comeback since the late '80's and early '90's. And yet they design the larger format to be smaller. Is it the same in the taking process?

Yes, it's the same in the taking process.

But as someone else pointed out, it's not about it being a "larger" or "smaller" format. It's about the shape and composition.

There is a way for 2.39 AR digital films to use more pixels (and be larger), but it's an option that is rarely used in projection:

4K widescreen films are normally projected at 4096 x 1716 pixels (2.39). In the projector (the Sony 4K projector has this feature, don't know about the others), you can set the vertical to use all 2160 vertical pixels. You then use a 1.25 anamorphic lens which restores the images to the proper AR. But few theaters do it because the anamorphic lens is very expensive and they don't want to have to change lenses for different films.

Also, some projectors do have a control to change the size of the image. I was at the DGA Theatre in New York for a Canon presentation on digital origination and I noticed that whenever they switched from a computer image to what I presume was a DCP, they changed the image size. So as long as 1.85 isn't taking full screen width in a given theater, you could make the 2.39 image larger to be common height with 1.85.

 

[ahollis]

Yes, it's the same in the taking process.But as someone else pointed out, it's not about it being a "larger" or "smaller" format. It's about the shape and composition. There is a way for 2.39 AR digital films to use more pixels (and be larger), but it's an option that is rarely used in projection:4K widescreen films are normally projected at 4096 x 1716 pixels (2.39). In the projector (the Sony 4K projector has this feature, don't know about the others), you can set the vertical to use all 2160 vertical pixels. You then use a 1.25 anamorphic lens which restores the images to the proper AR. But few theaters do it because the anamorphic lens is very expensive and they don't want to have to change lenses for different films.Also, some projectors do have a control to change the size of the image. I was at the DGA Theatre in New York for a Canon presentation on digital origination and I noticed that whenever they switched from a computer image to what I presume was a DCP, they changed the image size. So as long as 1.85 isn't taking full screen width in a given theater, you could make the 2.39 image larger to be common height with 1.85.

All the Theatres we operate use both formats. In the larger seat count screens the scope format is wider than the the widescreen picture. While in the lower seat count Screens the masking comes from the top to give the proper aspect ratio for scope films. Our digital Christie projectors do not have two lens but several different aspect settings for the lens. I think this true for most of the top 20 theatre circuits. As you know when dealing with digital theatre projectors you have to forget just about everything you know about 35mm projectors.

 

[DVDvision]

Just to be clear, I believe that GWTW should only be seen in 1.37:1.

I'm just presenting info on how it was supposed to be shown in the 1954 reissue. It was certainly not recommended for the standard ratio.

I agree 200% in case it's unclear -- I'm only interested in variants, the way we are interested in alternative cuts of films. That"s the Video Watchdog heritage.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I hear you, David, even if it is truly "Greater With The Widescreen!"

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Somebody just sent me this interesting excerpt from Ernest Borgnine's autobiography.

And some people are claiming that Delbert Mann wanted to shoot MARTY like it was a television production...

 

[JohnMor]

Somebody just sent me this interesting excerpt from Ernest Borgnine's autobiography.

And some people are claiming that Delbert Mann wanted to shoot MARTY like it was a television production...

Marty Borgnine quote.JPG

Yes, but luckily we have Academy and MGM employees who know better than the star, just because he was on the set when the filming was done and talked to the director and probably heard the director and the DP discussing setups.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

VERA CRUZ was a widescreen Hecht-Lancaster production. It's VERY interesting that Mann went to the location in Mexico sometime during March/April 1954 to study new cinematic filming techniques.

Unless somebody has a direct quote from Mann contradicting this information and his specific intent to replicate the square TV picture, I'd say this is pretty significant information in favor of widescreen.

 

[Yorkshire]

And yet the comment also refers to films being shot in colour rather than b&w, and being 'nearly three times as wide as high'.

Vera Cruz was made in colour and I think some varient of SuperScope 2.00:1.

Marty was b&w and the widest anyone is arguing for is 1.85:1.

I suppose you could use that to argue either way, and doubtless some will, but it's hardly the nail in the coffin on the debate for either side.

Steve W

 

[FoxyMulder]

Marty was b&w and the widest anyone is arguing for is 1.85:1.

I think people would probably even accept 1.37:1 if that's all they have but a zoomed in transfer is unacceptable.

 

[Robert Crawford]

VERA CRUZ was a widescreen Hecht-Lancaster production. It's VERY interesting that Mann went to the location in Mexico sometime during March/April 1954 to study new cinematic filming techniques.

Unless somebody has a direct quote from Mann contradicting this information and his specific intent to replicate the square TV picture, I'd say this is pretty significant information in favor of widescreen.

Well, he didn't go down there for his health. Since, Hecht-Lancaster produced both, Vera Cruz and Marty, while the filming for Marty began on September 7th of 1954, I think this information is pretty significant in my opinion.

 

[Yorkshire]

I think people would probably even accept 1.37:1 if that's all they have but a zoomed in transfer is unacceptable.

Agreed.

Well, I'd maybe say far from ideal. If no one at MGM has any love for Marty, then maybe a zoomed in 4:3 Blu-ray Disc is the best we'll get, in which case I'll grudgingly hand over my cash.

It's still not clear whether it's zoomed or not - I suppose we'll have to wait for the release for that.

Steve W

 

[Yorkshire]

Well, he didn't go down there for his health. Since, Hecht-Lancaster produced both, Vera Cruz and Marty, while the filming for Marty began on September 7th of 1954, I think this information is pretty significant in my opinion.

I think it's an important piece of information to add to al the rest, certainly.

But I've been to other institutions before to see how they were doing things and come away unimpressed and stuck to what I was doing until I found some better way.

What he went to see is pretty obvious. Whether or not he liked what he saw, we have no information at all.

Currently, of course.

Steve W

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think it's an important piece of information to add to al the rest, certainly.

But I've been to other institutions before to see how they were doing things and come away unimpressed and stuck to what I was doing until I found some better way.

What he went to see is pretty obvious. Whether or not he liked what he saw, we have no information at all.

Currently, of course.

Steve W

What we do know is that he filmed the movie in 1.85 which Bob has provided documentation of and that AFI has confirmed on their site.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Steve, just so I understand your train of thought.

We've now learned that Mann went to the location of a widescreen Hecht-Lancaster production to study the new cinematic technique. This was five months before cameras rolled on his first film as a director.

His producers would have instructed him that MARTY was to be photographed for widescreen. In fact, that is precisely how the film is listed in the Hollywood Reporter, an important daily trade publication read by just about everyone within the industry.

However, you speculate that Mann - filming his first feature - ignores all that is going on around him within the industry, as well as his employers, and composes the film for 1.37:1?

Why would he have done this?

Let's speculate that Hecht-Lancaster screened the dailies in widescreen and saw a 1.37:1 composed image with heads getting clipped in every medium shot and the camera remaining static rather than tilting to keep the actors safe for widescreen, don't you think they would have noticed? After all, they had previously shot two widescreen features and were simultaneously shooting in CinemaScope: APACHE for 1.85:1; VERA CRUZ for 2:1 and THE KENTUCKIAN for 2.55:1.

Don't you think they would have recognized an academy ratio production in their screening room? These were technically-savvy professionals.

 

[Yorkshire]

Steve, just so I understand your train of thought.

We've now learned that Mann went to the location of a widescreen Hecht-Lancaster production to study the new cinematic technique. This was five months before cameras rolled on his first film as a director.

His producers would have instructed him that MARTY was to be photographed for widescreen. In fact, that is precisely how the film is listed in the Hollywood Reporter, an important daily trade publication read by just about everyone within the industry.

However, you speculate that Mann - filming his first feature - ignores all that is going on around him within the industry, as well as his employers, and composes the film for 1.37:1?

Why would he have done this?

Let's speculate that Hecht-Lancaster screened the dailies in widescreen and saw a 1.37:1 composed image with heads getting clipped in every medium shot and the camera remaining static rather than tilting to keep the actors safe for widescreen, don't you think they would have noticed? After all, they had previously shot two widescreen features and were simultaneously shooting in CinemaScope: APACHE for 1.85:1; VERA CRUZ for 2:1 and THE KENTUCKIAN for 2.55:1.

Don't you think they would have recognized an academy ratio production in their screening room? These were technically-savvy professionals.

Well, as you rightly say, that's speculation. I was responding to the specific point from the book.

Of course, as we've seen, what's printed in the trade magazines can be wrong. To be clear, that doesn't mean it always is wrong, or is generally unreliable.

But just as memory and judgement are falible, so is the documentation.

So my train of thought is...well, I won't re-word it, just copy & paste.

The short flat to wide-screen era might best be dealt with by concurrently researching (as Mr. Furmanek has done) the studio notes and published reports, along with a proper examination of original elements in full frame to confirm the way that things are best handled. Idiosyncrasies abound.

That's my train of thought. Use the documentation. Use the film makers' memories. Use the professional opinion of trained cinematographers. Then come to a judgement based on all of the above, rather than taking any one as gospel.

I just don't see that as a particularly contentious way to do things.

Steve W