-

Jump to content



Photo
* * * * * 9 votes

Aspect Ratio Documentation


  • Please log in to reply
5366 replies to this topic

#3221 of 5367 John Hodson

John Hodson

    Producer

  • 4,445 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 14 2003
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationBolton, Lancashire

Posted July 29 2013 - 12:48 AM

That does explain alot.

 

Meanwhile, our friends at Hammer have announced the UK BD/DVD release of The Mummy for October, and in doing so say this:

 

...THE MUMMY has been unavailable on any Region 2 home entertainment format since 2004. The previously available DVD was authored at the incorrect aspect ratio of 1.77:1 and widely criticised by fans. The Region 1 edition, still available as an import, is also presented incorrectly at 1.77:1. This new release on Blu-ray and DVD double play presents the film in its original UK theatrical aspect ratio of 1.66:1 for the first time, as well as featuring a host of brand new extras never seen before and in high definition.

Containing 2xDVD + 1xBlu-ray. Features include: Original UK theatrical aspect ratio: 1.66:1 (the film has never before been released at this aspect ratio);
Alternate “full frame” aspect ratio: 1.37:1


So many films, so little time...
Film Journal Blog
Lt. Col. Thursday: Beaufort; no preliminary nonsense with him, no ceremonial phrasing. Straight from the shoulder as I tell you, do you hear me? They're recalcitrant swine and they must feel it...


#3222 of 5367 EddieLarkin

EddieLarkin

    Supporting Actor

  • 685 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 16 2012
  • Real Name:Nick
  • LocationYorkshire

Posted July 29 2013 - 02:56 PM

So in this case they acknowledge that the widescreen version is the OAR, and thus make it the feature presentation, leaving the open matte to the supplements.

 

So why exactly are they including it?

 

Well we know, don't we? The guys running Hammer today are obviously students of the "Boxy Is Beautiful" school of thinking. They simply can't get over missing out on all that extra picture (they must have been so disappointed when they realised Dracula was hard matted).

 

It would have been preferable for them to have just admit this during the Frankenstein debacle, instead of trying to feed everyone bull.



#3223 of 5367 John Hodson

John Hodson

    Producer

  • 4,445 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 14 2003
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationBolton, Lancashire

Posted July 29 2013 - 03:07 PM

I'm not entirely sure 1.66:1 *is* the principle OAR - surely we are still into 1.75:1 territory here for the UK (Bob?). And why on earth are they presenting a second version in Academy. For those that think that more picture is a better picture, I could at a pinch understand an open-matte presentation. But in Academy?

 

Why?


Edited by John Hodson, July 29 2013 - 03:08 PM.

So many films, so little time...
Film Journal Blog
Lt. Col. Thursday: Beaufort; no preliminary nonsense with him, no ceremonial phrasing. Straight from the shoulder as I tell you, do you hear me? They're recalcitrant swine and they must feel it...


#3224 of 5367 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,400 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted July 29 2013 - 03:20 PM

1.66:1 (the film has never before been released at this aspect ratio);

 

That says it all...


  • GregK likes this

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#3225 of 5367 EddieLarkin

EddieLarkin

    Supporting Actor

  • 685 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 16 2012
  • Real Name:Nick
  • LocationYorkshire

Posted July 29 2013 - 03:28 PM

I'm not entirely sure 1.66:1 *is* the principle OAR

 

Me neither, but at least this time they are saying A widescreen version is OAR, and that Academy plays second fiddle to it. It was the other way around with Frankenstein.



#3226 of 5367 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,400 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted July 30 2013 - 11:13 AM

Here's a better copy of the GIANT article from September 1956.

 

Production began on May 19, 1955 and it was planned for 1.66 from day one.

 

In fact, on July 29, 1953, George Stevens told Variety: "GIANT will be in color and widescreen."

 

Giant September 1956.jpg


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#3227 of 5367 Vertigo in SF

Vertigo in SF

    Auditioning

  • 8 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 09 2012

Posted August 07 2013 - 02:21 PM

This seemed to be the pertinent place to ask this: people always seem to be making a fuss about the aspect ratio of TOUCH OF EVIL but no one seems to discuss the ratio of the previous Welles film, MR. ARKADIN.

Does anyone here know the correct projection aspect ratio for MR. ARKADIN/CONFIDENTIAL REPORT? It was a Spanish production made late '54 and released in '55. The Criterion and all other releases for that matter present in 1:33, and, for awhile, I assumed that was correct but a lot of the discoveries here make me question that assumption. I recently watched it in 1:66 and the movie seemed fine minus two shots. The credits were not cut off as well.

I've asked this question elsewhere but have yet to receive a satisfactorily definitive answer regarding the ratio of the presentation. I get that Welles was working off of the studio grid but I'm not sure if it would be to such an extent that he would have his films made in a ratio that would never be honored.

Edited by Vertigo in SF, August 07 2013 - 02:24 PM.


#3228 of 5367 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,400 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted August 07 2013 - 03:12 PM

I checked and I do not have any aspect ratio documentation on that title.

 

It looks like it was filmed in March 1954 and finished editing in September of that year.


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#3229 of 5367 Vertigo in SF

Vertigo in SF

    Auditioning

  • 8 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 09 2012

Posted August 07 2013 - 03:18 PM

I checked and I do not have any aspect ratio documentation on that title.
 
It looks like it was filmed in March 1954 and finished editing in September of that year.

Thanks for the response Mr. Furmanek.

#3230 of 5367 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,400 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted August 07 2013 - 03:23 PM

My pleasure and I'm sorry that I couldn't be more helpful.

 

If you find anything definitive on the ratio, please let us know.


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#3231 of 5367 John-Weller

John-Weller

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 61 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 15 2013
  • Real Name:John

Posted August 14 2013 - 01:42 PM

Bob, is Night of the Hunter 1.66:1 or 1.85:1?



#3232 of 5367 Professor Echo

Professor Echo

    Screenwriter

  • 1,522 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 28 2008
  • Real Name:Glen
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted August 14 2013 - 01:55 PM

I notice that Criterion's release of BOB LA FLAMBEUR from 1956 is 1:33, but their release of ELEVATOR TO THE GALLOWS from 1957 is 1:66.

Bob, any information on when France went widescreen?

#3233 of 5367 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,400 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted August 14 2013 - 02:17 PM

France entered the widescreen era by the fall of 1953.

 

SANGAREE was the first feature shown in Paris on a panoramic screen in September 1953.

 

Sangaree France 9.25.53.jpg

 

Their first widescreen feature began production in November 1953 and by early 1954, most studios/filmmakers were adopting widescreen techniques.

 

Two relevant quotes from Variety:

 

January 6, 1954: "a growing awareness and adaption of widescreen"

 

July 28, 1954: "Widescreen is here to stay."

 

France.JPG

 

France4.JPG

 

France 3.JPG

 

John, here's info on NIGHT OF THE HUNTER.

 

09e878a45230bab2c25fa2af3a4a766a_3772_0.jpg


  • Doug Bull and HDvision like this

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#3234 of 5367 John-Weller

John-Weller

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 61 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 15 2013
  • Real Name:John

Posted August 14 2013 - 02:22 PM

thanks!



#3235 of 5367 Doug Bull

Doug Bull

    Advanced Member

  • 1,512 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001
  • Real Name:Doug Bull
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted August 14 2013 - 04:18 PM

While on the subject of "Sangaree" here are some press clippings and a 35mm film frame scan from the trailer.

They had wild expectations comparing it with "Gone With The Wind"

 

It was shown on the Panoramic Screen in Melbourne, Australia in September 1953. Sydney followed in November.

 

sangaree2.jpg

 

sangaree3.jpg

 

Paravision? Not sure if I knew that one.

 

sangaree 1.jpg

 

 

Doug.


Edited by Doug Bull, August 14 2013 - 04:23 PM.

  • Bob Furmanek likes this

#3236 of 5367 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,400 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted August 14 2013 - 04:36 PM

Great stuff, thanks Doug!

 

Paravision was the studios trade name for 3-D. It was also used occasionally when referencing the early 1.66:1 titles.

 

It's worth noting that SANGAREE began filming for 3-D on January 26, 1953 and was composed for 1.37.


  • Doug Bull likes this

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#3237 of 5367 Professor Echo

Professor Echo

    Screenwriter

  • 1,522 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 28 2008
  • Real Name:Glen
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted August 14 2013 - 06:06 PM

Thanks for the typically informed response, Bob.

So we can add BOB LE FLAMBEUR to the list of Criterions with the wrong aspect ratio.

#3238 of 5367 Moe Dickstein

Moe Dickstein

    Filmmaker

  • 3,145 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2001
  • Real Name:T R Wilkinson
  • LocationSherman Oaks, CA

Posted August 14 2013 - 07:59 PM

Being that Bob is OOP from them, don't look for a correction ;)
Yes, these strange things happen all the time - PT Anderson, Magnolia

#3239 of 5367 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,400 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted August 14 2013 - 08:31 PM

Thanks for the typically informed response, Bob.

So we can add BOB LE FLAMBEUR to the list of Criterions with the wrong aspect ratio.

 

You're very welcome. I would like to do more digging to say for sure, but considering the timeline it's very likely it was composed for widescreen.

 

Have you tried zooming it to study camera movement?


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#3240 of 5367 Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway

    captveg

  • 7,149 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted August 15 2013 - 01:43 AM

Being that Bob is OOP from them, don't look for a correction ;)

 

It was also a DVD release from 2002. They were hardly the only ones mistaken about when widescreen was adopted in the industry back then, especially for French cinema.


Edited by Brandon Conway, August 15 2013 - 01:43 AM.

"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users