-

Jump to content



Photo

negative ratio vs. intended ratio?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
8 replies to this topic

#1 of 9 OFFLINE   Terry H

Terry H

    Second Unit

  • 319 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2001

Posted April 05 2003 - 03:42 AM

Talk about Giant got me curious about George Stephens and his movie Shane. When Shane was released I was assured (not here) that 1.33:1 was the correct and intended ratio. That was also what IMDB indicated although I would have sworn I recalled it in widescreen. Now it appears IMDB has modified their information and they say 1.37:1 is the negative ratio but 1.66:1 is the intended ratio. Am I splitting hairs or is the Shane DVD in the wrong ratio? Maybe I an misunderstand the terms? Thanks for any information.

#2 of 9 OFFLINE   Scott Varney

Scott Varney

    Agent

  • 46 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 04 2001

Posted April 05 2003 - 03:52 AM

Though I'm not 100% sure, I would suspect that Shane was intended to be shown at 1.33. The film was released in 1953, the same year scope films were introduced, and I don't think matting of spherical films had become common place by then. I could be wrong though.

Speaking of being wrong, I believe that the IMDB post a lot of info that is submitted by their users; so, it is possible that info on the site could be wrong.

#3 of 9 OFFLINE   LukeB

LukeB

    Screenwriter

  • 2,179 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 26 2000

Posted April 05 2003 - 04:17 AM

Like Scott says, don't worry too much about what IMDb lists for intended ratios. For the Disney animated films from the '60s, they list funky intended ratios for them, even though they were all animated for 1.33:1.

If you see information from an official, authoritative source, that's different. Unfortunately, for these older movies, it's hard to find an official, authoritative source on the AR.

#4 of 9 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,471 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted April 05 2003 - 04:53 AM

Negative ratio is what is actually on the film's camera negative.

For example, Giant's negative is approx. 1.37:1 on-film. For theatrical presentation, the image was masked on the top and bottom (much like a picture frame) to 1.66:1.

The image has to be loosely framed for practical reasons since framing can vary from projector to projector.

Shane is one of those films which became a widescreen film after it was shot. The whole thing was filmed for Academy Ratio, but Paramount decided to let it be matted to 1.66:1 in theaters. A lot of studios did the same thing to cash in on CinemaScope. (Like Invasion of the Body Snatchers in SuperScope...despite it being filmed for Academy!)

#5 of 9 OFFLINE   Thomas T

Thomas T

    Screenwriter

  • 2,251 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2001

Posted April 05 2003 - 05:38 AM

Shane was never intended to be shown in anything other than the Academy ratio. The matting was done after the fact and had Stevens known I'm sure he would have framed the film differently.

Critic Pauline Kael on the subject: "The cinematography by Loyal Griggs won the Academy Award; this must have struck him as a black joke, because Paramount, in order to take advantage of the new fashion for the wide screen, had mutilated the compositions by cutting off the top and bottom"

The Shane DVD is appropriately full screen.

#6 of 9 OFFLINE   Gordon McMurphy

Gordon McMurphy

    Producer

  • 3,530 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2002

Posted April 05 2003 - 06:30 AM

Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1956, Don Siegel) was filmed in Academy, but was then altered to SuperScope's 2.00:1? That's the correct ratio for S-Scope, right? Man, I never knew that; I thought it was a S-Scope production from the outset! I have heard that the current DVD edition is an abortion - is it? A real f-up, yes?

Corman's, The Day The World Ended is out in Britain soon. It is a S-Scope show... yes?! Posted Image Should the DVD be 2.00:1 or what?!

Cheers. Posted Image


Gordy


#7 of 9 OFFLINE   Terry H

Terry H

    Second Unit

  • 319 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2001

Posted April 05 2003 - 06:53 AM

This is a real bucket of worms. If Shane and Giant were both shot at 1.37:1 but both were initially shown in theaters at 1.66:1 then logically both films have the same OAR. Seems the pending release of Giant at 1.66:1 anamorphic is not OAR at all...

Maybe I don't understand the meaning of OAR. I thought OAR was defined by how the film was first shown in theaters - not by the AR of the negative but Patrick seems to be saying the oppposite.

I understand what Thomas is saying about Stevens composing differently if he knew it would be matted. So is that the defining point? He knew it would be matted for Giant so 1.66:1 is the proper OAR whereas in Shane it is not? Does director's intent really factor into OAR? Should it? I keep using this term but I don't think there is an "official" definition anywhere. If there is, I'm sure someone will correct me. Posted Image Thanks.

#8 of 9 OFFLINE   Gordon McMurphy

Gordon McMurphy

    Producer

  • 3,530 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2002

Posted April 05 2003 - 07:05 AM

Quote:
Maybe I don't understand the meaning of OAR. I thought OAR was defined by how the film was first shown in theaters - not by the AR of the negative but Patrick seems to be saying the oppposite.
Maybe it should be IAR - Intended Aspect Ratio, ie: How the director and/or cinematographer intended the film to be seen.

One thing I have always wondered is why filmmakers ever allowed TV companies to pan and scan their CinemaScope/VistaVision movies in the late-Fifties/early-Sixties. Exactly how many filmmakers objected to pan and scan? Could letterboxing have been used in the late-Fifties? I believe that it could have. And should have. Or not been shown on TV at all...

Let the fire rain down on me! Posted Image


Gordy


#9 of 9 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,471 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted April 05 2003 - 07:19 AM

Giant was released late enough where it's likely George Stevens could have it framed for 1.66:1. Now, if it was a 1953 film like Shane, it wouldn't have a chance.

For matted widescreen films like Giant, the negative simply has more picture information that is needed. The 1.66:1 matting creates the correct 1.66:1 composition from the 1.37:1 image. This is how most "flat" films are matted.

The main reason why filmmakers didn't do much until recently is because a lot could care less about the TV presentation. Most are concerned with how it looks on the big screen. To our advantage, more and more filmmakers are making sure their films look the way they want on video.