Night of the Hunter AOR (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

I don't understand either as I agree that "Dial M for Murder" was also filmed in 1.85:1 ratio. By the way, the production date was 5 Aug--25 Sep 1953, according to AFI with the same widescreen ratio Jack Theakston noted in this thread.





Crawdaddy

 

[MichaelEl]

I've taken open matte DVDs of some of these early *widescreen* films (e.g., THE NAKED JUNGLE) and cropped the image (evenly at the top and bottom) using the video player on my computer. It was quite apparent using this procedure that some were too tight (usually at the top) when matted to 1.85:1. This means that either projectionists were supposed to matte the top and bottom of these films asymmetrically (which seems at least somewhat unlkely to me) or else the source prints for the DVDs were zoomed in some way during telecine (which also seems unlikely) or else these films were not really meant to be projected 1.85:1.

The worst example I found was the Universal DVD of THIS ISLAND EARTH, which I couldn't crop to more than about 1.6:1 without ruining some of the effects sequences. IIRC, exhibitor? magazine listed THIS ISLAND EARTH as having an intended ratio of 2:1, which is totally ridiculous unless the 4:3 image on the DVD is significantly different from the actual 35mm film element. I actually couldn't get much more than 1.6:1 out of this DVD even cropping the tight sequences asymmetrically.

The bottom line for me is that I'll believe that a 1.85:1 ratio (as opposed to 1.66:1 or whatever) is possible for these films when I see an anamorphic DVD and objects aren't being cut off at the top of the screen. I would guess that most of these films will crop to 1.66:1, but again, unless what's on full frame DVDs is significantly different from the film elements, then 1.85:1 is pushing it, regardless of whether or not the titles matte correctly.

 

[John Hodson]

Michael, can I suggest you take a look at the Beaver's comparison of This Island Earth here. The screencaps for the R2 transfer show significantly more information on the sides, as compared to the R1, and, to my eyes, looks perfectly fine wide. The comments, and the quotes taken from Savant's review, also clarify the situation.

 

[MichaelEl]

The extra info at the sides verifies that the full frame DVD is zoomed in and therefore not really *open matte.* I would assume that the other *open matte* discs I tried are zoomed as well, which explains why most don't look good when cropped to 1.85:1.

What I still don't understand though is why many films from 1953-1955 are released 4:3 on DVD when

1) they were obviously intended to be shown in a widescreen format

2) the studios have no problem releasing widescreen DVDs of films made after 1955

 

[BillyFeldman]

Yes, some of those transfers you mention have been zoomed in rather than have their mattes opened, a frequent practice when TV transfers were originally being done. So, no, they won't crop well to their original ratio. I don't understand why studios continue to release obvious widescreen films in Academy ratio - like The Bad Seed, for one of many examples.

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

The Deadly Mantis is the worst example I've seen. On the recent DVD, its zoomed so tightly people's heads are getting cropped at eyeline on a 14:9 matte

Its really a practice, like non-anamorphic, that should never have been entertained by the studios.

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

MGM treats pretty much all films up to 1959 that way. Columbia and Warner less so, but exceptions like Homicidal (1961) and Black Scorpion (1957) slip through

I suspect laziness or ignorance is behind much of it

 

[Jack Theakston]

You simply can't go by what's on VIDEO as opposed to what's on FILM. They're two totally different things, and there's all sorts of tomfoolery that goes on during the telecine sessions.

This frame from BLOOD OF THE VAMPIRE shows how extreme cropping can get on a DVD:



The full image is a scan from a 35mm film print from the year of release. As you can see, the film is hard matted to about 1.5:1 or so (typically so that houses running 1.66 can run it). The darker image is the R1 DVD from Dark Sky at 1.85:1, with the cyan border being 1.85:1 per spec and the red is 1.66:1.

Many people cried foul, but had no concept that while the film was being transferred at the correct ratio, it was terribly zoomed in and mis-framed.

 

[Jack Theakston]

Lion's Gate is also guilty of doing this too... compare the DVD transfer of WAR OF THE COLOSSAL BEAST with an original film print and see how much was cropped off of the top and sides to "accommodate" 4:3 television sets (I've overlaid a projection chart for your convenience):



Fact is, this sort of thing shouldn't be happening in this day and age of 16x9 televisions. The fact that they framed it down makes it clear that they understand there's too much headroom in order for the film to be shown wide, but they persist in doing these transfers in butchered versions of their open matte originals.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Thanks for those illustrations, and I hope people learn from them, Jack.

 

[rob kilbride]

I wish there was an up to date Non-OAR list but all the ones I have found are pretty old. Does anyone know where I can find an up to date list?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Great job Jack!





Crawdaddy

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Two points about DIAL M: it is certainly composed for 1.85 presentation. We ran it that way at the second World 3-D Expo in 2006 and it looked great.

Jack is right: the squeezed anamorphic side-by-side 3-D version was created in the early 1980's for re-issue purposes. It has nothing to do with how the film was photographed or presented in 1954.

Also, this myth about the film not being released in 3-D in 1954 is false. DIAL M was available to any exhibitor that wanted the dimensional version. Of course, 99.9% played it flat, but we did find one small town 3-D playdate, and may have found one large city that played it in 3-D. Our research is ongoing.

One other point about aspect ratios. If you notice that listing from Exhibitor, you'll see that Warner Bros. was quite specific about the intended ratio. They weren't painting all their films with a broad brush. They obviously knew what the director and cinematographer intended, and 1.66, 1.75 and 1.85 are recommended for different titles. That's because several films were in production before 1.85 became the studios common standard.

By the way, Jack Theakston knows what he's talking about. His expertise of 3-D and early widescreen is second to none. That's why he's the head of research for our 3-D Archive!

For some accurate information about common 3-D myths that are now believed to be fact, check out Top 10 3-D Myths - 3DFPF - 3-D Film Preservation Fund a tax exempt 501(c)3 non profit corporation

Bob Furmanek
Vice President
3-D Film Preservation Fund

 

[John Hodson]

The R2 is presented 1.85:1 - again with more information each side - and looks great.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Thanks to Bob for that great and more importantly knowledgeable information. While I don't happen to think one or two playdates constitute a 3D release, the point is, of course, taken.

Now, what is with these colors? I thought I was on LSD when I logged on.

 

[TravisR]

It's the Iron Man colors.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Will they go away soon, or will this acid trip go on for some time?

 

[cafink]

You can change the color scheme in your user control panel.

 

[BillyFeldman]

I have a user control panel? Where do I have this?

 

[Jack Theakston]

Actually, it's at the very bottom of every page. On the lower left, where it says "Skin Chooser."