Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo
* * * * * 9 votes

Aspect Ratio Documentation


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
5891 replies to this topic

#3241 of 5892 OFFLINE   Professor Echo

Professor Echo

    Screenwriter



  • 1,878 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 28 2008
  • Real Name:Glen
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted August 15 2013 - 10:12 AM

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?

 

I don't have the title yet in my collection, but was wondering if I should pick it up. When I saw what ratio it was in I figured I better go the leading expert on such things just to make sure. ;)  I think I will hold off for now and see if someone releases it on Blu in its most likely correct AR.



#3242 of 5892 OFFLINE   HDvision

HDvision

    Screenwriter



  • 1,020 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2007
  • Real Name:David
  • LocationParis, France

Posted August 15 2013 - 10:26 AM

Not sure but I remember the Criterion being framed tight. There was a DVD reissue in France a couple of years back, I'll check it out.



#3243 of 5892 OFFLINE   Adam_S

Adam_S

    Producer



  • 6,177 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2001

Posted August 15 2013 - 10:42 AM

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.

I remember back in the 2002 days, the common knowledge/received wisdom was that 1960 was the super special magical amazing switchover year, that when the number switched from 5 to 6, that's when everything became instantly widescreen all the time.  Anything not hardmatted and not anamorphic from 1959 or earlier was absolutely suspect and no one could really know what the right ratio was because as everyone knew, when there was a 5 in the date, chaos reigned everywhere!


Edited by Adam_S, August 15 2013 - 10:42 AM.

 

#3244 of 5892 ONLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 4,170 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted August 15 2013 - 10:52 AM

Thank goodness Jack Theakston began his dedicated research on setting the record straight on aspect ratios in 2005!


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


 


#3245 of 5892 OFFLINE   EddieLarkin

EddieLarkin

    Supporting Actor



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

Posted August 15 2013 - 11:20 AM

When it comes to non U.S. and U.K. productions, the rules have to be a bit different. I think only specific research on a title by title basis is useful.

 

Bob le flambeur, for instance, I can assure you all is framed at 1.37:1, despite the time it was made. One scene I just checked is early on and takes place in a bar. Bob is sat at a table, with the camera filming him face on. The camera pulls back in preparation for him rising, and as he does so his head reaches the top of the 1.37:1 frame and remains there for a few moments as he addresses a companion, still sat down. 

 

If you crop this scene, the pull becomes pointless, as Bob's head rises out of frame regardless and for a few moments he addresses his companion whilst cut off at the nose. There are a few other examples like this, and I found them after a less than 5 minute flick through of my Criterion DVD. The whole film cropped even to 1.66:1 I don't think could be bearable (assuming the Criterion transfer isn't heavily zoomed, though we don't have a reason to think it is).

 

Whether it's Indian, Japanese, or more "western" film making from France, the same rules just don't seem to apply. Both Godard and Tati have made it clear they made many of their post-widescreen era films in 1.37:1, in some cases using non-anamorphic widescreen on some pictures and then going back to 1.37:1. It seems like it was a whole different ball game over there.



#3246 of 5892 ONLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 4,170 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted August 15 2013 - 11:28 AM

Very good points, Eddie. Thanks for checking the transfer.


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


 


#3247 of 5892 OFFLINE   HDvision

HDvision

    Screenwriter



  • 1,020 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2007
  • Real Name:David
  • LocationParis, France

Posted August 15 2013 - 12:53 PM

The Criterion disc is heavily zoomboxed. Here's a cap comparing the Criterion and a frame grab of the neg (see the round corners).

 

Posted Image

 

EDIT: I browsed through the Criterion disc and came into this very bizarre credit quirk:

 

Posted Image

 

When the rolling credit finally appears (the DP one is the start), it appears out of thin air, about 48 pixels above the bottom. This DP credit is the one that starts the roll, and when it comes up it pushes away the card above it.

 

Would that mean the transfer is unmatted too much? I'm not familiar with the rules regarding those old credits rolls, but my take would be that the credit would not appear out of thin air, but out of the masked border. This shouldn't happen.

 

Interestingly, if you substract the number of pixels inclusive of this credit line (so that it remains hidden until it start to roll), top and bottom, you end up roughly at 1.66:1 on the other frame grab. I say it's a 1.66:1 film.


Edited by HDvision, August 16 2013 - 07:56 AM.


#3248 of 5892 OFFLINE   EddieLarkin

EddieLarkin

    Supporting Actor



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

Posted August 15 2013 - 02:06 PM

Well I'll just shut my big mouth. That'll teach me to use a DVD as any sort of reference.



#3249 of 5892 ONLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 4,170 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted August 15 2013 - 02:16 PM

A manipulated transfer on DVD?I'm shocked!


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


 


#3250 of 5892 OFFLINE   Moe Dickstein

Moe Dickstein

    Filmmaker



  • 3,265 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2001
  • Real Name:T R Wilkinson
  • LocationWest Hollywood, CA

Posted August 15 2013 - 02:33 PM

A manipulated transfer on DVD?I'm shocked!

We'd better not even get into the gambling then....
Yes, these strange things happen all the time - PT Anderson, Magnolia

#3251 of 5892 OFFLINE   EddieLarkin

EddieLarkin

    Supporting Actor



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

Posted August 20 2013 - 12:13 PM

Cohen are releasing Melville's follow up to Bob le flambeurDeux hommes dans Manhattan next month, though I don't think they've announced the aspect ratio. His film after that was Léon Morin, prêtre, which was presented 1.66:1 by Criterion. Anyone familiar with the film or it's production know the correct AR?



#3252 of 5892 OFFLINE   ahollis

ahollis

    Producer



  • 6,085 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 01 2007
  • Real Name:Allen
  • LocationNew Orleans

Posted August 20 2013 - 07:29 PM

Hope I am not creating a storm but the last three Bomba titles of the series, THE GOLDEN IDOL (Jan 1954 release), KILLER LEOPARD (Aug 1954 release), and LORD OF THE JUNGLE (Jun 1955 release) are being released by WAC in widescreen 1.85:1. Some other Internet sites, that are unreliable, are listing the aspect ratio as 1.37:1, which I would believe that ratio was used for TV telecasts. I know that Monogram made a habit of filming 6 or more titles back to back then sitting on them and releasing them periodically over a couple of years. There is a distinct possibility that LORD OF THE JUNGLE (Jun 1955 release) could have been filmed in the spring of 1953, as could be the others. So the question is are these three titles comparative to SHANE in that they were filmed before widescreen was adapted and composed for 1.37:1 but marketing took over and forced them out at 1.85:1? I know this cause a snicker or two but do find this interesting. THANKS.

Edited by ahollis, August 20 2013 - 08:02 PM.

"Get a director and a writer and leave them alone. That`s how the best pictures get made" - William "Wild Bill" Wellman


#3253 of 5892 ONLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 4,170 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted August 20 2013 - 07:55 PM

Glad to hear it, all three were composed for widescreen.

 

BOMBA AND THE GOLDEN IDOL began filming for 1.85:1 on September 8, 1953.


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


 


#3254 of 5892 OFFLINE   moviebuff75

moviebuff75

    Supporting Actor



  • 620 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 04 2009
  • Real Name:Eric Scott Richard
  • LocationIndianapolis, Indiana

Posted August 20 2013 - 07:57 PM

Does anyone have access to a print of "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory?" Was it hard matted and what ratio? 


Proud HTF Member Since: April, 2001


#3255 of 5892 OFFLINE   ahollis

ahollis

    Producer



  • 6,085 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 01 2007
  • Real Name:Allen
  • LocationNew Orleans

Posted August 20 2013 - 08:05 PM

Glad to hear it, all three were composed for widescreen.BOMBA AND THE GOLDEN IDOL began filming for 1.85:1 on September 8, 1953.

Thank you, while I was having some up loading issues and making my question witty and complicated you swiped down a gave a perfect answer.
"Get a director and a writer and leave them alone. That`s how the best pictures get made" - William "Wild Bill" Wellman


#3256 of 5892 ONLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 4,170 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted August 20 2013 - 08:31 PM

That's fine Allen, I"m glad to help.

 

KILLER LEOPARD was filmed in May 1954 and LORD OF THE JUNGLE was filmed in February 1955.

1.85 is correct for all three.

 

Eric: I have access to a print of WONKA and will check it for you tomorrow.


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


 


#3257 of 5892 OFFLINE   haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter



  • 2,624 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted August 20 2013 - 10:20 PM

The Criterion disc is heavily zoomboxed. Here's a cap comparing the Criterion and a frame grab of the neg (see the round corners).

 

Posted Image

 

EDIT: I browsed through the Criterion disc and came into this very bizarre credit quirk:

 

Posted Image

 

When the rolling credit finally appears (the DP one is the start), it appears out of thin air, about 48 pixels above the bottom. This DP credit is the one that starts the roll, and when it comes up it pushes away the card above it.

 

Would that mean the transfer is unmatted too much? I'm not familiar with the rules regarding those old credits rolls, but my take would be that the credit would not appear out of thin air, but out of the masked border. This shouldn't happen.

 

Interestingly, if you substract the number of pixels inclusive of this credit line (so that it remains hidden until it start to roll), top and bottom, you end up roughly at 1.66:1 on the other frame grab. I say it's a 1.66:1 film.

This is the kind of post we need more of - the zoomboxing on that disc is outrageous.  Everyone assumes Criterion is always perfect - apparently not.



#3258 of 5892 OFFLINE   Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist



  • 8,060 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted August 21 2013 - 03:39 AM

The Criterion disc is heavily zoomboxed. Here's a cap comparing the Criterion and a frame grab of the neg (see the round corners).
 
Posted Image
 
EDIT: I browsed through the Criterion disc and came into this very bizarre credit quirk:
 
Posted Image
 
When the rolling credit finally appears (the DP one is the start), it appears out of thin air, about 48 pixels above the bottom. This DP credit is the one that starts the roll, and when it comes up it pushes away the card above it.
 
Would that mean the transfer is unmatted too much? I'm not familiar with the rules regarding those old credits rolls, but my take would be that the credit would not appear out of thin air, but out of the masked border. This shouldn't happen.
 
Interestingly, if you substract the number of pixels inclusive of this credit line (so that it remains hidden until it start to roll), top and bottom, you end up roughly at 1.66:1 on the other frame grab. I say it's a 1.66:1 film.

I'm confused by your post, which purports to show a "frame grab of the neg."

What neg? Or is it a fine grain? I see no perfs. Is this element RA or FA?

Seriously, what do you believe this image tries to tell us?

RAH

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#3259 of 5892 OFFLINE   HDvision

HDvision

    Screenwriter



  • 1,020 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2007
  • Real Name:David
  • LocationParis, France

Posted August 21 2013 - 04:48 AM

It's cropped out that's why there are no perfs. I've found it from a third party source. The purpose was just to show how zoomboxed the Criterion is (watching the Criterion DVD, you can can see people are cropped out of frame left and right, the top being really tight). However I suspect the zooming is inconsistent thorough the movie.

I'm trying to get hold this afternoon of a copy of the recent french reissue on DVD which I believe was recently remastered in HD. 



#3260 of 5892 OFFLINE   Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist



  • 8,060 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted August 21 2013 - 03:57 PM

It's cropped out that's why there are no perfs. I've found it from a third party source. The purpose was just to show how zoomboxed the Criterion is (watching the Criterion DVD, you can can see people are cropped out of frame left and right, the top being really tight). However I suspect the zooming is inconsistent thorough the movie.I'm trying to get hold this afternoon of a copy of the recent french reissue on DVD which I believe was recently remastered in HD.

But w/o perfs, and not knowing precisely what the element is, all is guesswork.I don't like to guessRAH

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users