Hammer Films Blu Ray in the U.S. (1 Viewer)

[bluelaughaminute]

I did not say it was a problem for them to release 4:3 versions alongside the widescreen versions, only that it reveals how they view all films shot flat widescreen. They want to see them completely open matte, even when the film comes from a period when showing the film open matte would have essentially been impossible, and that obviously the director made no consideration for it whatsoever, beyond making sure it looked "okay" for TV. If they could, they'd release The Godfather in an alternative 1.33:1 version too (as would Jeff Wells, who has blogged about preferring it this way).

I only point this out because you made the assumption that Hammer, being the studio and all, being the "professionals", would know how to present these films properly. Well they don't, and don't seem to care one wit about presenting the widescreen versions either at all (Quatermass) or correctly (Dracula, CoF, The Mummy), as long as they get their precious open matte versions on the disc. For this reason they should be derided.

I'm not convinced QE was ever widescreen.
What was wrong with Dracula?
On second thoughts please don't answer that .
As I said , I avoid ratio chat because its tedious and now I've wasted over an hour that I'll never get back .

The Dracula Bluray was fine - it may be the only one they got right but it was fine.
If you disagree about the ratio can it be left on the ratio thread - pleeeeaaasssee.

To be fair - the 4:3 versions are only on the Hammer releases.
The SC titles don't include them.

The recent Oz release of Captain Kronos does aswell - can't get to my Oz boxset at the moment but I don't think their FATMFH includes a 4:3 version like the UK one does

 

[bluelaughaminute]

It mentions 1.33:1 as a presentation ratio, not a compositional one. Whilst the British Standards Institution's recommendations may not have been mandatory, Exclusive's declared policy to produce all future films in widescreen from July 1953 most certainly was. Relevant documentation can be found in Bob's already linked to article.

Goodnight

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Composed in the optimum ratio 1.75:1 but the films can work from 1.65 up to 1.85, which is how they were shown in the U.S.

The top document is from Kine Weekly, a UK industry trade journal.

Goodnight!

 

[bluelaughaminute]

Hammer get it wrong and according to John Hodson the restored 1.37:1 version supplied by MGM was wrong too.
What a pity all these people who seem to know how its supposed to be done can't get any work with the people in charge who apparently don't know what they're doing .
For decades we were complaining about image being missed off film presentations now we're asking to see cropped versions instead of the whole frame .
As I've already said - while there is no agreement over whether the crop should be to 1.75:1 or 1.66 or 1.85 why should they bother -all they will get is criticism for cropping to the wrong ratio

 

[Mark B]

For decades we were complaining about image being missed off film presentations now we're asking to see cropped versions instead of the whole frame .

Your fundamental misunderstanding of the film making and projection processes really makes it hard to take you seriously.

 

[John Hodson]

I too thought that QX looked 'okay' in 4:3 until I saw it cropped to an approximation of 1.75:1.

It was a revelation, and even though I'd seen it 20 maybe 30 times, it was like watching the film for the very first time (which is quite a gift). Utterly fantastic.

Q2 looks awful in 4:3; Guest makes no effort in trying to keep the full frame interesting. Why should he? He's shooting for widescreen. My Anchor Bay copy of X The Unknown isn't open matte, but even then zooming wide makes for a better viewing experience.

All three films were shot for widescreen. That's how they were produced, that's how they should be seen. There's nothing more to say.

 

[Yorkshire]

Massively intersting discussion, gentlemen.

Just looking at the Beaver page - I think many of the shots look like they have a lot of head room. At the same time, a few look like they'd be ridiculous if cropped.

This one:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_reviews_61/quatermass_xperiment_blu-ray_/800__quatermass_xperiment_q02_blu-ray__blu-ray_.jpg

Surely the intent is to keep all the rocket in frame.

This one:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_reviews_61/quatermass_xperiment_blu-ray_/800__quatermass_xperiment_q09_blu-ray__blu-ray_.jpg

I think the eyeball would be cut in half.

This one:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_reviews_61/quatermass_xperiment_blu-ray_/800__quatermass_xperiment_q210_blu-ray__blu-ray_.jpg

Well...

I'm not disagreeing AT ALL with Bob's research - I'm sure it's 100% correct in discovering what the studios told the trades.

Absolutely 100%.

But I'd be lying if I didn't say those images didn't make me scratch my head just a little.

It does appear that British films cause more discussion than US ones, and Hammer more than other British studios. Almost every Hammer disc has been a source of discussion, and that's despite the discs being released by different lables/studios in different countries.

For me, when I'm viewing the discs, I'll always go with what Bob's research says, unless the disc makes that impossible (like the Hammer films cropped to 2.00:1 when they shouldn't have been that tight), or something appears very wrong.

I've always been of the opinion that, whilst I'd always prefer a disc in its OAR, if there's any doubt you're better of with two (or more) ratios on the release, or (if only one ratio) the most open necessary with comprehensive notes/documentary, leaving the viewer to zoom accordingly.

As with the aforementioned Hammer discs at 2.00:1, if you crop too much you can't un-crop. Crop too little and you can still zoom.

Having said that, you know what? I'll still take those Hammers at 2.00:1. I'm sure there'll have been some cinemas in the US where they were masked for that, and I'm positive directors were leaving plenty of room either side.

To keep things in persective, this is a completely different AV world to the one most of grew up in, where 'scope films were almost always presented pan & scan.

One more thing on Hammer. Two of their early '70s releases - Hammer say there were leaders on the film (like the 1.75:1 ones Bob has posted for A Hard Day's Night) saying 1.66:1 (and I've yet to hear anyone say they're lying). Bob's research (as he's noted above) says they should be 1.75:1. So there's clearly something going on we don't know about.

Steve W

 

[John Hodson]

To hell with 'caps; watch the thing in motion wide and all doubts will be brushed aside.

 

[bluelaughaminute]

Your fundamental misunderstanding of the film making and projection processes really makes it hard to take you seriously.

Can I hear a crash or a slurp ? Is it you falling off your high horse or taking your head out of your arse . I'm not sure . I should take you seriously because ......?

My comment was a simple observation that is 100% accurate .

 

[Yorkshire]

To hell with 'caps; watch the thing in motion wide and all doubts will be brushed aside.

John, Bob's posted some caps in the other thread.

Steve W

 

[bluelaughaminute]

I too thought that QX looked 'okay' in 4:3 until I saw it cropped to an approximation of 1.75:1.

It was a revelation, and even though I'd seen it 20 maybe 30 times, it was like watching the film for the very first time (which is quite a gift). Utterly fantastic.

Q2 looks awful in 4:3; Guest makes no effort in trying to keep the full frame interesting. Why should he? He's shooting for widescreen. My Anchor Bay copy of X The Unknown isn't open matte, but even then zooming wide makes for a better viewing experience.

All three films were shot for widescreen. That's how they were produced, that's how they should be seen. There's nothing more to say.

If there wasn't one has to wonder why you posted literally dozens of comments regarding Curse of Frankenstein and almost the same number about Brides of Dracula on Roobarbs.
If there was nothing more to say there wouldn't be continuous tedious posts on the ratio thread or similar tedium on the Roobarb thread .
You say you liked QX cropped . That is your opinion . I find it quite amusing that you and Bob keep going on about the films being made for widescreen yet you can't even say for sure which ratio it should be .
I'm guessing but I'd say they keep the 4:3 version because nobody knows for sure which ratio it should be and whether they crop it for 1.66 or 1.75 I'm sure there would be more tedious posts on here complaining the cropping isn't right.
I agree a widescreen version of QX is preferable but while there are ratio complainers with too much time on their hands I doubt one will appear.
I avoid ratio threads because this level of dull speculation is boring . Can you take the ratio discussion to the correct thread now please.

 

[Yorkshire]

I think whichever thread we discuss this in, and which ever view we take, we should always remain polite and curteous to each other.

These threads often generate more heat than light.

Too much snarling.

Too much nastiness.

And far, far too little humility about the limits to what we know and can know.

We have opinions. We have informed opinions - largely thanks to the research done by Bob and others. But we don't have quite as many solid facts as perhaps any of us would like, certainly for British films.

Steve W

 

[Alan Tully]

I'm still waiting for what I consider a really good looking transfer from Hammer's golden years (up to '63-'65). Universal doesn't seem to put any effort into the stuff they license out. I think Sony is my best bet, their DVD's of: The Terror Of The Tongs, The Gorgon, The Curse Of The Mummy's Tomb looked really good, hopefully someone will license them out for a Blu release.

 

[bluelaughaminute]

I think whichever thread we discuss this in, and which ever view we take, we should always remain polite and curteous to each other.

These threads often generate more heat than light.

Too much snarling.

Too much nastiness.

And far, far too little humility about the limits to what we know and can know.

We have opinions. We have informed opinions - largely thanks to the research done by Bob and others. But we don't have quite as many solid facts as perhaps any of us would like, certainly for British films.

Steve W

Yes- that's what I keep trying to say .
While John and Bob have informed opinions based on documentation it's still short of being 100% fact .
Why would they expect Hammer or any studio to go to the trouble of creating an HD widescreen master when the ratio purists themselves can't agree on what the precise ratio should be .
Ok - it shouldn't be 4:3 but that's all we know

 

[Yorkshire]

Yes- that's what I keep trying to say .
While John and Bob have informed opinions based on documentation it's still short of being 100% fact .
Why would they expect Hammer or any studio to go to the trouble of creating an HD widescreen master when the ratio purists themselves can't agree on what the precise ratio should be .
Ok - it shouldn't be 4:3 but that's all we know

Actually, in some ways you sum up the problem.

We have documentation. What are we going to do with it?

In most cases, I think you have to follow the documentation.

But very occasionally the documentation can be contradictory. A good example is On the Waterfront. The trades post-release said 1.85:1, and this was the first documentation I saw on it, posted (I would imagine) by Bob.

But then a pre-production clipping (or from during early production) said it was being shot for projection 'between 1.37:1 to 1.85:1'.

Now if we follow the documentation as gospel, we really have to presume that's what director & DoP were told at the time. That being the case, it's not as simple as saying "It was 1.85:1" with no qualification. That's why I think Criterion were correct to do what they did. You can sday they shot in 1.85:1 and just left a load of dead space top and bottom, but that's speculation, and not it's based on the documentation.

Sorry, I've gone off the topic of Hammer.

What I do find from seeing a number of films from over many years which were shot open with an intention to crop in projection - the later ones were much more likely to include boom mics, etc. Sometimes not even that, just very 'dead' space. But in the early days they appeared to take far more care to ensure the full 1.37:1 was safe. Not only that, there are numerous examples in films like CoF where it's crystal clear that a lot of care and effort, not to mention time and money (on what was a film with a fairly limited budget) to dress sets in aeras which are never seen in scrnes cropped for widescreen.

I won't argue as to what that might mean, as thay's speculation, which brings us back to the point. The research is almost 100% accurate and kosher. It's not what we know, it's what we don't know.

Steve W

 

[John Hodson]

If there wasn't one has to wonder why you posted literally dozens of comments regarding Curse of Frankenstein and almost the same number about Brides of Dracula on Roobarbs.
If there was nothing more to say there wouldn't be continuous tedious posts on the ratio thread or similar tedium on the Roobarb thread .e.

Then ignore them? It's quite simple.

 

[bluelaughaminute]

Then ignore them? It's quite simple.

I try to but ratio posts have invaded this thread too. And on Roobarbs they are difficult to avoid.

Despite my posts that seem to be negative toward you John I would like to say thanks for your sterling work on Roobarbs that keep me up to date on the new Bluray releases that pop up all over the place . Thanks for taking the time and trouble to not only find the info out but also posting it.

The post from Yorkshire about On the Waterfront kind of sums up the dilemma that studios might have about which ratio is the one that would please most people.

 

[Jari K]

To me it feels a bit strange that people are trying so desperately to find one true aspect ratio when we all know that many of these Hammer films were shown (at least) both 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 back in the days. Same goes to Disney, Kubrick, Evil Dead, etc etc. With some films, the aspect ratio is not written is stone. Aspect ratio research etc is great and of course with some films we can simply see what aspect ratio looks "correct" and what doesn't (open matte 4:3 usually reveals more image, but that alone doesn't make it "correct").And John, this is the internet forum. Comment like "There's nothing more to say" simply doesn't work. There's always something to say.

 

[John Hodson]

And John, this is the internet forum. Comment like "There's nothing more to say" simply doesn't work. There's always something to say.

Indeed there is.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Composed in the optimum ratio 1.75:1 but the films can work from 1.65 up to 1.85, which is how they were shown in the U.S.

The top document is from Kine Weekly, a UK industry trade journal.

X-Kine-Weekly.gif

Hammer.gif

Goodnight!

I too thought that QX looked 'okay' in 4:3 until I saw it cropped to an approximation of 1.75:1.

It was a revelation, and even though I'd seen it 20 maybe 30 times, it was like watching the film for the very first time (which is quite a gift). Utterly fantastic.

Q2 looks awful in 4:3; Guest makes no effort in trying to keep the full frame interesting. Why should he? He's shooting for widescreen. My Anchor Bay copy of X The Unknown isn't open matte, but even then zooming wide makes for a better viewing experience.

All three films were shot for widescreen. That's how they were produced, that's how they should be seen. There's nothing more to say.

Couldn't agree more. I watched my 1.37:1 DVD of X the Unknown a couple months ago, and with the fine tune of the Oppo 95 zoom feature, I was able to see the movie in appropriate widescreen for the first time. It looked great and was an enjoyable viewing experience.