David Lean's Summertime Blu Ray available at Amazon Japan (1 Viewer)

[Doctorossi]

Not sure that Mr. Wood's work is the sort of thing that one worries too much about fine points like composition.

And I guess that's where you and I differ.

 

[Doctorossi]

That headroom includes scenes of Venice!

There's interesting-looking stuff outside of the intended picture area on prints of almost every movie. So what?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

That headroom includes scenes of Venice!

Very true , but I imagine that Hildyard's camera had a ground glass in it with very clear frame markings for 1.85 so that he could make sure it looked as he & Lean wanted it to look.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

"Intended composition" is something of a misnomer.
Many of these films were shot to in fact be ambiguous WRT the intended aspect ratio.

That is simply not true. These films had a very specific intended aspect ratio and that's what the director and DP were composing for. That's why trade magazines and reel bands on the print had the aspect ratio listed so the conscientious operator would honor the filmmakers' intent.
With VistaVision, Paramount was offering exhibitors the option of giving their patrons the largest image possible, based on their existing screen. While 2.00:1 was an option, they recommended 1.85:1 in all of their promotional literature. Superscope was the same.

Robert, it sounds like in the 1970's, you were running in the ratio which you personally liked best. I do not agree with that approach.

I imagine that Hildyard's camera had a ground glass in it with very clear frame markings for 1.85 so that he could make sure it looked as he & Lean wanted it to look.

The view-finder on a standard Mitchell camera would have looked something like this:

 

[Robert Harris]

There are so many films for which the intended (filmed and protected) aspect ratio is obvious upon screening.

There are others that are protected to 1.37, but look ridiculous at that ratio.

There is a reason why prints, in many cases were not protected, and it involved contrast build-up. In order to mask a dupe negative to whatever wide ratio, the process goes through an optical camera, which is why all original prints of a little film entitled E.T. are full frame, with instructions to project at 1.85.

35mm prints of The Godfather are 1.37, but that, also, was meant to be projected at 1.85. Project full frame and you end up with place marks on visible on the floor.

This could not be more simple. The ground glass used during image capture was set for the desired ratio, protecting (in some cases) for the entire frame.

There are a handful of films meant to be screened at 1.37 from the last three decades or so (One from the Heart comes to mind), but virtually everything was created to be viewed at 1.66 and wider.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

RAH

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Unfortunately, 50 plus years of 1.37:1 viewings, both on television and theatrically, have taken their toll.
And some people will simply not accept the information which conflicts with their opinion. I've had people insist, based on TV and repertory screenings, that A HARD DAY'S NIGHT is 1.37:1. I present the following frame scan from the original leader and they still refuse to believe the documentation.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

From Variety: June 16, 1954

 

[Dick]

I would be surprised if, within a year or two, Criterion didn't give us a second David Lean set including this, OLIVER TWIST, GREAT EXPECTATIONS, and HOBSON'S CHOICE.

 

[Matt Hough]

I would be surprised if, within a year or two, Criterion didn't give us a second David Lean set including this, OLIVER TWIST, GREAT EXPECTATIONS, and HOBSON'S CHOICE.

There would be considerable rejoicing from this corner if that were to be true. I love all of those films.

 

[Doctorossi]

I would be surprised if, within a year or two, Criterion didn't give us a second David Lean set including this, OLIVER TWIST, GREAT EXPECTATIONS, and HOBSON'S CHOICE.

The line starts behind me.

 

[David Weicker]

It's funny, but wasn't there a similar discussion about Aspect Ratios in the Shane thread. And weren't many of the same posters here arguing about ignoring these same 'clear instructions' to the projectionists

 

[Yorkshire]

It's all very interesting.

The title card (as presented on Criterion's SD DVD) just survives a crop to 1.85:1. By 'just' I actually mean 'diesn't quite' as a tiny bit of the 'P' in 'Production' is clipped off the top, whilst a tiny bit of the 'P' in 'COPYWRITE' is clipped at the bottom.

Of course, this may be slightly zoomboxed, but I'd still not expect the titles to be pushed that far to the absolute limit.

1.66:1 maybe? Whatever, if there wee any matte it's have to be dead centre.

I've not seen the film in a while, so someone with more of a working knowledge might want to chip in. There a shot on flickriver.com I can see on a Google image search, showing AH looking at some bright red shoes. I can see it at the search results, but can't access it as I'm at work. If you search in Google for 'summertime david lean flickriver' you'll find it.

Any crop at all pretty much destroys it.

Just to be clear, I'm only going from this cap, so the usual caveats apply. As I've said, if someone actually has the DVD they might want to check it out. The caps may be inaccurate, the DVD excessively zoomboxed (doubt it with it being Criterion), but it'd be interesting to see, nontheless.

Steve W

EDIT: Check out YouTube - I won't post a direct link. Search 'SUMMERTIME (Tempo d'Estate)' (it's a foreign language print). There's the first 20 minutes or so of the film in two parts, roughly 10 minutes each.

Look at the first one at the opening titles 1:11 in. See what you think. Of course, the titles are in Italian, and it might be they wanted a different ratio there. Again, anyone with the DVD will be able to help.

SW

 

[EddieLarkin]

Criterion or no Criterion, a DVD from 1998 (!), using the same transfer made for a laserdisc (from 1991!!) is likely going to be zoomed and manipulated in some way. Blu-ray caps here:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdreviews8/summertime.htm

Look at the bottom or right side of any of the caps.

 

[Yorkshire]

Criterion or no Criterion, a DVD from 1998 (!), using the same transfer made for a laserdisc (from 1991!!) is likely going to be zoomed and manipulated in some way. Blu-ray caps here:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdreviews8/summertime.htm

Look at the bottom or right side of any of the caps.

Yes, you're right.

But I think this one would have to be zoomboxed by...a substantial amount.

Even trying to imagine that as zoomboxed - what would they have had to do?

I've looked at the portion on YouTube and it is indeed zoomboxed compared to the image on the Blu-ray (though to a relatively similar amount as the Criterion).

But you'd have to take that image and imagine acres of cropped space at both the top and bottom of the image to make it fit.

As I say, it'd be interesting to hear from anyone with the DVD to see what the English titles look like. I'm not trying to make a definitive point here, but that title card certainly asks some questions.

Steve W

 

[Douglas R]

As I say, it'd be interesting to hear from anyone with the DVD to see what the English titles look like. I'm not trying to make a definitive point here, but that title card certainly asks some questions.

Steve W

I rented the UK DVD a few weeks ago and there's bags of empty space at top and bottom of the titles.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Same card, from the English language release, taken from Criterion's Hulu:

http://i.imgur.com/gk3gqmS.jpg

Was you really expecting it to be like the Italian card?

 

[Yorkshire]

Same card, from the English language release, taken from Criterion's Hulu:

http://i.imgur.com/gk3gqmS.jpg

Was you really expecting it to be like the Italian card?

Frankly, I didn't know what to expect.

Which is, of course, why I asked the question.

I'm home now - here's that 'shoes' shot:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenman2008/2497621282/sizes/z/in/photostream/

Steve W

 

[EddieLarkin]

Sorry, all I meant was, it would be ridiculous for anyone to argue for a widescreen version of Summertime if the (English) credits were composed like they are in the image you posted. It would be open and shut 1.37:1! We're not insane, after all.

 

[Yorkshire]

Sorry, all I meant was, it would be ridiculous for anyone to argue for a widescreen version of Summertime if the (English) credits were composed like they are in the image you posted. It would be open and shut 1.37:1! We're not insane, after all.

Agreed. Nonetheless, the Italian titles remain interesting. The cap you posted of the English titles would be better. But if you crop those to 1.85:1 you get them jammed up against the top of the frame with loads of space below. 1.66:1 looks better.

Steve W

 

[EddieLarkin]

The cap is from Criterion, presumably the same transfer found on the zoomed DVD. I have no doubt a properly transferred Summertime would like fine at 1.85:1, though I wouldn't lose any sleep over 1.78:1 or 1.66:1, once they get around to upgrading it.