Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[hanshotfirst1138]

Yes, from my memory practically every film in the 1980s in the UK was shown 1.85:1. There may have been a few in 1.75:1 (I didn't see 1984 theatrically) but I can't believe any films were shown 1.66:1.

I had heard all of the "1.66 was standard for the UK, 1.85" was standard for the U.S. stuff. It seems to have at least been true in the 1960s, going by the first couple of Bond films.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

 

[RolandL]

Hi Roland, I saw The Hateful 8 in UP70 in London the Cinerama Logo looked fantastic from the second row.

best

Derek.

Cool! I can't wait for the Blu-ray.


2.66:1

2.55:1 DVD (the Blu-ray has more picture info on all sides). Sorry can't unsqueeze the image. You can see a better comparison here.

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

Bob, were the Disney films Fantasia and Song of the South filmed in widescreen? Someone claimed that they were. Here's what he says are pieces of evidence that they were.


http://www.deepskyaudio.com/fanta.jpg


http://www.deepskyaudio.com/ss2.jpg

 

[Bob Furmanek]

No, both are standard ratio.


FANTASIA was re-released in variable anamorphic Superscope in February 1956.

 

[Paul Penna]

Bob, were the Disney films Fantasia and Song of the South filmed in widescreen? Someone claimed that they were. Here's what he says are pieces of evidence that they were.

http://www.deepskyaudio.com/ss2.jpg

The background art in the Song of the South still is wide to accommodate a camera pan. Standard animation procedure.

 

[revgen]

Olive Films made a mistake on their recent No Man's Woman (1955) Blu-Ray. They used the 1:66 ratio when the film was 1:85 according to a vault issue of Box Office. Most Republic films in 1955 were 1:66, so I don't fault them too much. At least it's still widescreen.

 

[Douglas R]

UK-1.66-graph.gif

When I originally posted that chart detailing aspect ratios of early widescreen British films I didn’t have access to Kine Weekly for the years 1959 to 1962


Thanks to the British Film Institute’s library of microfilm material I have been able to rectify that omission and have produced a revised chart for the years 1957 to 1970 (as I said before Kine Weekly did not publish figures for the very earliest years of widescreen). The figures for 1960 were a bit problematic because Shepperton Studios didn’t provide details as they did for previous and subsequent years. As the vast majority of Shepperton’s films for 1959 and 1961 were listed as 1.75:1 I have made what I think is a reasonable assumption that the same applied for 1960.


The chart is not meant to be 100% accurate in the percentages of films made for each aspect ratio because, for one thing, many productions were simply listed as “widescreen” with no specific ratio identified, but the main point of the chart is to demonstrate the trend over the years. That shows that 1.75:1 was in the ascendant until it peaked in 1963/1964, after which 1.85:1 became dominant.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Fantastic, excellent work!


I'll update the page on our website. Thank you very much for the dedicated research.

 

[John Hodson]

Superb Douglas; it would be instructive wouldn't it, to compare that chart with a similar study of the ARs of British film currently on DVD/BD. I would hazard a guess that 1.66:1 would dominate.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

For the first time in more than six decades, Herbert L. Strock's GOG will be presented in widescreen - as the director intended!

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/gog

 

[Jim*Tod]

Mr. Furmanek---- I have enjoyed your writings on your site and elsewhere. But it was only a few weeks ago that I was able to see the 3-D Rarities disc at a friend's house who has the equipment to properly show it. I was really knocked out by it. I just wanted to thank you, as a movie buff and a fan of arcane cinema technology, for the work, research, restoration, and pure persistence it took to make this disc possible. Thank you so much!!!!!!!!!

 

[Brent Reid]

In the recent DVDBeaver comparisons for Spione (1928) and Frau im Mond (1929) it's claimed that Eureka stretched the 1.28:1 image to fit a 1.33:1 frame. Conversely, Kino appears to have got it right:

• http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-ray_reviews_64/spione_blu-ray.htm
• http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_reviews_62_/woman_in_the_moon_blu-ray.htm

It appears as if the same may be true of Faust (1926) and Diary of a Lost Girl (1929) too:

• http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_reviews_62_/faust_blu-ray.htm
• http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-ray_reviews_64/diary_of_a_lost_girl_blu-ray.htm

Can anyone else here confirm this? They certainly all look at least a little 'off' to me...

 

[Jack Theakston]

Bob, were the Disney films Fantasia and Song of the South filmed in widescreen? Someone claimed that they were. Here's what he says are pieces of evidence that they were.

http://www.deepskyaudio.com/fanta.jpg

I have seen this FANTASIA picture kicking around for years, but what no one seems to acknowledge is that the image on the screen is a 1.37-1 image pillarboxed in a widescreen area. Thus, it's no indication that FANTASIA was meant for any widescreen process, and furthermore, I would speculate that the widescreen is either a) part of an experimental process developed for something else at Disney or the more likely b) extra surface area to stick the Fantasound speakers behind.

 

[DVDvision]

Anyone could offer some documentation on Dirty Harry 5 The Dead Pool?

I remember it, and other people, 2.39:1 in theaters. In the Laserdisc box set, whereas all the others were scope ratio, it was full screen 1.33:1. Then the DVD was 1.85:1.

Here's the laserdisc trailer. It's matted to 2.39:1



Also I compared the LD trailer with the actual Blu-ray, the Blu-ray is zoomed in on the sides, especially on the left, and opened up top and bottom. It's either a Super 35 or open matte shot film, while the others were shot anamorphic. But I'm certain it was originaly presented in 2.39:1

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I remember being surprised when I saw The Dead Pool theatrically that it was 1.85. So my memory of the film was that it was shown theatrically at 1.85 in the US.

 

[Will Krupp]

deleted

 

[Matt Hough]

I remember being surprised when I saw The Dead Pool theatrically that it was 1.85. So my memory of the film was that it was shown theatrically at 1.85 in the US.

Me, too. I don't think it was filmed anamorphically or in Super 35.

 

[theonemacduff]

FWIW, IMDb lists it as 1.85, and says it was filmed spherical, ie, non-anamorphic.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

When the majority of films in a series get shot scope, there's a tendency to believe they're all that way. For the longest time, I thought all the Bond movies were scope, but they're not. The first scope one was Thunderball, and even so, some Roger Moore titles were flat.

As for the trailer for The Dead Pool being scope, the first teaser for A.I. was scope, even though the film itself clearly was not. You can't depend on a trailer to accurately depict a film's aspect ratio.