-

Jump to content



Photo
* * * * * 9 votes

Aspect Ratio Documentation


  • Please log in to reply
5393 replies to this topic

#1 of 5394 ONLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,457 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted March 20 2012 - 07:02 AM

*
POPULAR

Many people utilize either IMDB or TCM as their research tools for determining the intended widescreen theatrical aspect ratio. As the recent discussion of PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE illustrates, these sites are not always accurate.

 

To determine the correct aspect ratio (the one intended by the director and cinematographer while composing each shot) you have to look at the studio policy and date of production.

 

I've been doing this research since 1990 and have been able to accurately document the intended ratio of all fifty 3-D features from the 1950's. I believe in doing original research with documented, primary source materials and have gone through hundreds of industry trade journals (Boxoffice, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, American Cinematographer, Exhibitor, Motion Picture Herald, etc) as well as studio documents such as Daily Production Reports and minutes of the Daily Committee Meetings at the various studios. From this research, I've been able to accurately determine when the various studios switched over to widescreen cinematography.

 

Paramount was the first major studio to go 100% widescreen (1.66:1 was their house ratio) on March 24, 1953.

 

As an example of the wrong information found on those sites, I present the following:

 

Title and Studio - IMDB listing - TCM listing - Director/Studio Intended Theatrical Aspect Ratio

 

MISS SADIE THOMPSON - Columbia - 1.75 - 1.37 - 1.85

MONEY FROM HOME - Paramount - 1.75 - 1.37 - 1.37

THE GLASS WEB - Universal-International - 1.37 - 1.37 - 2:1

DIAL M FOR MURDER - Warner Bros. - 1.37 - 1.37 - 1.85

GOG - United Artists - 1.66 - 1.37 - 1.85

JIVARO - Paramount - 1.85 - 1.85 - 1.66

TOP BANANA - United Artists - 1.37 - 1.37 - 1.85


  • Brian McP, Brenty and Panamint Cinema like this

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#2 of 5394 OFFLINE   RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter

  • 2,321 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted March 20 2012 - 07:15 AM

IMDB has a lot of errors. I forget the movie title, it must have been a Cinerama film, they had the aspect ratio as 3.99:1.

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#3 of 5394 ONLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,457 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted March 20 2012 - 08:41 AM

http://static.hometh...um.com/imgrepo/ Many theaters around the country began installing widescreens in the summer of 1953 and that's why quite a few academy ratio titles (Shane, War of the Worlds, etc) were shown wide although not composed for that ratio. In determining which is correct, it's most important to document the dates of principal photography in relation to the studio policy. Case in point, the 3 Stooges short GOOF ON THE ROOF. Although filmed November 17-20, 1952 and meant for 1.37, it sat on the shelf until December 3, 1953 and was then shown 1.85 which is not correct.

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#4 of 5394 OFFLINE   john a hunter

john a hunter

    Supporting Actor

  • 632 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2005

Posted March 20 2012 - 09:47 AM

This was presumably before the introduction of VistaVision which saw their preferred A.R move to 1.85:1, I believe.

#5 of 5394 ONLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,457 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted March 20 2012 - 09:56 AM

This was presumably before the introduction of VistaVision which saw their preferred A.R move to 1.85:1, I believe.

Yes, WHITE CHRISTMAS didn't start production until September 1953.

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#6 of 5394 OFFLINE   RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter

  • 2,321 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted March 20 2012 - 11:26 AM

This was presumably before the introduction of VistaVision which saw their preferred A.R move to 1.85:1, I believe.

1.85:1 for VistaVision was prefered but you could also do 1.66:1 or 2.0:1 - see http://widescreenmus...frame_guide.htm

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#7 of 5394 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Join Date: --

Posted March 20 2012 - 11:53 AM

I'm always concerned about how 1.37/1.33 films are framed for home release. Do the studios have some kind of equipment to make sure they are framing the films properly? The Citizen Kane UK dvd shows more image on the right (especially during the "News on the March" segment in which a headline reading "dies after illness of months" is shown. On the US blu-ray and previous dvd, it reads "dies after illness of month.") One little letter changes part of the meaning of the headline. Was he sick for a month or months? Is this because the UK version wasn't centered? I guess what I'm asking is, what is the criteria for framing the film? Is it to center the image? Is it to crop the left where the soundtrack would have been? Which framing is correct?



#8 of 5394 OFFLINE   rsmithjr

rsmithjr

    Supporting Actor

  • 824 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2011
  • Real Name:Robert Smith
  • LocationPalo Alto, CA

Posted March 20 2012 - 12:16 PM

When I was a projectionist, the standard policy was to use whichever lenses/aperture plates/screen masking would result in getting the most image on the film. If the print was 133, we displayed it in 133, regardless of what the "intended" AR was. We had a complete set of items to support AR from 133 to 255 (35mm only) and were proud of this approach.

#9 of 5394 OFFLINE   Mark-P

Mark-P

    Screenwriter

  • 2,311 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted March 20 2012 - 01:08 PM

Well weren't you a naughty projectionist :D I'll bet there were a lot of exposed boom mikes and crew equipment in your presentations.

When I was a projectionist, the standard policy was to use whichever lenses/aperture plates/screen masking would result in getting the most image on the film. If the print was 133, we displayed it in 133, regardless of what the "intended" AR was. We had a complete set of items to support AR from 133 to 255 (35mm only) and were proud of this approach.



#10 of 5394 ONLINE   Peter Apruzzese

Peter Apruzzese

    Screenwriter

  • 2,613 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 20 1999
  • Real Name:Peter Apruzzese

Posted March 20 2012 - 02:30 PM

When I was a projectionist, the standard policy was to use whichever lenses/aperture plates/screen masking would result in getting the most image on the film. If the print was 133, we displayed it in 133, regardless of what the "intended" AR was. We had a complete set of items to support AR from 133 to 255 (35mm only) and were proud of this approach.

Why wouldn't you have wanted to show the films properly? Was it just to have a larger - though obviously wrong - image? Whoever came up with that policy ruined many films and hurt the audience's ability to enjoy them as the makers intended.
"What we're fighting for, in the end...we're fighting for each other." - Col. Joshua Chamberlain in "Gettysburg"

 


#11 of 5394 ONLINE   Mark B

Mark B

    Supporting Actor

  • 724 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 27 2003
  • Real Name:Mark
  • LocationSaranac Lake, NY

Posted March 20 2012 - 02:54 PM

Absolutely, Peter. I've been a victim of ignorant projection on many occasions: PSYCHO, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, NORTH BY NORTHWEST, TO CATCH A THIEF, CABARET, BEDKNOBS AND BROOMSTICKS, and many more were shown without mattes in a revival house I used to frequent. It was a waste of my time and money and really destroyed the experience. It got to the point where I only attended films shot in Scope, because they couldn't screw those up.

#12 of 5394 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,457 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted March 20 2012 - 06:21 PM

When I was a projectionist, the standard policy was to use whichever lenses/aperture plates/screen masking would result in getting the most image on the film. If the print was 133, we displayed it in 133, regardless of what the "intended" AR was. We had a complete set of items to support AR from 133 to 255 (35mm only) and were proud of this approach.

I knew someone with the same mindset. If there was an image on the print, he wanted to see it. We were often treated to microphones, stage lights, tops of sets and in one unique showing, the missing top of a rocketship. He ran a 35mm open matte print of HAVE ROCKET, WILL TRAVEL and when the exterior of the rocket is shown, it only went up about 8 feet off the ground! Of course, the big difference is that we were seeing these flaws in private basement screenings. If a theater were to run the films this way for the general public, that would be wrong. Bob

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#13 of 5394 ONLINE   Gromilini

Gromilini

    Extra

  • 22 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 04 2011
  • Real Name:Michael Logan
  • LocationNorthern California

Posted March 21 2012 - 07:40 AM

To determine the correct aspect ratio (the one intended by the director and cinematographer while composing each shot) you have to look at the studio policy and date of production. I've been doing this research since 1990 and have been able to accurately document the intended ratio of all fifty 3-D features from the 1950's. I believe in doing original research with documented, primary source materials. I've gone through hundreds of industry trade journals (Boxoffice, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, American Cinematographer, Exhibitor, Motion Picture Herald, etc) as well as studio documents such as Daily Production Reports and minutes of the Daily Committee Meetings at the various studios. Bob

Bob, given the inaccuracies of TCM and IMDB, have you considered creating a database of reliable, researched and verified aspect ratios? It seems like a single, authoritative site to consult is crying out to be created--and it's one I'd bookmark in a heartbeat.

#14 of 5394 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,457 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted March 21 2012 - 09:58 AM

We've talked about it but considering the amount of time it would take, nobody has stepped up to the plate. I've got the 3-D titles done, but there's many more that would need to be properly researched. Bob

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#15 of 5394 ONLINE   MatthewA

MatthewA

    Producer

  • 6,215 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000
  • Real Name:Matthew
  • LocationSalinas, CA

Posted March 21 2012 - 11:11 AM



Originally Posted by Mark B 

Absolutely, Peter.
I've been a victim of ignorant projection on many occasions: PSYCHO, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, NORTH BY NORTHWEST, TO CATCH A THIEF, CABARET, BEDKNOBS AND BROOMSTICKS, and many more were shown without mattes in a revival house I used to frequent. It was a waste of my time and money and really destroyed the experience. It got to the point where I only attended films shot in Scope, because they couldn't screw those up.


That's pretty sad, but I know of a theatre that showed Academy ratio films in 1.85:1 because they didn't have the ability to get it right with their flat aperture plates. I even showed them a stop-gap method, but it went ignored. I had to sit through Gone with the Wind in 1.85:1 (although I was amazed they didn't get one of the notoriously bad 1998 New Line Cinema prints). I would have left had it not been the first time my date had seen the film. I walked out of Miracle on 34th Street and was appalled to find they had done this to Citizen Kane. At least they never showed 1.85:1 films open matte.


Enough is enough, Disney. No more evasions or excuses. We DEMAND the release Song of the South on Blu-ray along with the uncut version of Bedknobs and Broomsticks on Blu-ray. I will not support anything your company produces until then.


#16 of 5394 OFFLINE   rsmithjr

rsmithjr

    Supporting Actor

  • 824 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2011
  • Real Name:Robert Smith
  • LocationPalo Alto, CA

Posted March 21 2012 - 03:41 PM

I knew someone with the same mindset. If there was an image on the print, he wanted to see it. We were often treated to microphones, stage lights, tops of sets and in one unique showing, the missing top of a rocketship. He ran a 35mm open matte print of HAVE ROCKET, WILL TRAVEL and when the exterior of the rocket is shown, it only went up about 8 feet off the ground! Of course, the big difference is that we were seeing these flaws in private basement screenings. If a theater were to run the films this way for the general public, that would be wrong. Bob

Had we noticed such a problem, we would have switched to a different AR to mask it out. We had the power and ability to make the presentation correct according to our lights at least.

#17 of 5394 OFFLINE   rsmithjr

rsmithjr

    Supporting Actor

  • 824 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2011
  • Real Name:Robert Smith
  • LocationPalo Alto, CA

Posted March 21 2012 - 03:45 PM

Why wouldn't you have wanted to show the films properly? Was it just to have a larger - though obviously wrong - image? Whoever came up with that policy ruined many films and hurt the audience's ability to enjoy them as the makers intended.

And just who was the authority on what was "correct" for such a film? Prints did not generally come with "run me at 185" cards, after all. Many flat films were in fact shot for multiple AR's. VistaVision even made a marketing point about it and placed their famous crosshatch in the upper right-hand corner to allow framing for multiple AR's. We always exhibited VV at about 166, corresponding to all of the information on the print. For VV, this was "correct". It seems reasonable to see the entire image so that you don't miss something unless of course something is really wrong.

#18 of 5394 OFFLINE   RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter

  • 2,321 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted March 21 2012 - 04:37 PM

The 1959 film The Hanging Tree was on TCM last night and it was 1.37:1. I zoomed in to make it 1.85:1 and for most of the film it looked fine. There were a number of scenes that did look like too much important information was being cut off though.

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#19 of 5394 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,457 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted March 21 2012 - 05:42 PM

And just who was the authority on what was "correct" for such a film? Prints did not generally come with "run me at 185" cards, after all. Many flat films were in fact shot for multiple AR's. VistaVision even made a marketing point about it and placed their famous crosshatch in the upper right-hand corner to allow framing for multiple AR's. We always exhibited VV at about 166, corresponding to all of the information on the print. For VV, this was "correct". It seems reasonable to see the entire image so that you don't miss something unless of course something is really wrong.

Bob, were you a projectionist in the 1950's? If not, you may not realize that many films on their initial release did have the intended aspect ratio printed on the shipping band. If not, trade journals such as Variety, Boxoffice and Exhibitor listed the correct aspect ratio for theaters. In the 1960's, some titles (such as A HARD DAYS NIGHT) had the correct AR printed on the original leader. The only flat films meant for various ratios were VistaVision titles. Recommended for 1.85, the other ratios were so that each individual theater would get the largest image possible utilizing the full width and height of their screen. Bob

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#20 of 5394 ONLINE   Matt Hough

Matt Hough

    Executive Producer

  • 11,237 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 2006
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted March 22 2012 - 12:22 AM

I find that list so interesting and informative, and it's especially galling to see some of this information since we've never gotten a home video release of Calamity Jane, Hondo, Them!, or Dial 'M' for Murder that was framed properly.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users


    EddieLarkin