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
5508 replies to this topic

#3321 of 5509 OFFLINE   AllenPerks

AllenPerks

    Auditioning



  • 2 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 16 2013
  • Real Name:Allen Perkins

Posted October 21 2013 - 11:18 PM

Okay so I just finished watching the 1.66:1 version of Curse of Frankenstein, as seen on the newish Blu-ray, and was underwhelmed by how not bad the framing was. It looked fine to me. Sure, a handful of shots are fairly tight, but they don't look "wrong." It seems as if they were meant to appear that way. This doesn't look like a fullscreen-composed movie mutilated to 1.66:1, it just looks like a sleekly-shot 1.66:1 movie. And as others have noted in this thread, posting random screencaps with heads nearly cut is misleading and says nothing about how this version looks in general, and it's quite common to see heads get a little trimmed in movies anyway. The new kids running Hammer may insist that the movie was originally fullscreen, but at least they gave us an option to view, presumably, the accurate framing. Just wanted to offer my two cents for anybody who happens to read this post.


Edited by AllenPerks, October 21 2013 - 11:19 PM.

  • nara likes this

#3322 of 5509 OFFLINE   nara

nara

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 79 posts
  • Join Date: May 04 2012

Posted October 22 2013 - 12:55 AM

...but at least they gave us an option to view, presumably, the accurate framing. 

 

Only after the outcry that followed their original intention.



#3323 of 5509 OFFLINE   FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン



  • 5,027 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted November 18 2013 - 06:58 AM

I have read the aspect ratio for Mary Poppins and The Nightmare Before Christmas is 1.66:1, is this correct, i ask because i'm having difficulties understanding such an aspect ratio because surely North American cinemas would only be equipped to show these movies at 1.85:1, i could ask the same question about Disney's The Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians since the framing on the blu ray releases at 1.78:1 seems tight in a number of scenes.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#3324 of 5509 OFFLINE   nara

nara

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 79 posts
  • Join Date: May 04 2012

Posted November 18 2013 - 08:08 AM

http://www.hometheat...s-aspect-ratio/

#3325 of 5509 OFFLINE   FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン



  • 5,027 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted November 18 2013 - 12:57 PM

 

Thanks but that thread hasn't reached a consensus on the aspect ratio, i was hoping Bob could pipe in with some info.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#3326 of 5509 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 3,668 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted November 19 2013 - 11:37 AM

From the Mary Poppins pressbook:

 

The Aspect Ratio to create the most Supercalifragilistic screen image is 1.75 to 1.


  • Mark B and FoxyMulder like this

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Bubbleweb_edited-1_zpsc986b444.jpg


#3327 of 5509 OFFLINE   Stephen_J_H

Stephen_J_H

    All Things Film Junkie



  • 4,077 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2003
  • Real Name:Stephen J. Hill
  • LocationNorth of the 49th

Posted November 19 2013 - 11:58 AM

....and not to steal Bob's thunder. but I believe 1.75:1 was the preferred aspect ratio for most Disney titles during this period (1950s-70s). Any exceptions were either Scope or 70mm. The Nightmare Before Christmas has been 1.66:1 as long as widescreen versions have been available.


  • Bob Furmanek likes this
"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player."-- Roger Ebert

#3328 of 5509 OFFLINE   Randy Korstick

Randy Korstick

    Screenwriter



  • 2,479 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 2000

Posted November 19 2013 - 03:35 PM

Yep Including the Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh which I think was finally released in its correct ratio on blu-ray. The DVD was badly framed at 1.33:1 instead of the correct 1.75:1. The 3 shorts were released theatrically originally in 1966, 1968 and 1974 before being put together as a film in 1977.  Now if only Universal would go back and correct their botched 50's sci-fi collections.

 

....and not to steal Bob's thunder. but I believe 1.75:1 was the preferred aspect ratio for most Disney titles during this period (1950s-70s). Any exceptions were either Scope or 70mm. The Nightmare Before Christmas has been 1.66:1 as long as widescreen versions have been available.


...When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth

Top 20 Films

#3329 of 5509 OFFLINE   Stephen_J_H

Stephen_J_H

    All Things Film Junkie



  • 4,077 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2003
  • Real Name:Stephen J. Hill
  • LocationNorth of the 49th

Posted November 19 2013 - 03:49 PM

Bob,

I was recently watching The Phantom Tollbooth on my PVR. It was a flat transfer that crops extremely well to 1.78:1. Is the AR 1.85:1?


"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player."-- Roger Ebert

#3330 of 5509 OFFLINE   moviebuff75

moviebuff75

    Supporting Actor



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

Posted November 19 2013 - 04:18 PM

I worked for General Cinema when "The Nightmare Before Christmas" was released and it was definitely shown at 1.85:1.


Proud HTF Member Since: April, 2001


#3331 of 5509 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 3,668 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted November 19 2013 - 10:42 PM

Bob,

I was recently watching The Phantom Tollbooth on my PVR. It was a flat transfer that crops extremely well to 1.78:1. Is the AR 1.85:1?

 

I don't have any documentation but a January 1970 non-anamorphic release from MGM would most likely be 1.85:1.


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Bubbleweb_edited-1_zpsc986b444.jpg


#3332 of 5509 OFFLINE   Mark B

Mark B

    Supporting Actor



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

Posted November 20 2013 - 01:55 AM

I don't have any documentation but a January 1970 non-anamorphic release from MGM would most likely be 1.85:1.

The WB Archive DVD is 1.85:1.



#3333 of 5509 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 3,668 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted November 20 2013 - 11:51 AM

Thanks, Mark.

 

Somebody wrote via our website and asked about MARTY. I'll share my response here in case anyone is interested.

 

MARTY began filming for widescreen on September 7, 1954 with location shooting in the Bronx. The interiors were done at the Goldwyn studio in Hollywood starting November 1, 1954.

When reviewed by Boxoffice on March 26, 1955, 1.85:1 was the recommendation for exhibitors.

 

Marty-3.26.55-top.jpg


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Bubbleweb_edited-1_zpsc986b444.jpg


#3334 of 5509 OFFLINE   EddieLarkin

EddieLarkin

    Supporting Actor



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

Posted November 24 2013 - 11:18 PM

Hi Bob. I'd be very interested to know if you have to hand any trades documentation for the U.S. release of Generale Della Rovere? It was released in the U.S. on November 21st, 1960, at least according to imdb.



#3335 of 5509 OFFLINE   Doug Bull

Doug Bull

    Advanced Member



  • 1,541 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001
  • Real Name:Doug Bull
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted November 24 2013 - 11:46 PM

Here's an IB Technicolor 35mm Film Frame from "Mary Poppins"  It should give an idea of the aspect ratio.

 

mpcomparison6.jpg

 

 

Doug.


Edited by Doug Bull, November 25 2013 - 01:05 AM.

  • Bob Furmanek likes this

#3336 of 5509 OFFLINE   Douglas R

Douglas R

    Screenwriter



  • 1,872 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 30 2000
  • Real Name:Doug
  • LocationLondon, United Kingdom

Posted November 25 2013 - 12:53 AM

Here's a 35mm Film Frame from "Mary Poppins"  It should give an idea of the aspect ratio.
 
attachicon.gifmpcomparison6.jpg
 
 
Doug.


That is, indeed, 1.75:1.

#3337 of 5509 OFFLINE   EddieLarkin

EddieLarkin

    Supporting Actor



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

Posted November 25 2013 - 01:25 AM

If the full frame image is 1.75:1, doesn't that mean Disney have cropped the BD presentation on the sides to 1.66:1, rather than opening it up top and bottom? What a joke.



#3338 of 5509 OFFLINE   Mark-P

Mark-P

    Screenwriter



  • 2,370 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted November 25 2013 - 01:36 AM

If the full frame image is 1.75:1, doesn't that mean Disney have cropped the BD presentation on the sides to 1.66:1, rather than opening it up top and bottom? What a joke.

They didn't scan a film print. They scanned the original negative which has much more picture information. Very few people have seen the original negative. Rumor has it that the oneg was hard-matted at 1.66:1 or less.



#3339 of 5509 ONLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator



  • 25,095 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted December 10 2013 - 06:43 PM

Bob,

 

AFI lists Sabrina as being filmed in the 1.75:1 ratio back in the Fall of 1953.  However, the BD release is 1.33:1 ratio.  Which one is accurate?

 

Edit: Never mind, as I read your earlier response to this question.


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Listing

 


#3340 of 5509 OFFLINE   Peter Apruzzese

Peter Apruzzese

    Screenwriter



  • 2,632 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 20 1999
  • Real Name:Peter Apruzzese

Posted December 10 2013 - 06:48 PM

Here's Bobs post on Sabrina:
http://www.hometheat...tion/?p=3813843

Boxoffice mag said 1.75, Paramount policy indicates 1.66.
"What we're fighting for, in the end...we're fighting for each other." - Col. Joshua Chamberlain in "Gettysburg"

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users