1. Guest,
    If you need help getting to know Xenforo, please see our guide here. If you have feedback or questions, please post those here.
    Dismiss Notice

Aspect Ratio Documentation

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Bob Furmanek, Mar 20, 2012.

  1. Douglas Monce

    Douglas Monce Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,514
    Likes Received:
    12
    I thought I remembered hearing that Submarine started as a TV project, but I maybe confusing it with another film.
    Doug
     
  2. Matt Hough

    Matt Hough Well-Known Member
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    13,635
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    Real Name:
    Matt Hough
    TCM broadcast So Big this morning at 1.33:1. I could see almost instantly how much more natural it would have looked at 1.66:1.
     
  3. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,475
    Likes Received:
    4,148
    SO BIG was filmed Feb. 16 to April 1 and WB did not go widescreen until May 7. It would have been composed for 1.37.
    Bob
     
  4. Matt Hough

    Matt Hough Well-Known Member
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    13,635
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    Real Name:
    Matt Hough
    Thanks for the info.
     
  5. Todd Mattraw

    Todd Mattraw Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mattydale NY
    Real Name:
    Todd
    Doug
    Could you be thinking of "Magical Mystery Tour"?
    Todd
     
  6. Douglas Monce

    Douglas Monce Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,514
    Likes Received:
    12
    Quite possibly.
    Doug
     
  7. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,475
    Likes Received:
    4,148
    I'm pleased to announce that Jack Theakston and I are collaborating on an article which will clear up the myths and help to set the record straight on one of the most mis-understood periods of cinematography and technological development.
    After years of research pouring through studio correspondence, daily industry trade journals and production records, we will present a complete history of the widescreen revolution of 1953 and 1954. Every domestic feature (and some shorts and serials) in production from 2/24/53 through 4/1/55 composed for widescreen will be documented with the correct and studio intended aspect ratio.
    This will be important information as many of these films have not been seen in widescreen since their original theatrical release.
    I have one question and would like to get your opinions. Should the titles and relevant information be listed chronologically, alphabetically or by studio?
    Bob
     
    Jimbo64 likes this.
  8. Matt Hough

    Matt Hough Well-Known Member
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    13,635
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    Real Name:
    Matt Hough
    Can't wait for this!

    I think I'd probably find the information about the films more helpful if they were grouped by studio (and then arranged the titles within the studio listings chronologically). But that's just me.
     
  9. Guest

    Studio and then chronologically.
     
  10. Brian Kidd

    Brian Kidd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2000
    Messages:
    1,860
    Likes Received:
    176
    I think I may have found the source of the YELLOW SUBMARINE "made for TV" info. This website contains the following quote:
    I can't find any mention elsewhere of the film ever being originally animated for TV. In fact, every other source I've read, including the fascinating book "Inside the Yellow Submarine" by Robert Hieronimus always mention the project as a theatrical endeavor. The confusion by the above webmaster may stem from the fact that producer Al Brodax was responsible for the Beatles animated TV series. The preponderance of the evidence points to YELLOW SUBMARINE always having been produced for theatrical exhibition and, therefore, its intended AR not being 1.33:1.
    I am certainly no expert in such matters and would welcome any information that clarifies the situation.
     
  11. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,475
    Likes Received:
    4,148
    Sigh, another Internet "expert." I'd like the person making this claim to provide documentation from primary source materials that state it was intended for television.
    Bob
     
  12. GregK

    GregK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2000
    Messages:
    1,004
    Likes Received:
    172
    Hi Brian,
    MGM/UA was correct with the 1.66:1 framing. It seems the author of the site you linked to got hung up on a common widescreen advertising gaffe done by MGM/UA at that time- which was sometimes repeated by other studios.
    Their 1999 promotional blurb indicates the widescreen version shows more of the image, while showing the full screen version as cropped. With non-anamorphic 35mm, most of the time that scenario is reversed for widescreen. But as we know, this cropping is planned for in the original production and continues through to projection. Hence the cropped widescreen version is OAR.
    These original 35mm frame shots may also be of interest:
    http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f12/t000451.html
     
  13. Douglas Monce

    Douglas Monce Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,514
    Likes Received:
    12
    I agree chronological by studio would be informative, as to how each studio approached the problem.
    Doug
     
  14. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,475
    Likes Received:
    4,148
    Someone asked about INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS in another thread. I'm copying my reply here so as to keep the important aspect ratio info in one place:
     
  15. Mark-P

    Mark-P Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    786
    Location:
    Camas, WA
    Real Name:
    Mark Probst
    I watched the DVD of Calamity Jane today, and unless there is side information which has been cropped out, which is very unlikely, the movie was definitely framed for 1.37:1. The projectionist guide above stating 1.75:1 has to be incorrect. Cropping to 1.75:1 would completely destroy the composition of this movie.
    Here's a screencapture from the opening credits - No way this could be cropped to 1.75:1
    [​IMG]
     
  16. Guest

    Maybe the top and bottom were already cropped for that full screen transfer, by zooming?
     
  17. Mark-P

    Mark-P Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    786
    Location:
    Camas, WA
    Real Name:
    Mark Probst
    Doubtful. The changeover markers were clearly visible. If the image had been zoomed, the changeover markers would have been cropped out.
     
  18. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,475
    Likes Received:
    4,148
    CALAMITY JANE began filming in late 1952 and is definitely composed for 1.37.
    Again, it's vital that dates of production are researched to make an accurate determination. These issues will all be addressed in our forthcoming article.
    Bob
     
  19. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,475
    Likes Received:
    4,148
    Warner Bros. shut down all production in April and May of 1953 to work on developing their new All-Media camera rig. All films shot prior to that time had been photographed for 1.37:1. However, quite a few were in the can in the Summer of 1953 and that's why you see 1.66:1 and 1.75:1 being recommended in that Exhibitor listing. The studio looked at every film in each ratio to determine the one that worked best although the titles and compositions were certainly compromised in widescreen. (Columbia was the only studio to modify opening credits to favor their 1.85:1 house ratio.)
    On May 7, WB officially announced the studio was 100% widescreen and would be composing all future productions for either 1.75 or 1.85. The new All-Media camera rig was first shown to exhibitors on May 19:
    [​IMG]
    The studio resumed production on location in Camargo, Mexico for HONDO on June 11. The first new film to shoot on the Burbank lot on July 16 with the new rig was THE BOUNTY HUNTER in 3-D, Warner color and 1.75:1.
    Bob
     
  20. Guest

    How much of the top of the 1.37 frame was cropped for 1.75?
     

Share This Page