Touch of Evil (50th Anniversary Edition) 10-07-08 (See Post# 14) (1 Viewer)

[Eric Peterson]

Thanks Simon!

I'm not one to bash artwork very often, but that is really boring!!! Before someone responds -- YES, I'm still going to buy it.

 

[Jari K]

Yes, great news for the DVD-fans, but "DVD double dip"-days are over for me also..

 

[PaulP]

[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/5/5e/htf_imgcache_32680.jpeg] [/url]

 

[oscar_merkx]

cool

 

[Lord Dalek]

They just used a different kind of aperture plate (one only slightly thinner than 1.85:1) durring projection, not an anamorphic conversion process like the one used on Superscope. The difference is ultimately negligable since 1.85:1 and 2.0:1 are barely different from each other.

I'm not sure why Universal employed the 2.0:1 ratio but it wasn't even common in the fifties (off the top of my head, only "This Island Earth", "Thunder Road", and Sirk's version of "Magnificent Obsession" utilized it).

 

[BillyFeldman]

Absolutely correct - thanks for posting the information. I believe the UK DVD of Magnificent Obsession is 2.0:1.

 

[Simon Howson]

Well, the other possibility is that the prints were hard matted to 2:1 so that exhibitors didn't need to buy a new aperture plate just for a few films. But if that was the case, why are there so many full frame versions of the film on DVD, and only one widescreen one that is 1.85:1?

If the prints weren't matted, then This Island Earth was probably shown at 1.85:1 more often than 2:1. I strongly doubt cinemas would buy a new aperture plate just to show a few films from a single studio. When - as you point out - there isn't a huge difference between 2:1 and 1.85:1.

If the film was released on anamorphic prints, then it would be easy to create the 2:1 ratio for any cinema capable of showing a CinemaScope film. Studios are much more likely to integrate with existing technological standards, then force exhibitors to deviate from them.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Not a matter of buying a new aperture plate, since most aperture plates are multi-purpose. When I was working projection at a 14-screen multiplex, the aperture plates had 2 stops: 1 for 2.35:1 (exposing a 1.175:1 area, which when run through a 2:1 anamorphic lens yielded 2.35:1) and one for 1.85:1. Our projectors were old school Cinemeccanica Victoria 8s retrofitted for Dolby Digital and with modern lamphouses, and I saw old aperture plates in our parts bin filed for 1.66:1 and 2.0:1. FWIW, 2.0:1 was part of the VistaVision spec, as shown by this diagram over at The American Widescreen Museum:
VistaVision Frame Guide

 

[Patrick McCart]

Very few were hard matted. The effects shots in The Incredible Shrinking Man are, I think. The problem is that Universal has opted for open matte DVDs in many cases. This Island Earth is 1.33:1 in R1, but 1.85:1 in R2. Although, you can see it in 1.85:1 via MST3K: The Movie. No framing issues and there's actually a bit of horizontal picture extra.

At the same time, Universal released Jet Pilot as 1.85:1. Filmed in 1949, but released in 1957. So, they didn't need to follow the word exactly that time.

 

[Simon Howson]

Jet Pilot is a real mess - an after the fact conversion to widescreen. I often wonder how many early SuperScope films were actually intended by the directors or cinematographers to be seen in Academy. I still don't think we know for sure what the creative talent intended on Vera Cruz. Robert Aldrich claimed that it was never his intent, and was a post production decision made by the producers (one of those being Burt Lancaster). In some cases it is possible the producers simply wanted to jump on the widescreen bandwagon.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Besides the few pre-WS films (Fantasia re-release and Jet Pilot), I think most were 1.66:1-1.85:1 films. The problem with SuperScope was more of the image degredation due to optical conversion to anamorphic.

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

I expect the reason the R2 This Island Earth is 1.85:1 is that they just reused the widescreen master already done for UK TV

 

[Simon Howson]

Good point. But those open matte NTSC DVDs from Image and Universal are just baffling. Even a PAL Spanish version is full frame.

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

I suspect its them being cheap. A lot of these full frame masters began life back in the laserdisc and video era. That#s most likely why MGM had a DVD policy that all non-scope films were full frame or 1.66:1 non-anamorphic

In addition, a lot of web reviewers and forum posters (not directed at you, by the way!) are pig ignorant and assume these films are full frame. Indeed, I've seen reviews where the OAR widescreen was maintaned and the reviewer blasted the DVD for being cropped!

 

[Simon Howson]

Are they full of really loose compositions that seem ill-suited to full frame transfers? I must admit I don't collect the Universal Sci Fi films.

Having said that, you could make that 'criticism' of many 30s and 40s films which obviously weren't meant to be shown in widescreen. It is just a tendency of Hollywood style that the frequency of tighter shot scales increases as each decade passes.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Many open matte transfers have head room you can drive a truck through - I don't think that looks very good and it certainly isn't the way the director and cameraman intended the shot to be - and the bottom of the frame carries unnecessary information, too. All the non-scope films were protecting for eventual TV showings. Some films were lax about protecting and there are visible mics and tops of sets in many full frame transfers - sometimes they'd optically zoom in to cover that stuff, which is why the framing on a few of those zoomed-in transfers looks better top and bottom, but by zooming in they cut off the sides.

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

I'm criticising the DVDs, not the photography